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."

Comments

How low can they go?

[linuxci]

How low can they go? What does calling someones employer have to benefit the RIAA? The only thing it can do is give this persons boss a bad impression which may see him put last on any promotion shortlist and first on any planned redundancies as no doubt the RIAA would create the impression that this person is a full scale pirate (yarr).

What's worse is that it's not even the accused, it's the accused's son.

Re:How low can they go?

[morgan_greywolf]

The only thing it can do is give this persons boss a bad impression which may see him put last on any promotion shortlist and first on any planned redundancies as no doubt the RIAA would create the impression that this person is a full scale pirate (yarr).

The RIAA should fire their lawyers post haste. Seriously. While IANAL, it sounds like this guy easily has a defamation of character suit against the RIAA. What's more is that he doesn't need any serious resources to fight it. All he has to do is go find himself an ambulance chaser who will take the case on contingency since it's a deep pockets lawsuit that he's likely to win. Pain and suffering, loss of income or potential income...kaching!

Re:How low can they go?

[nurb432]

Its to scare people. "We will ruin your life, your kid's life, all of your friends. Anyone we can. You better not copy our crappy music, or else!"

Re:How low can they go?

[Talondel]

I doubt it's possible to dislike the RIAA or these lawsuits more than I do. I think overall the RIAA and MPAA represent an assault against cultural progress and preservation, by seeking to destroy the public domain and make distribution and archiving of even unprofitable works illegal.

That said, if you don't want an potential litigant to contact you at work, don't actively avoid service at your home. It does not help your case. Few things annoy a judge more than playing games with the requirements for service. Personal service requirements are a constitutional protection to guarantee that people aren't being brought to court without getting notice to defend your self. It is serious business, and courts take it seriously. They don't like it when a person who obviously already has actual notice of a pending subpoena plays games with the system.

Given the apparent circumstances, the RIAA and their lawyers were well within their bounds to attempt service at his place of employment. If he didn't want to be served there, then he should have accepted any of the previous seven valid attempts to effect service at his house.

Quoting from the footnotes:

Well, actually I can't quote from the letter, because it's /.'d but it basically says "we tried to serve him at home 7 times, and we kept getting lame stories, including being told the person we were talking to was actually the person's father, who's been dead for 4 years." Bottom line. Don't play games with process servers. They've got a job to do, and they're going to do it. The harder you make it on them, the harder they'll make it on you.

Re:How low can they go?

[gt_mattex]

FTFA

In UMG v. Lindor, a case against a home health aide who has never used a computer, the RIAA has now subpoenaed the computer of Ms. Lindor's adult son, who lives four (4) miles away from her. Ms. Lindor's son, a paralegal in a law firm, has hired counsel to make a motion to quash the subpoena

Looks to me like the RIAA is goin fishin.

Re:How low can they go?

[squiggleslash]

The RIAA should fire their lawyers post haste.

Why?

The message the RIAA wants to send you is that you WILL be hurt if you're involved in P2P piracy. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The RIAA isn't going to lay-off the stereotypical (but improbable) 80 year old grandma suffering cancer and a missing limb who's never touched a computer in their lives. They want you to know they're going to go after her. They want "you" to know, as a 20-something poor-little-rich-kid zit-faced P2P user who has been caught bang-to-rights redistributing their member's content and has barely any moral credibility whatsoever, that there's pretty much nothing you can do about it, they will go after you, after all, they're prepared to go after Mother Theresa, why the hell wouldn't they go after you?

Of course it's terrible. It's supposed to be. The truth, which NYCL and others kind of gloss over (and there's a reason for that), is that the practical powers of the RIAA are strictly limited, so the entire deal is to make themselves look like the biggest bastards possible. They look for people redistributing, they get the only identifying information available (the ISP logs), they sue, and they hope there's enough publicity that other users of P2P networks will be sufficiently scared enough to avoid fighting back. And sometimes the best way to generate that publicity is to sue grandma and a few unrelated parties and let "Good cop" (a few radio DJs and artists) cry out about it.

And if Good Cop's not available, there's always an ambulance-chasing lawyer around with a silky populistic patter who also has plenty of incentives to play up the "Monster, out-of-control, can do anything and will" image of the RIAA who'll faithfully repeat the message and scare the pirates just a little bit more.

Re:How low can they go?

[cprael]

Read the letter. They called the guy's place of work (a law firm) to confirm delivery of a subpeona, and to confirm that it would get to it's intended subject. That's a legitimate reason to call, right there.

And the fact that the guy's the firm's IT guy, and worked on his mom's computer (apparently rebuilding the OS, and the RIAA asserts also swapping the HD) in the timeframe when they're interested in renders him a subject of interest. Having been on the receiving end of this kind of thing, it's not harassment, only following the breadcrumbs.

Re:How low can they go?

[tinkerghost]

Check your notes on serving a summons etc. In MA it's perfectly valid to simply drop it off at the last known residence (there are some restrictions on how long they stayed there & how long they've been gone) and then sign the service documents as having done so.

Re:How low can they go?

[Shakrai]

They want "you" to know, as a 20-something poor-little-rich-kid zit-faced P2P user who has been caught bang-to-rights redistributing their member's content and has barely any moral credibility whatsoever, that there's pretty much nothing you can do about it

And what exactly can they do about it? Get a judgement against that 20 year zit-faced brat with no assets and little income? What does he have to lose? The time it takes to find a bankruptcy lawyer and file?

Re:How low can they go?

[vertinox]

If he didn't want to be served there, then he should have accepted any of the previous seven valid attempts to effect service at his house.

Hold on. If the person in question is his father... Then why do they say he is dead? Or maybe I'm just confused about someone else's father?

If my dad refused service at his house, it is kind of pointless to contact my employer about him. Shouldn't they be contacted my father's employer? I mean if he was dead, I suppose they could contact me, but why weren't they taking that as an answer?

Either way, the point of the matter is they shouldn't be servicing you if you aren't the person in question.

Re:How low can they go?

[purduephotog]

No, it's when they get the judgement against his *parents* - where they're ruined.

I've been involved and vindicated in court case (Same Name, Different Guy) that has a, shall we say, credit problem. I was taken to court by his creditors- even though I proved I wasn't the person they wanted.

I lost about 20 lbs in the time that it took to straighten out and felt like shit for the entire time.

So... what can they do? They can make you so miserable that you don't want to live.

At least 'justice' worked in my case... now if I could just win judgement against them for violations of the Fair Credit act....

Re:How low can they go?

[Red Flayer]

In NJ one may send it to the place of employment, but it must be marked "for addressee only" or the equivalent. If it's a notice of judgment, then you can serve the employer as well, since they will be the ones ultimately garnishing wages if other attempts to collect fail.

Re:How low can they go?

[shmlco]

Yeah, one can almost hear the violins playing in the OP, "...suing unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids, all kinds of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations."

What I'd like to know is how many of these poor people with no resources actually did what that for which they're being accused? If the RIAA is shotgunning anyone and everyone, then that's obviously a bad thing. If, however, the vast majority of the allegations are on target, then the level of my sympathy is strictly limited.

What's needed is to setup a fairly high penalty for false lawsuits, which would in turn provide incentive for legal counsul to profit from the RIAA's mistakes, which in turn would limit the number of lawsuits down to those in which the RIAA was VERY sure they had a case.

At which point I say, "Have at 'em."

Re:How low can they go?

[lawpoop]

You are missing the point that this is a *terror* campaign. No, the RIAA have absolutely nothing to gain from suing a 20 year old with no assets. However, if you are on the receiving end of a lawsuit, it is extremely stressful and a huge financial burden.

What they are doing is trying to send a message. That message is "We are going no holds barred, suing 20 year olds, dead men's children, poor bedridden grandmothers, so the rest of you had better watch your ass and stop downloading, or you are going to get a big load of what these poor saps got."

It's your basic tough-guy, mafia, bully routine. Beat the hell out of the skinny nerd who can't fight back to show that you are willing to be violent, and hope that that scares the other people into falling in line.

Re:How low can they go?

[Shakrai]

No, it's when they get the judgement against his *parents* - where they're ruined.

Then it comes down to a civil judgement isn't exactly the end of your life. Ask OJ. He didn't even need to file bankruptcy to avoid his judgement.

I've been involved and vindicated in court case (Same Name, Different Guy) that has a, shall we say, credit problem. I was taken to court by his creditors- even though I proved I wasn't the person they wanted.

Yeah, well, debt collectors are scum, but this is where I got the idea from. I've seen people use this mo to drag debt collectors into the legal version of trench warfare and avoid paying debts that they probably owed in the first place. I'm not saying I advocate that -- though I do feel that debt collectors are scumbags and as your experience proved they don't care if you owe the money or not as long as they get paid -- but it is a good example of what you can do if you decide to make it as expensive as possible for the other party to proceed against you.

Kudos to you for fighting them too. All to often people don't show up and they manage to get a default judgement against you.

I lost about 20 lbs in the time that it took to straighten out and felt like shit for the entire time.

And if it happened again would you let the same thing happen? I'm not going to be intimidated by a civil lawsuit nor am I going to let it ruin my life.

So... what can they do? They can make you so miserable that you don't want to live.

Only if you let them.

At least 'justice' worked in my case... now if I could just win judgement against them for violations of the Fair Credit act....

Go after them! You should also look at the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If they violated any of that you can sue them for $1,000 per violation and you don't even need to prove damages.

Re:How low can they go?

[NormalVisual]

Dunno about you, but I think the standard $3-4000 settlement they ask for would cost you less than having a bankruptcy on your credit history for the next 10 years, and you're also assuming that the bankruptcy court would consider it a dischargable debt.

Re:How low can they go?

[NormalVisual]

The gist of the situation was that they were speaking with the individual to be served, who lied and said he was his long-dead father.

Re:How low can they go?

[NormalVisual]

Not to mention that it's not unreasonable to expect your law-firm employer to be unhappy with you when they find you're actively trying to evade a process service.

Re:How low can they go?

[Shakrai]

However, if you are on the receiving end of a lawsuit, it is extremely stressful and a huge financial burden.

Only if you allow to be.

It's your basic tough-guy, mafia, bully routine. Beat the hell out of the skinny nerd who can't fight back to show that you are willing to be violent, and hope that that scares the other people into falling in line.

Given the community outrage and the back that major groups (the EFF for one) are backing the people being sued, it doesn't seem to have worked real well does it?

Re:How low can they go?

[evilkiksass]

I believe they meant that he pretended to be his father (who died 4 years ago) in order to not accept the summons.

Re:How low can they go?

[squiggleslash]

Let's ignore what I said, as you did, about the example being a "poor little rich kid". You've totally missed the point of what I was saying.

These are not lawsuits to get money. They're lawsuits to make people know they're going to be screwed with if they screw with the RIAA's members (by making their music available to download without authorization.)

And money won in lawsuits can't be waived away with a bankruptsy either. So our 20-something zit-faced P2P user isn't going to wiggle out of this by declaring bankruptsy. This will be hanging over him for as long as it takes to pay back the money. And in the meantime, he'll be a bankrupt.

You want to show me how this isn't a deterent? How the average P2P user isn't going to be worried by the prospect of the RIAA coming after them?

Re:How low can they go?

[slazzy]

and that is why I will NEVER buy RIAA artist content again. as long as I live, and I will laugh and those who do.

Re:How low can they go?

[lawpoop]

" However, if you are on the receiving end of a lawsuit, it is extremely stressful and a huge financial burden.



Only if you allow to be."

OK, two things here.

1. "It's extremely stressful, but only if you allow it to be."

Perhaps you are an enlightened Zen master and nothing ever gets you down, but for most average people, being sued is a huge emotional drain and and ruin health, livelihood, and relationships. I think it's naive and frankly insulting to say to people who are undergoing the stress of a lawsuit to tell them that they are just 'allowing' it to get to them. Step into the real world.

2. "It's a huge financial burden, but only if you allow it to be."

Demonstrably false. If you choose not do defend yourself, the judge will find in favor of the RIAA, and you will owe them tens of thousands of dollars. Perhaps you are a millionaire, and this would not be a huge financial burden. For most people, this means a kid not going to college. If you do choose to defend yourself, lawyer fees could easily several thousand dollars, even over ten-thousand dollars. For most people, this is a huge financial burden. Maybe not for you, but for most individuals, this would be 1/3rd to 1/2 of their yearly income.

"Given the community outrage and the back that major groups (the EFF for one) are backing the people being sued, it doesn't seem to have worked real well does it?"

I would say it's been extremely successful. How many people have they sued and eventually gotten to settle out of court? I'd bet most if not all. What community outrage are you talking about? Hostile postings on slashdot? Has that had any impact on the RIAA? Are they changing their tactics? Nope. What 'major groups' are backing those people being sued? I have news for you: the EFF is three people. It's not a 'major group' in any sense.

I don't see any of your supposed community outrage or major group backing as having had any impact whatsoever on the RIAA and their campaign.

Re:How low can they go?

[jslater25]

I am not sure I understand. The RIAA, a "multi-billion dollar cartel", is "suing unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids". What part of this is so horrible? If the unemployed, disabled, housewives, single parents and home healthcare aids (aides?) are stealing or performing some illegal action, why should the RIAA look the other way? Is this similar to the whole argument about how America's Rich should be taxed at a higher percentage then those with less money simply because 'they can afford it'? Why not make the law and taxes equal for everyone?

Re:How low can they go?

[teh_chrizzle]

it's not the 20 year old zitface's money they are after. they are after the intimidation. your average hardcore pirate isn't going to be affected, but your average computer user will be. shutting down napster/kazaa/whatever and hitting anyone and everyone in sight is how they intimidate the leigons of would be downloaders.

if you will pardon the invocation of godwin's law for a moment, these are terrorist tactics. in military terms terrorism accomplishes little. targets for terrorism are political or psychological in nature. militarily, 9/11 didn't accomplish much. a large number of civillian casualties, yes, but in strategic terms it's not like ground zero was a beach head from which al quaeda could launch further operations into the continental US, nor did they significantly cripple the US from a communications or logistical standpoint. on the other hand, politically and pschologically 9/11 was devastating.

so, the RIAA files pointless lawsuit after pointless lawsuit not for financial gain, but for political and psychological gain. they have gotten joe and jane sixpack to equate downloading and copyright infringement with theft and have many people concerned that they could be raided as well if they don't stop. for every high profile lawsuit that they pay thousands for, how many people tacitly agree to stop downloading forever? my question is, is it working? will the music industry, despite it's many efforts, still be able to keep itself going?

Re:How low can they go?

[Shakrai]

Perhaps you are an enlightened Zen master and nothing ever gets you down, but for most average people, being sued is a huge emotional drain and and ruin health, livelihood, and relationships. I think it's naive and frankly insulting to say to people who are undergoing the stress of a lawsuit to tell them that they are just 'allowing' it to get to them. Step into the real world.

I don't pretend to be an enlightened Zen master and I don't intend to insult anyone undergoing this. I will say that I have been dragged into court, for matters far serious then RIAA claiming I owe them money (money is nothing compared to freedom) and I survived it just fine without my health and relationships being ruined.

Demonstrably false. If you choose not do defend yourself, the judge will find in favor of the RIAA, and you will owe them tens of thousands of dollars. Perhaps you are a millionaire, and this would not be a huge financial burden. For most people, this means a kid not going to college. If you do choose to defend yourself, lawyer fees could easily several thousand dollars, even over ten-thousand dollars. For most people, this is a huge financial burden. Maybe not for you, but for most individuals, this would be 1/3rd to 1/2 of their yearly income.

And I demonstrated that you could drag it out for quite some time pro-say at a lower cost to yourself. I would also point out that there are numerous ways (legal and otherwise) to avoid a civil judgement and that even if RIAA got a judgement against me for a million bucks they'd find it hard to collect a single dime from me. IRAs, 401ks/403bs, education savings, medical expenses, pensions, your house (in some states), child support, blah, blah, blah, blah. And those are just the legal ways of hiding money from a civil judgement. I won't dwell on the less the legal methods.

I don't see any of your supposed community outrage or major group backing as having had any impact whatsoever on the RIAA and their campaign.

Yeah, I suppose being a pessimist on slashdot is a much more effective way of dealing with them.

Re:How low can they go?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> are stealing or performing some illegal action

1. It's not stealing. 2. We don't have too many criminals--we have too many laws.

Re:How low can they go?

[lawpoop]

"Yeah, I suppose being a pessimist on slashdot is a much more effective way of dealing with them."

I don't think I am being pessimist. I think I am accurately assessing the situation for the average person who would be sued by the RIAA. You have emotional, knowledge, and financial resources that most people don't have available to them. Apparently you could sail through such a suit, but for most people, this would have a serious negative impact on their lift.

If you say it's not that big of a deal for most, either emotionally or financially, then there is nothing wrong with what the RIAA is doing. And they will continue to ruin people's lives because you haven't accurately assessed the impact on people's lives. Perhaps you think the RIAA is in the right in what they are doing. I don't know.

Tell me, if the RIAA aren't intending this to be a terror campaign, what is their master strategy behind this all? Sure, you can make your way through it, but the average person can't.

Re:How low can they go?

[brouski]

Spoken like someone who has broken his fair share.

Re:How low can they go?

[Facekhan]

I hope they accidentally sue some really nutty people like someone who is a higher up in Scientology or some other cult and the RIAA execs and their lawyers end up with weirdos harrassing them at home and threatening their families.

Re:How low can they go?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Strange that you accept at face value everything the RIAA's lawyer has said. Is he a friend of yours or something? The only facts you know are that (a) in a lawsuit against a lady in Brooklyn, after finding that her computer didn't support their case, they're now trying to subpoena her adult son's computer, and (b) they called his employer and spoke to him about what they were doing. The rest of what Mr. Gabriel is insinuating is falsehood.

Re:How low can they go?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I don't gloss over the truth. If you have substantiation of some "truth" which you think I've "glossed over", why don't you tell us what it is?

Re:How low can they go?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

He did not avoid service at home. "Actively" or otherwise.

Re:How low can they go?

[flyingfsck]

Process servers can nail it to your door, or drop it at your feet too and I don't think that a 6" nail or a big rock in the dropped paper to keep it from blowing away in the wind are ruled out...

Re:How low can they go?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Interesting that you readily believe every word the RIAA lawyer said. I have to wonder why your powers of critical thinking are applied to the original post, but not to the RIAA lawyer's missive.

Interesting.

Re:How low can they go?

[jargon82]

RIAA says: This is only proof that you must be a pirate. It is impossible to live without listening to our music, and you haven't bought any... you must have stolen it!

Re:How low can they go?

[squiggleslash]

Leaving aside the major exaggerations in the article (well, ok, let's not leave them aside: you managed to leave out the part where the guy being served was clearly playing games with the RIAA's lawyers leaving people with the impression his employer had been contacted out of the blue, rather than because they'd tried seven times to serve the summons at his home, and were now taking the next step, as is perfectly normal...)

The point, as I made, is that despite your over-all characterization of the RIAA as some gigantic international conspiracy that is going to pull out all the stops and, as such, no-one is safe, it's actually a relatively minor group that's suing a few hundred people at a time because that's all the resources it has, and because those hundred people were, for the most part (except when mis-identified, obviously) stupid enough to be offering RIAA member's music for download. Oh, and occasionally they've admitted to downloading something they weren't authorized to download, which is similarly stupid. Given the many millions, if not tens of millions, of estimated Kazaa/Napster/etc users at its peak, it's doubtful they've even theatened 1% of the users of those networks.

They're out to scare people away from P2P piracy. You're all too happy to buy into, and even promote, that image of them with your talk of "reigns of terror". You've talked about them going after downloaders, despite the fact only the self-admitted downloaders have actually faced such attacks.

Should I be scared of the RIAA? Of course not. The vast majority of people on the Internet use an account they have control over and do not run P2P software, and if they do run it, they have the ability to turn off the "sharing" feature, so actually there are very few people who should be frightened. As for me I do not use such software myself, I've used BitTorrent on occasion, but in order to download GNU/Linux distributions. It's not difficult to stay legal. And by now, anyone who seriously thinks using P2P software to redistribute, without permission, other people's music is in some way legal deserves to lose a few thousand dollars proving their cases. Which, because of volume of numbers, is highly improbable.

I have to say that the only reasons I can think of why a lawyer specialising in such cases might actually want to help the RIAA promote the image of itself as an omnipresent monster don't exactly reflect well on them or lawyers in general. As my mother is a criminal justice solicitor in Wales, who I know is very consciencious about her work, I don't particularly like promoting that image of lawyers, and I sincerely hope that your reasons for exaggerating the AWESOME POWER of RIAAMAN!!1! is for something more positive.

Re:How low can they go?

[TheoMurpse]

According to my understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2), you may serve notice by US postal mail. If the mail is sent certified, you could use your receipt (presumably) as proof of service to satisfy FRCP4(l) along with an affidavit signed by the server. But IJALS (I'm just a law student) -- and there's a lot of us in /. these days, isn't there? Furthermore, under FRCP4(e), you may leave process at their home with a person of "suitable age and discretion."

Re:How low can they go?

[cprael]

I don't believe everything the RIAA lawyer said. In point of fact, since you seem to have ignored it, I pretty clearly called out the unproven RIAA assertion that I commented on.

That being said, one would reasonably presume that they won't _make up_ the information in their filing, completely and utterly. There has to be a few kernals of truth in there, for leavening if nothing else.

And, like I said, I've been on the receiving end of similar fishing expeditions. So I have some small prior experience base to comment from.

There's a simple solution for this...

[__aaclcg7560]

The RIAA needs to sue the Mafia and the Mafia will send in the hit men.

Re:There's a simple solution for this...

[qwijibo]

I'm sure that going after judges would be more damaging. The RIAA would be willing to throw some expendable people out as targets. Now, how do we get a list of every judge and politician on the RIAA lawsuit list without them noticing?

Re:There's a simple solution for this...

[mabba18]

Just wait.

Their names are in the phone book right?

Re:There's a simple solution for this...

[waif69]

There is no such thing as the Mafia.

Re:There's a simple solution for this...

[Midnight Thunder]

The RIAA needs to sue the Mafia and the Mafia will send in the hit men.

I am kinda confused, what's the difference?

Re:There's a simple solution for this...

[TheCarp]

Maybe at one time.

These days, I hear, they try to keep things more low key. Besides, they probably own RIAA stock at this point. These days they are far more likely to let it be a court challenge... and maybe bringing the Italian American Anti-Defamation League into it :)

Did you ever see the attempts by the FBI to ignite violence by the maffia against the communist party? Some hillarious stuff. Gotta love the FOIA.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/hoodwink1.htm l

-Steve

Re:There's a simple solution for this...

[Cpt_Kirks]

The RIAA needs to sue the Mafia and the Mafia will send in the hit men.

No way. Professional courtesy and all that.

Re:There's a simple solution for this...

[smbarbour]

Probably not. If you were a judge, would you want your phone number listed for everyone you ruled against to find? I didn't think so.

Now if one was to use some social engineering and suddenly take an interest in becoming employed by the RIAA, we might be able to get their names on "the list"

What to do about it?

[Heem]

"if the world at large, and the technological community in particular, don't fight back and help these people fighting these fights."

OK..

In all seriousness. WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

Please.. what can I do to help make this go away?

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop committing copyright infringement maybe?

Re:What to do about it?

[ack154]

Here's one suggestion for fighting back: Don't buy a Zune.

Most people reading this by now know that MS caved and some sort of "copyright tax" to the RIAA for every Zune sold. Even if you ignore all of the negative reviews and MS is the devil and all that; the money given to the RIAA from the sale of the player is enough for me to never, ever consider buying one. And to recommend the same to anyone I ever happen to know.

Re:What to do about it?

[theheff]

cmd

ping www.riaa.com

(until they stop)

Re:What to do about it?

[dupont54]

And stop funding these people by boycotting their products, of course...

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What to do about it?

[ack154]

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.

Re:What to do about it?

[Trails]

They'd just blame piracy.

Re:What to do about it?

[b0s0z0ku]

Stop committing copyright infringement maybe?

Infringe all you want, just don't get caught. If you pirate something, send a check for the cost of the music directly to the performer. If enough people do that, maybe performers will get the message that the recording (rather, hard media selling, good sound men will always be needed!) industry as we have it today is dinosaur and isn't needed.

-b.

Re:What to do about it?

[b0s0z0ku]

Go to concerts and enjoy live performances but DO NOT BY RECORDINGS IN STORES OR ONLINE!

Unless the bands are selling the recordings themselves or they're being sold be small-time "tapers" as is done a lot for some jam band shows (MM&W, Lesh, etc). This is with the permission of the band, BTW.

-b.

Re:What to do about it?

[Jehosephat2k]

A year? How about FOREVER.

I am RIAA music clean for years. I don't download stuff, and more importantly, I DON'T BUY THE CRAP THEY SELL!!!! None of it. Not a dime.

Re:What to do about it?

[b0s0z0ku]

They'd just blame piracy.

Litvinenko blamed the Russians as he lay dying in hospital. Doesn't make him any more alive now, does it?

-b.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Great question. Hope you get moderated up to +5 instantly on that one.

1. The tech community can offer their services as technical consultants to the lawyers and individuals who are fighting these cases, preferably on a reduced fee or pro bono basis. There is a great need for people who can testify and advise about numerous issues that come up in these cases, such as, just to name a few, (a) hard drive forensics issues, (b) IP addresses and the like, (c) file sharing software, (d) the significance of metadata and hash marks, and (e) the unreliability of proprietary software that has never been peer reviewed as a basis for a lawsuit... i.e. all the issues on which the RIAA are trying to mislead the judges.

2. All tech companies who make profits from the internet should be organizing, and contributing financially to, legal defense funds to assist the RIAA defendants. Right now the only fund I know of that is currently operational is the RIAA legal defense fund operated by "Defective by Design".

3. All tech companies should urge their industry trade associations to be assisting the RIAA defendants financially.

4. Everybody, tech community or not, should be writing to their federal congresspeople about this situation and urging legislation to curb the tide of litigation against ordinary working people.

Re:What to do about it?

[theskipper]

As with other things in life, think money. Their lawyers get paid in dollars, not fuzzy warm feelings. The logical conclusion is don't buy the CDs produced by companies represented by the RIAA.

It's like the mouse in the "last act of defiance" graphic. Except the mouse was smart and earlier had anti-eagle kryptonite surgically implanted in his tail. After eating the mouse, the anti-eagle kryptonite is inside the eagle and said eagle therefore dies a slow agonizing death.

The mouse wins, balance in the universe is restored and Grandma Millie can resume downloading Eminem safe with the knowledge that she won't get sued.

Re:What to do about it?

[EzInKy]

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.

Re:What to do about it?

[bazorg]

Tie a bomb to your waist, run inside the RIAA headquarters, take down as many people as you possibly can.

Re:What to do about it?

[Trails]

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.

Re:What to do about it?

[nschubach]

You could always petition outside a big name music store in New York, LA, etc. Hold up signs, tip off the national news media. You might get a few hits here and there, but over time it grows and people get word of it.

Persistence.

Re:What to do about it?

[nostriluu]

That doesn't really help with people's basic desire to share music easily, unless they band has explicitly permitted it.

Re:What to do about it?

[Moofie]

You do realize that your foolproof master plan relies on getting eaten, right?

Re:What to do about it?

[Kombat]

Infringe all you want, just don't get caught. If you pirate something, send a check for the cost of the music directly to the performer. If enough people do that, maybe performers will get the message that the recording (rather, hard media selling, good sound men will always be needed!) industry as we have it today is dinosaur and isn't needed. Uhm, OK, but what about all the other people who put legitimate work into the album and who would be completely screwed by the system you're proposing? You know, the faceless, nameless people who

• Composed the music
  
• Wrote the lyrics
  
• Played the instruments to make the music
  
• Mixed the album
  
• Promoted the album
  
• Discovered the singer in the first place
  
• Created the cover art for the CD
  
• Produced the album
  
• etc.
  

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.

Re:What to do about it?

[ivan256]

We hear about all the ridiculous cases, but do you have any credible evidence that the majority of these people being sued are innocent? I'm all for helping defend innocent people, but if they're in violation of the law the solution to the problem is to get the law changed; not to help people get away with breaking it.

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Copyright law has become so ridiculously restrictive that it has become nearly impossible not to infringe.

How do you figure that? No copy, no infringement. It's not difficult, even in a world of DMCA, EUCD and the like. You might not like that situation, but it's hard to argue that you didn't know you were in it.

The majority of people just don't care about it anymore.

I rather doubt that the majority of people even understand basic copyright law. However, if they did, I'd be surprised if the majority objected to it. Contrary to popular culture around these parts, there is little if any evidence that today's widespread infringement has yet reached "majority" status, nor anywhere near it.

Re:What to do about it?

[b0s0z0ku]

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'm not saying that it's an ideal solution. But it's still better than giving my money to a bunch of whiny, complaisent, trigger-happy, terroristic, corporations. And who's generalizing here? You're saying that all musicians don't write their own material and are basically lushes.

-b.

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What to do about it?

[iminplaya]

...there is little if any evidence that today's widespread infringement has yet reached "majority" status, nor anywhere near it.

Yeah, I'm sure everybody answered perfectly honestly the little survey you took as evidence for that statement.

Re:What to do about it?

[keyne9]

I haven't bought any music in nearly 8 years (aside from it not appealing to me). What does that accomplish? The RIAA blames piracy for loss of sales. If the RIAA isn't making money hand-over-fist, obviously pirates are sapping it all away from their all-too-poor pockets.

Re:What to do about it?

[descil]

IMO, basically, yeah, screw those people! Given, I think any real artist should be composing their own music and writing their own lyrics, or that that part should at least be kept within the "band". But all that other nonsense that the spoiled, whiny, drug-addicted, self-centered, egotistical record producers do, which they (and apparently you, for some "odd" reason) think is important, I could really care less about.

Not to mention the fact that they're evil scumbags who're using intimidation and litigation to try to get their way. Does that make you want to go out and buy a bunch of crappy "packaging" for the songs you love? Not me.

I'm not going to pay for your bullshit advertising (I prefer word of mouth, which actually tells me about songs I like), your crappy "cover art" (woo, you drew a picture, thx, here's $20? I don't think so!) I'm not paying you because you put 10 songs in order, or suggested modifications to make them "flow better in the album." I don't want any compositions or albums. All I want is just this one song, see? Or maybe several songs, but I'll listen to them WHEN I LIKE, ONE AT A TIME, not be forced to listen to a single artist for 10 songs from some crappy CD. And when you put that ONE SONG that I want to hear with 5 other songs which I -don't- like...

Let's just say the record producers don't have much of a vote for my money. And I think the numbers suggest most people agree.

Re:What to do about it?

[EllisDees]

># Composed the music

If it wasn't the band that composed it, they should have paid for this before they recorded the song.

># Wrote the lyrics

Same as above. As a programmer, I am hired to write code, yet I get no part of the profits made on the finished product if I've sold that work to someone else. Why should music be any different?

># Played the instruments to make the music

This would be the *artists* mentioned above.

># Mixed the album

The *artists* should pay to have their album mixed. Why should this guy get a piece of the profits from the finished product?

># Promoted the album

Artists pay for promotion.

># Discovered the singer in the first place

Unnecessary function, unnecessary expense.

># Created the cover art for the CD

The *artists* should pay for the cover art for their album.

># Produced the album

Honestly, why do you think that any of these people deserve more than to be paid for the actual work they did?

Re:What to do about it?

[bigdavesmith]

Or better yet, just download everything for free online!

Torrents be praised!

Ah! Now I'm being investigated!

Re:What to do about it?

[Voline]

It seems to me that for-profit corporations are simple creatures. They seek one thing: profit (some are better at it than others). They respond to pleasure (profit), desire (for profit), pain (loss of profit), and fear (of loss of profit). If you want them to change their behavior you must employ these carrots and sticks.

Penalize record companies for their membership in the RIAA. Purchase no music from members of the RIAA. This can be tricky as many record labels that seem to be Independents are actually subsidiaries of RIAA members. Also, you cannot reliably identify whether an album or single is published by an RIAA member just by the artist. Many acts begin their careers on independent labels and then move to majors that are RIAA. There are resources that will help you to identify whether a given album or single is RIAA-member published or not:

www.riaaradar.com
wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels

Don't buy records, CDs, tapes, or downloads published by these labels. You don't have to avoid *listening* to works published by RIAA members. Just refuse to *purchase* them.

Reward the labels that are not members of the RIAA. Purchase music from labels that are not RIAA affiliated. It shouldn't be hard. Unless you live completely in a mainstream media wasteland, some of the musicians that you like are on independent labels.

If you enjoy purchasing music on-line, consider doing so through eMusic.com. Although they are the #2 on-line music retailer after the iTunes music store, almost all their tracks are from non-RIAA members. As a bonus each song sold by eMusic comes in a DRM-free MP3 format!

If you do these things don't count on industry executives being astute enough to figure out from the sales numbers alone why their fortunes are declining. Consider contacting the Big 4 major labels and tell them exactly why you are avoiding their products and the products of their subsidiaries.

• EMI
• Sony BMG Music Entertainment
• Universal Music Group
• Warner Music Group

Then, sit back and enjoy music and the schadenfreude.

Re:What to do about it?

[EllisDees]

Also...

>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?

A person like this shouldn't even be able to make money in the music business. If a group isn't willing to put in the effort to make music, they should find a real job.

Re:What to do about it?

[Kombat]

Honestly, why do you think that any of these people deserve more than to be paid for the actual work they did?That's the very question I'm trying to aim at the artists themselves! You've dismissed all the peripheral work that goes into an album as extraneous, yet you haven't explained why the artists themselves should be the only ones to enjoy perpetual royalties from the end product. The end product that is a direct result of the work of dozens, even hundreds, of people. What makes the singer(s) so special that they deserve the lion's share of the windfall? Is there no talent/creativity involved in writing the tabs for the music, or the lyrics? Is there no artistic touch involved in mixing the tracks together just right? Is that not art?

What about the producer? The guy who actually fronted the cash for all the people who contributed to the album? He took a chance on the singer. If the album flops, he can't turn around and demand that the sound techs, musicians, composers and everybody else give him his money back. He suffers financially if the album fails, so why shouldn't he benefit financially if the album is a success? Why would you cut him out of the loop, when he's the one that made it possible for the singer's work to be heard (in a high-production-value recording) by the masses?

Re:What to do about it?

[LunaticTippy]

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.

Re:What to do about it?

[lawpoop]

Gary, instead of using defensive maneuvers, hoping that the RIAA will eventually drop their strategy, what do you think of trying to mount an offense against the RIAA? Maybe something like a racketeering lawsuit, or a class-action suit? Am I correct in thinking that a racketeering suit would need to be driven by government prosecutors?

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

What survey?

Re:What to do about it?

[EzInKy]

I rather doubt that the majority of people even understand basic copyright law. However, if they did, I'd be surprised if the majority objected to it. Contrary to popular culture around these parts, there is little if any evidence that today's widespread infringement has yet reached "majority" status, nor anywhere near it.


Apple claims to have sold 65,000,000 ipods. How many music tracks have they sold through itunes? How many other mp3 players have other brands sold that don't even have a legal distribution site? And that's just music. When you start considering burned CDs and DVDs, software, lyrics, guitar tabs, and everything else content producers figure only they should be be controlling that people are trading the evidence is overwhelming that the people just doesn't give a damn about copyright law anymore. But hey, whatever, you keep telling yourself what you want to believe on go on suing little old ladies.

Re:What to do about it?

[NormalVisual]

Of all those people you listed, almost all are paid in full up front and only the composer and lyricist traditionally get royalties. Even then, a great many groups write their own material anyway.

Re:What to do about it?

[zotz]

Gee,

this rant gives me deja vu all over again...

~;-)

No it does, do you copy and paster this where appropriate???

all the best,

drew

Re:What to do about it?

[drasfr]

hmmm.... not consistent... only 4 pings if cmd and on windows to it will stop pretty fast!

best thing is
ping -t www.riaa.com (from windows)
or
ping www.riaa.com (from linux)

but... most people would know that anyway.

besides, ICMP pings packets are supposely dropped first in case of network congestion so it may not be efficient... although a good use of their network bandwidth. I would probably increase the packet size though....

Re:What to do about it?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Stop committing copyright infringement maybe?

Stop singing "Happy Birthday"?
Stop ripping purchased CDs to our iPods? We've heard a music executive who has access to lawyers say that doing so is infringement.
Stop making temporary copies in RAM? Court precedent says that's copying.

And then get sued anyway, because the RIAA demonstrably doesn't care whether the defendant has never owned a computer?

Re:What to do about it?

[BryanL]

My view on boycotts is that they are an excuse for the RIAA to sue more individuals. After all, fewer people are buying their product because they are downloading them illegally.

Re:What to do about it?

[gary gunrack]

It is possible to buy CD's that have nothing to do with the RIAA. Nevermind that what they are selling is usually crap anyway. Lots of independent music: www.cdbaby.com.

Re:What to do about it?

[BigLug]

That's the very question I'm trying to aim at the artists themselves! You've dismissed all the peripheral work that goes into an album as extraneous, yet you haven't explained why the artists themselves should be the only ones to enjoy perpetual royalties from the end product.

It's the same in any industry: The artist gets the perpetual royalties as they're the ones with their name on the end product. It's not "Sony/BMG's latest album" it's "Kylie Minogue's". In software, it's Adobe who gets the royalties, not the guy who designed the box. In film it's seen as a production, so the production house gets the perpetual royalties. Whoever's name is on the product is clearly the one whose production it is.

The person whose name is on the product *should* be the person who hires everyone else to do some work-for-hire for them. Once that work is over, they are paid and we all move on. If the product is successful, the entity whose name appears on the product is the person who should be making the money.

Of course, in modern commercial music, the 'artist' is rarely more than a face and a dance move, so my argument should really be finished by arguing that their name SHOULDN'T be on the product .. it's more like film so the album should have the studio's name on it, and the face/dance should be paid as a work-for-hire job.

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the AC:

Playing a CD in more than one device(car stereo then computer or home stereo) is infringment. Playing loud enough for people who didn't purchase the music is infringement(like at a party). Ripping to an Ipod is infringement. Borrowing a CD from a friend(not to copy, just to listen to) is infringement.

Actually, you're pretty much wrong pretty much everywhere on pretty much all of those counts, and even on some of those where you're not (for example format-shifting in some jurisdictions) there are already moves under way to change the law, and the recording industry has given a public statement that it will not prosecute those who do it.

Care to play again?

Re:What to do about it?

[danpsmith]

Here's one suggestion for fighting back: Don't buy a Zune.

For great justice, take back every Zune!

Re:What to do about it?

[DrLazer]

At the risk of encouraging this line of discussion, you do realize the only feasible way to never let music into your life again (even by accident) is either to live as a hermit cut off from all human contact or to puncture your own eardrums? I suppose you could also join the Taliban, but you'd have to find them first...

Sounds like a grim life you've got lined up for yourself, but good luck with that, and let us know how it turns out for you. Or you could just learn to play the guitar or piano instead, the way regular people used to before the recording industry was invented. It's not as dramatic, but at least it gives you something to do.

(Footnote: If you were trying to be ironic, kindly disregard this message.)

Re:What to do about it?

[IdolizingStewie]

Does that club you're going to ever play corporate music? While you're waiting on the indie band? Other nights you boycott? They're taking money out of your cover to pay their license to do that, even if they're not playing it while you're there. And maybe you're listening to different bands than I am, but I've never seen an indie band that didn't play at least one cover.

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Apple claims to have sold 65,000,000 ipods. How many music tracks have they sold through itunes?

Well, given that they famously broke the 10M download barrier very soon after launching the service, and it's now been running for many times that long, I'm going to guess the answer is "lots".

How many other mp3 players have other brands sold that don't even have a legal distribution site?

I'm going to go ahead and guess not many, on the rash and entirely unsupported assumption that the people I know are in any way representative. In any case, there are plenty of legitimate channels to obtain MP3s, not least because format shifting is considered fair use (or whatever the local equivalent is) in many jurisdictions.

When you start considering burned CDs and DVDs, software, lyrics, guitar tabs, and everything else content producers figure only they should be be controlling that people are trading the evidence is overwhelming that the people just doesn't give a damn about copyright law anymore.

One of us has a distorted sense of scale here. I'm going to guess again and say it's not me. I don't think I've ever seen someone with a ripped DVD, other than those that were imported as pirate copies from other countries, which isn't very many for logistical reasons if nothing else. OTOH, I know plenty of people with extensive legitimate DVD collections.

Similarly with software, most of the people I know who would know how to source/copy desktop software illegally and circumvent things like MS product activation also choose to run OSS these days. The other big software copying thing used to be games, but with so much of the games market now moving to consoles, I doubt that's a particularly large part of overall copyright infringement any more.

I'm not saying that no-one does these things, but either your world is very different to mine (which is possible, of course) or it's nowhere near the kind of proportion you'd need to justify the claims in question.

But hey, whatever, you keep telling yourself what you want to believe on go on suing little old ladies.

What have little old ladies got to do with anything? I don't approve of the typical **AA tactics that are effectively barratry by another name, but not everyone who dislikes the **AA approach automatically disapproves of copyright in general, and not everyone who supports the basic principle of copyright supports abusive practices based on it.

If your "little old ladies" were deliberately and knowingly infringing, I don't much care if they do get sued. They're old enough to know better than to break the law and then cry foul when they're caught. If they weren't and they're being subjected to abusive and harrassing lawsuits, then that's unethical (and should be illegal) regardless of whether copyright itself is supported by me or anyone else.

Re:What to do about it?

[westlake]

Copyright law has become so ridiculously restrictive that it has become nearly impossible not to infringe.

Nonsense.

The uploader gets sued because he is feeding screeners of "Casino Royale" to the P2P nets. It is supplying the current high-risk "marketable" titles that stokes his ego.

The downloader gets sued because he is too cheap to pay 99 cents a track to iTunes or subscribe to the million track rental libraries and radio services of Rhapsody or Y! Unlimited.

Re:What to do about it?

[Xebikr]

How do you figure that? No copy, no infringement. It's not difficult, even in a world of DMCA, EUCD and the like. You might not like that situation, but it's hard to argue that you didn't know you were in it.Have you ever:
Forwarded an email without first obtaining permission from the author?
Sang Happy Birthday in public or in the workplace?
Quoted from someone's post without permission?
Backed up your hard drive?
Forwarded text from an interesting article without permission?
If you answered yes to these and any other of a multitude of things that people do everyday without a second thought, then you are a copyright infringer. Thief! Pirate!

Re:What to do about it?

[jimicus]

Litvinenko did not have hordes of government officials in his pocket to do everything in their power short of declaring all-out war on Russia.

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If you answered yes to these and any other of a multitude of things that people do everyday without a second thought, then you are a copyright infringer.

Except, of course, that I'm not. As with the other guy I already responded to, you clearly have no idea about what copyright does and does not cover, and the exemptions typically in place. Depending on the context, any of the things you mentioned might be legal in most places (though technically you're right about a public performance of Happy Birthday in the US, and this is the textbook example of why the repeated US copyright term extensions have been such a bad idea).

Re:What to do about it?

[EzInKy]

I'm not saying that no-one does these things, but either your world is very different to mine (which is possible, of course) or it's nowhere near the kind of proportion you'd need to justify the claims in question.


Perhaps are worlds are very different. At the bars I go to it's pretty common for people to share copies of a movies or albums with each other, it's just the neighborly thing to do after all. This goes for the DJs and KJs also. Oh, and speaking of karaoke I've seen people record their "performances" which is probably a mechanical rights violation. Those who consider themselves musicians have been grumbling recently about some of the TAB sites shutting down. As for the ipod, according to this Wiki article Steve Jobs says they have sold 1.5 billion songs as of Sept. 2006. Dividing that by 650 million ipods gives less than 3 legally downloaded songs per player. Sure, I suppose it's possible that all those other tracks people put on their players came from legally bought CDs but I'm more like Thomas than you as I seriously doubt that is the case.

Re:What to do about it?

[Xebikr]

Except, of course, that I'm not.Not what? Doing any of those things, or not infringing copyright when you do those things? If the former, you're the exception not the rule. If the later, then it's you who does not understand copyright. If you are alleging fair use exemptions, you should be aware that you claiming fair use is not enough. (see here esp. the paragraph below the numbered list) A determination of fair use can only be made by a judge. I would grant you that a judge would likely rule most (not all) of the above actions as fair and therefore not infringing, but until that happens you are a copyright violator. The law is pretty clear. Exclusive rights to any and all reproducing.

You can't even back up your hard drive without infringing. Unless everything on your hard drive is open source, or you own the rights, or consist solely of "computer programs" you are a thief and a pirate every time you do a back up.

Prove me wrong! Please! I'd love to be wrong about this.

Re:What to do about it?

[rossifer]

The only way you could get it to work would be to get the liberals, who watch liberal biased news [...]

Newsflash: the news is big corporation biased and lowest common denominator biased. The only people stupid enough to believe in a strong left or right bias are so far gone to the other extreme that the middle looks like a right/left bias. Based on your remark, I guess we know where you stand and your relative intelligence.

[...] to mentally equate the *IAA's with big, evil(TM) money grubbing business

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

Re:What to do about it?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

You're asking us to see things from the RIAA's point of view by invoking all of the people who might legitimately be deserving of the profits when, in all reality, the people who are truly taking the lion's share from the system that the RIAA works to support are the executives, VPs, board members, and lawyers.

Don't ask for me to pity Peter by giving money to Paul. Yes, I pity Peter... but Paul can go fsck himself and the RIAA is in this for Paul.

Re:What to do about it?

[spxero]

Got any links to back this up? I agree with you for the most part, but the RIAA embracing format shifting just doesn't sound right.

Re:What to do about it?

[Reziac]

Better yet, tip off the LOCAL Los Angeles news media, which has little real news to report and is always looking for a good scandal.

Re:What to do about it?

[Reziac]

All these other contributors are SALARIED, or in the case of the songwriter, are paid by the each for public performances (concerts, covers, radio airings, etc.) They've already either been paid in full before the music was ever released, or have a guaranteed income based on public use. Whether the CD ever sells a single copy isn't their concern, nor does it impact their income. (Except in the usual way of market forces, where if something doesn't sell, no one does it again.)

This is how it works in the film industry, too. Everyone involved in creating the work is paid a fixed amount or an hourly wage *during* production, NOT after distribution. If the film vanished the moment it was in the can, they'd be none the worse.

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise that Apple has done the same thing with the iPod, yes?

Re:What to do about it?

[geekoid]

they don't ahve to play a cover at all, the RIAA gets the money no matter what music you play.

Ignoring the fact that indie bands would jump onto a million dollar contrac in a heartbeat.

Here's an Idea, maybe musicians should stop signing contracts? that would stop this. At least only sign 1 album contracts. Right now they don't offer them because bands will whatever piece of paper plopped down in front of them if they think it's big time'. When they balk, they are told it's 'standard'.

Re:What to do about it?

[geekoid]

# Composed the music
# Wrote the lyrics
# Played the instruments to make the music
# Mixed the album
# Promoted the album
# Discovered the singer in the first place
# Created the cover art for the CD
# Produced the album
# etc.

maybe that's why they get paid up front.

in fact, they are paid from the artists cut.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Who the hell is Gary?

Re:What to do about it?

[lawpoop]

Sorry, I meant Ray ;)

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

In that case, I wasn't thinking of the RIAA, but the British equivalent, the BPI. Earlier this year, they stated that they would not prosecute those who rip their CDs to PC or MP3 for personal use.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thank you, moderator. I rarely get modded 'funny'. Humor doesn't seem to be my forte.

Re:What to do about it?

[trawg]

Good list - I would also add the following:

Support independent music!

There's a lot of music out there made by artists that are as-yet unsigned or don't want to be signed. The Internet is the best avenue for these people to make money without getting sewn up by a label deal. Check them all out - there's a lot of great stuff out there. Just because it's not from Sony or Universal doesn't mean it's not worth listening to.

(Here in Australia we have something going called TripleJ Unearthed, which is a competition which gets new artists to the attention of everyone (run by TripleJ, the greatest radio station in all the world). Support the artists directly and suddenly they don't need a record label!)

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If you are alleging fair use exemptions, you should be aware that you claiming fair use is not enough. [...] I would grant you that a judge would likely rule most (not all) of the above actions as fair and therefore not infringing, but until that happens you are a copyright violator.

I'm sorry, but I still think you're the one with the misunderstanding. I haven't broken any law until a court finds that I have. I don't even need a defence until there is a case against me to answer.

Also, bear in mind that I'm looking at copyright from an international perspective. Different jurisdictions have their own foibles when it comes to copyright law, so there's little you can state as an absolute truth without specifying whose law you're talking about. Again, the Happy Birthday example is pertinent: not everywhere recognises copyright in musical works for as long as the US now does.

Moreover, remember that a lot of the potential defences will depend on the details of the copy, intent in making it, etc. This is, after all, why things like fair use or fair dealing tend to be expressed in rather vague terms, and a court's decision is required on each specific case.

For example, if you quote from someone's Usenet post to give context in a reply, then it is entirely possible that a court would find you were not infringing the other poster's copyright because they had given implied consent for that customary use by posting in that medium in the first place. (If they had explicitly requested that their post not be archived, using a recognised convention such as the X-No-Archive header, this might be a different shade of grey.) Likewise forwarding an e-mail from one work colleague to another without explicit permission from the original author might well be considered an expected act, for which implied consent had been given.

Back-ups are a notoriously shaky subject. The law in most places makes explicit provision for back-ups of computer software, but often not for other content such as music supplied on CD. In this case, you would have to claim fair use in the US, though considering the four criteria, I don't see why genuine back-ups wouldn't qualify. I'm not aware that anyone's ever tested this in a US court -- perhaps one of our resident lawyers can fill us in? -- but if not, that probably tells us something.

As you've probably gathered, I'm not a lawyer (in any jurisdiction). I also draw your attention to my original reply, in particular the part where I said that context matters. But I stand by my claim that any of the things you mentioned could be legal in the right context and in at least some major jurisdictions. If you know of any counter-example where someone has lost in court, I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I haven't seen any such cases so far.

Re:What to do about it?

[Xebikr]

I haven't broken any law until a court finds that I have. Well that's great logic! I'll just apply that to my music/movie/tv show downloading :). I think it can be shown fairly conclusively that it is possible to break the law without being convicted of it. Speeding is speeding even if you don't get caught, and copyright infringement is is still breaking copyright even if you don't get sued.

Going back to the great^n grandparent post, it is nigh impossible to live a normal life copyright-infringement-free. It is trivial to break and enforcement is relatively non-existent. I see infringement all the time and almost no one cares. The only type people even notice is media copying and most people I talk to about it don't care. For myself I know enough not have any respect at all for the whole intellectual property set of laws. I think you got it right in the above quote.

Re:What to do about it?

[Sj0]

3 reasons:

1) Money spent on drugs isn't spent suing grandmothers who couldn't possibly want to listen to the Eminem they're accused of downloading.

2) The band is the one who actually sang/played the music, giving the appearance, at least, of being the ones responsible for the music.

3) It's more justifyable to continue downloading music while paying *someone* for the work that went on.

That said, I'd rather listen to music by people who don't associate with unfortunate groups like the RIAA. I'd much rather give such people my money as well.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Sorry, I meant Ray ;)In that case I'll answer your question. Yes I would like to see an offensive mounted. The thing is, class action work is very specialized. Although I have experience in that field, I'm not equipped to do it on my own. I need to find a good class action firm to do it.

Also law enforcement should be going after them, and maybe will be.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

We hear about all the ridiculous cases, but do you have any credible evidence that the majority of these people being sued are innocent? ....So now you want me to give you the evidence of the defendants' innocence in 20,000 cases? Anything else I can get for you while I'm collecting it?

What I can tell you about all 20,000 cases is that the cases are not based on any evidence at all of copyright infringement.

They are all based on exactly the same spurious "investigation", which the RIAA itself claims that ANY Kazaa user could do him or herself:
-the RIAA 'investigator' pretends to be a normal Kazaa user
-he finds a shared files folder with what appear to be some copyrighted songs in it
-he downloads a sampling of the files, usually from 6 to 9 song files
-he allegedly plays them to verify that they are the song files they appear to be
-he somehow finds out what the dynamic IP address was for the shared files folder at the time he made his screenshot
-he gets the ISP to tell him the name and address of the person who paid for the internet access account which allegedly was used for that dynamic IP address at the moment of the screen shot, and
-he sues whoever paid for that internet access account.

That's it.

That's why there are so many "ridiculous cases". Because the basis for the lawsuit is ridiculous.

Re:What to do about it?

[ivan256]

Yeah, it sounds ridiculous when you use 'somehow' to describe one of the steps, but really it is trivial to determine the source IP address of a non-spoofed packet. You can do it with freely available software. Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't make the process mysterious. You don't seriously expect me to believe that the majority of people using Kazaa are spoofing their IP addresses, or that the majority of Kazaa users aren't actually pirating music, do you?

The damages are ridiculous, sure. Perhaps the law is ridiculous as well. But if those things are the problem, then change those things. Don't cause another problem by helping people get away with breaking the law.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

1. If it's so simple, why have they refused to say how they do it?

2. Most of the defendants I've seen haven't used Kazaa or any other p2p application at all.

3. I don't have the power to change legislation, do you? If so, please take care of it for me.

4. Most of the defendants I've seen haven't been "breaking any law".

I am sure you are well aware that most people who are actually 'pirating' songs would never get caught by the sham investigation which I just outlined for you.

Re:What to do about it?

[ivan256]

1. Because they're idiots, and they're under the delusion that if they tell you how to do it you will figure out how to defeat their process.

2. What percentage of 20,000 defendants would you say you've got direct knowledge of?

3. You should register to vote.

4. You're full of shit. Either that or you haven't seen many defendants at all. You believe yourself though, so I'll give you a little credit.

I am sure you are well aware that most people who are actually 'pirating' songs would never get caught by the sham investigation which I just outlined for you.

Any geek worth a nickel could catch the average kazaa user pirating music in three seconds using TCP dump. If the geek is worth a buck fifty, they would be able to verify that the data segment of the packet contained mpeg audio data. For an extra quarter, they could verify that it contains audio data the uploader does not have duplication rights for. An hour's worth of scripting, and I could hook up the MusicBrainz database to the process, and automatically dump a real-time list of which IP was pirating what including the real song title (even if the user disguised the name), including the name of the actual copyright holder, without any user interaction or technical knowledge. This stuff isn't rocket science.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I agree wholeheartedly that 'supporting independent music' is something which belongs on our list of things we can do. I've been maintaining, on my blog, a list of sites that are sources of non-RIAA music. I call the list Liberated Music. If anyone has suggestions for additions to the list let me know.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What's your point? That in your opinion you're smarter than everyone else in the world? Or have you lost track of what your point is?

I'm fighting a real life problem trying to help real people who are suffering. I really don't have time for games. If you have something constructive or helpful to say then say it.

Re:What to do about it?

[smoker2]

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?

So they're not really an artist then, and thus deserve no recognition for the "music". So who is the artist we are supposed to be paying for ? Oh, that's right, we don't pay for great musical entertainment anymore, we just pay everybody in the whole foodchain regardless of whether the product is any good.

Music is supposed to be art - if only the artists got paid, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Remember RIAA = Recording Industry Association of America, no mention of "artist" there.

Re:What to do about it?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

How about dropping the bomb in the RIAA headquarters, leave and then detonate? I mean it's pretty wastefull to use a terrorist only once.

Each time you re-use your terrorist, you halve the ecological impact. Do you want your childeren to live in a world covert in terrorist-bits-and-pieces, unable to find the resource to grow new terrorists?

Think about the future: Recycle your terrorists!

Re:What to do about it?

[smoker2]

Bugger, hit submit.

Look at it this way - Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, he probably made some money out of it. Then whoever bought it, sold it at a profit. Then somebody "acquires" the rights to make poster prints to sell to tourists. All of a sudden, the poster print maker starts sue-ing everybody who takes a photo of the original painting. The photos are never meant to be for resale, they are just cheap personal mementos, but the poster printer sues anyway. No-one is ever going to "own" the original copy, and anybody who wants a decent reproduction buys the damn poster anyway.

If a third party set up a poster printing shop and sells posters of the Mona Lisa without a licence from the paintings owner , then the original poster printer has a legitimate grievance. But not against someone with no financial interest in the matter.

In my opinion, the only way forward is to go backwards, and not allow reproductions at all, except by the original artist. So in music terms, you have to go to a concert to hear the songs. In painting terms, you go to a gallery. Fuck the middle men.

Re:What to do about it?

[intheshelter]

What same thing? Apple does not give money to the RIAA based on iPod hardware sales.

Re:What to do about it?

[ivan256]

Go back and read my initial post in this thread. It contains what has been my point this entire time.

I'll sum up though.

I'm all for helping defend the innocent. I'm completely against frivolous lawsuits. The fact of the matter is, though, that sharing music that you don't have copyrights to on the internet is currently illegal, and the law specifies outrageous damages. On top of that, music sharing is so common, and so easy to detect that it is difficult to give most accused individuals the benefit of the doubt when presented with basic evidence against them. Some of them are falsely accused (probably because they were the unwitting victim of a more clever user that spoofed their IP... Essentially, they were framed). By all means! Stand up and fight for those people! But don't tell me that I should offer my technical expertise in aid of the rest of these people, because if they're guilty it's not going to help them, it's going to get the book thrown at them. What they really need in order to be helped is to have the law changed so the penalty fits the crime.

I don't think I'm smarter than everybody else. In my last post I was trying to say that you don't need to be very smart to catch most people who pirate music online because it is easy to do. The reason you see people in this forum complain so much about the RIAA's tactics is because most of them are scared it will happen to them. Why are they scared? They let on that they think they may be falsely accused, but in reality they're scared because they pirate music, they know they can get caught, and they don't want to stop. Your argument seems to be that because a fraction of a percent of everybody accused by the RIAA is falsely, than they all must be... or at least that their system of catching people is massively flawed. A fraction of a percent doesn't seem like a very large error rate to me though. Perhaps just large enough to help a defense lawyer to get some guilty people off the hook? It would be enough if these were criminal trials, but they aren't.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

Of course neither I, nor any other lawyer, would engage a technical expert to challenge facts which are absolutely true.

In a minority of the cases, the defendant is actually someone who engaged in peer to peer file sharing. Those defendants have other defenses, which the lawyers can handle, and which probably would not involve technical advice at all... defenses such as the RIAA's own misconduct, defenses such as the due process implications in the damages theory, etc. As to those defendants, however, it would still be nice to receive financial support for their legal defense, nice to receive support of people writing to their congresspeople to change the laws, etc.

In a majority of the cases, the defendants are innocent of what they are being accused of. In those cases the need for technical help is great.

You seem skeptical of my telling you that MOST defendants are innocent, and challenge my knowledge of all 20,000 cases. Of course I'm not familiar with all 20,000 cases; my conclusion is tentative, and it is anecdotal, based only upon a year and a half of being immersed in this issue, and speaking to people from all over the country every day about it. However, if you have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the flimsiness of the RIAA's so called "investigaton" (and I'm betting you have), you already know that (a) no real pirate would ever be so stupid as to use his own internet access and leave intact metadata identifying the pirated files, (b) the RIAA has no actual evidence of any downloading, (c) the RIAA has no actual evidence of any uploading, and (d) the RIAA knows nothing about the defendant except that he or she paid for an internet access account which the RIAA has linked to the shared files folder. The RIAA admitted on national television, on December 28, 2005, in Cary Sherman's response to my remarks on the CBS Early Morning Show with Harry Smith, that the only thing they know about the person they've sued is that that is the person who paid for the internet access account. So it should come as no surprise to you that the majority of the defendants are innocent. And whether it's a majority or a minority, should be irrelevant. What is relevant is that there are many innocent people being targeted, and they need the help of the tech community.

For discussion of the RIAA's "driftnet" strategy I commend you to the ACLU, EFF, Public Citizen, AALL, and ACLU-OK Brief in Capitol v. Foster, and for a discussion of the RIAA's attempt to expand the copyright law to make mere 'making available' a copyright infringement, and the damaging effect that would have on internet technology, see Brief of US Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Elektra v. Barker.

Re:What to do about it?

[budgenator]

I view liberalism as a political philosophy that wants a strong centralized power that doles out the individuals rights and entitlements at their whim, so there isn't much difference between big-business, big-religion and big-government to me

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I view liberalism as a political philosophy of social justice and fairness.

Since I'm a liberal and you're obviously not, I think my definition trumps yours.

Re:What to do about it?

[iminplaya]

You must have taken a survey to verify your claim that ..there is little if any evidence that today's widespread infringement has yet reached "majority" status, nor anywhere near it. Or did you just pull that out of your butt? Or maybe the evidence isn't widely known, or just being ignored? Next you're going to tell me that hardly anybody smokes weed? Just because you might not be aware of it? Well, I don't know anybody who doesn't. May I assume that everybody smokes weed? Give it up, man. Your gravy train is running out of track.

Re:What to do about it?

[ivan256]

I'm not going to engage you in argument of any of your points because, frankly, I don't have the time to put in the effort required to make a well referenced case, and I may be wrong. I will say though that there is one of your points that I just plain can't believe:

(a) no real pirate would ever be so stupid as to use his own internet access and leave intact metadata identifying the pirated files

I know lots of people who pirate music. Most of them don't even realize that they are doing something wrong, or that their software of choice uploads as well as downloads. I would be willing to bet that most real pirates do use their own internet access. These people aren't breaking the law with intent, so why would they even consider trying to cover their tracks?

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Then they're not "pirates". "Copyright piracy" means making exact copies and selling them for profit.

Re:What to do about it?

[ivan256]

Last I checked, there was nothing in copyright law about profit.

Piracy in terms of copyright is a casual term, so it has many definitions, but the most common usage I've heard is the distribution of copies of copyrighted works without authorization. I've never heard anybody use the term 'exact' in the definition.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'll let you have the last word. It must be nice to have attained perfection, so that you don't need to listen to, or learn from, anyone else, ever again.

Re:What to do about it?

[ivan256]

I take it you only see a possibility for transfer of ideas in one direction in this conversation...

Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[mrchaotica]

...before it becomes actionable defamation? Surely they've already crossed the boundary and this guy has grounds to sue for slander, right?

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[chrish]

How's he going to beat the RIAA in court for that when they've already got billions of dollars worth of lawyers aimed at his family?

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Shakrai]

How's he going to beat the RIAA in court for that when they've already got billions of dollars worth of lawyers aimed at his family?

Those billions of dollars of lawyers cost money. If I was sued by RIAA I'd go pro-say and drag it out for as long as humanly possible. I'd file motion after motion that they'd have to answer (while paying hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour for that legal help) and tie it up for years. I'd drag out any depositions that they requested for hours and hours. You think it can't be done? I've known people that turned "What is your name and occupation?" into a four page long answer about how that question reminds them of their favorite childhood pet.

And counter suits? I'd counter sue them for everything from harassment to loss of consortium (my wife is stressed out by the suit they filed) to PTSD. Every thing that I file or every question that I answer with a non-answer costs them hundreds or thousands of dollars..

And in the end, if they won? That's what bankruptcy is for.

Yeah, I know, it doesn't have the glamour of fighting the good fight. But if just half of the people sued by RIAA adopted these tactics of filibustering and delay it would cost them a fortune and grind the court system to a screeching halt. It costs you nothing but grief and sweat equity. In the end they lose money.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Khyber]

Easy, the defamation costing him his job which can be proven in court, IN A SEPARATE LAWSUIT, the RIAA is 100% fucked. He's got proof of defamation, left and right, when he's not a part of the infringement lawsuit. Once he loses his job, or any chance of promotion, he can take the RIAA for destroying his job, effectively sue them for EVERYTHING they're worth (since they have just cost him everything, it's not an injust or unfair fine for the RIAA to pay) and that's the end of story. His family has the problem of one lawsuit, he can find a pro-bono lawyer easily and get one hellified lump-sum for defamation, harassment, emotional/mental damages, slander (since they called his employer) and at that point the RIAA is going to have to pay bigtime. I'm just hoping the son has enough sense or knowledge to sue the RIAA for somethign in the billions of dollars range in a civil lawsuit which they can't back themselves out of once he brings it in. I also hope he's smart enough to NOT FUCKING SETTLE OUT OF COURT.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Firehed]

Great idea, except that the RIAA (and, I'd assume the MPAA as well, not that it's relevant to this case) is basically an army of salaried lawyers, so they're not being paid by the hour. While so much as "Ok then, I'll see you in court" almost ensures that the case gets dropped (for both lack of evidence and unwillingness to set a precedent against themselves), dragging the thing out only wastes your time, because if their lawyers aren't going after you, they're going after someone else and will get paid the same amount.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[ncc74656]

Those billions of dollars of lawyers cost money. If I was sued by RIAA I'd go pro se and drag it out for as long as humanly possible.

That wouldn't be a bad idea for someone who's retired, but what about those of us who have to earn a living? The time you'd spend in court is time you're not at work. Not only can most people not afford lawyers to go up against the Media Mafia, they probably can't afford the time off from work to aggressively pursue the matter themselves, which means they're even more frakked than you might at first imagine.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but this is great advice to follow. You can always do well in court going pro say. You should be able to prove mens ray without a problem. It's obviously a prema fashuh case once you supena their motis operondeye. Your lingwa franka may be free music coupons in sitoo of money if you don't argue it right, but that's kwid pro kwo in an ex partay decision. You should have some stare deseesis on your side, but still, good luck.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Shakrai]

That wouldn't be a bad idea for someone who's retired, but what about those of us who have to earn a living? The time you'd spend in court is time you're not at work. Not only can most people not afford lawyers to go up against the Media Mafia, they probably can't afford the time off from work to aggressively pursue the matter themselves, which means they're even more frakked than you might at first imagine.

Who said anything about going to court? I said I'd bog them down with paperwork, answers, interrogatories, etc, etc. I can file those on my way home from work.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[growse]

"Stealing", in law implies unlawfully depriving the victim of goods which are rightfully theirs. No-one is stealing anything. Stop using that word.

Also, because copyright infringement is a civil offence, I'm not personally bothered about the fact that the RIAA are filing lawsuits for damages. What I, and I think others, are bothered about is the way they're completely abusing their power, money and the US justice system to file lawsuits based on effectively zero evidence. If they bothered to take the time to come up with good evidence and then sue, I wouldn't have a problem.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[joshetc]

No offense but stealing tangible shit from me is far from comparable. Something along the lines of breaking into my house and writing down a copy of my recipe for spaghetti sauce would be more accurate..

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[ari{Dal}]

Yep, cause Judges are known to be tolerant of intentional time wasting motions. You'd have your ass handed to you by the well-paid RIAA lawyers and the court.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Red Flayer]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Easy, the defamation costing him his job which can be proven in court, IN A SEPARATE LAWSUIT, the RIAA is 100% fucked. He's got proof of defamation, left and right, when he's not a part of the infringement lawsuit.

Oh? Has he lost his job? What if the claims of the RIAA are true? What if the son used his comapny's property to infringe on copyright, thereby exposing them to liability? Defamation might not be so easy to prove.

he can take the RIAA for destroying his job, effectively sue them for EVERYTHING they're worth (since they have just cost him everything, it's not an injust or unfair fine for the RIAA to pay)

Oh? Everything == lost income for, say, 40 years? Hardly adds up to billions. And you think it'd be easy to find pro bono representation in a case like this?

slander (since they called his employer)

Do you have a transcript of the conversations? Or even what was discussed, other than what was in those footnotes? Did the RIAA tell the employer that an employee of theirs was a criminal? Or did they say that they were trying to serve him with a subpoena in relation to a pending action? Or did they say that they may have evidence to suggest that there was illegal activity occurring on one of their computers? Who knows. And a defamation judgment is very difficult to prove here in the US.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but his case is not nearly so clean-cut as you seem to think -- particularly since truth is an affirmative defense to defamation (libel|slander) claims. In his case (since he's in the US) the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that the claims are untrue... might be difficult since he would need to supply the very things that he was so desperately trying to hide from the RIAA.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Vr6dub]

It's ironic. The RIAA is suing all these illegal file sharers not becuase they do the most damage to their bottom line but because they are relatively easy to catch and require little resources to accomplish the job. Rather than try to quash the bootleg markets, which are HUGE in the big cities, they go after little Timmie in the hopes that they will scare the masses away from downloading their stuff. Unfortunately for them people look at getting sued like the look at getting caught drunk driving, it'll never happen to them. Put simply, the downloaders are an easy target. If they were really concerned they would be mounting a huge campaign to close all the illicit goods markets on the streets but that would cost to much money.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> He's got proof of defamation, left and right

So does this guy and there isn't a single attorney, out of dozens who were contacted, who will even file a single court motion without a $5k retainer fee.

> Once he loses his job, or any chance of promotion

He can no longer afford the $5k retainer fee.

> effectively sue them for EVERYTHING they're worth (since they have just cost him everything, it's not an injust or unfair fine for the RIAA to pay) and that's the end of story

In a perfect world...

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Chowderbags]

If you had your house opened up for a community walkthrough (say for some sort of historical touring for a week) and you had a painting on your wall. If I sat down and managed to create a replica painting, would you have a (reasonable) complaint? You haven't lost anything, even though I have the same thing. Say you were the painter of the original. Did you lose anything? I doubt it. I wouldn't pay for an original painting (I don't have that kind of cash laying around), so there is no sale to lose. In all likelyhood, the artist will actually get more noticed, now that there is somewhere else for their work to be noticed.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Warg! The Orcs!!]

IANAL
But, if I understand the US legal system at all, the law as it stands is on the RIAAs side. I have no doubt that this annoys Judges as well as the good burgesses of Slashdot and so I propose a solution. Ask for a continuance of around 75 years. Although pressed to avoid lengthy continuances, I'm sure that there must be a judge somewhere in the US sick of the RIAA mugging old ladies and who would be willing to start the ball rolling. Just accept the suits as they are and give the defendants 75-100 years to assemble their defence. I think the RIAA would stop.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[ConceptJunkie]

The problem with your strategy is that they are trying to intimidate you with losing your livelihood, and to go through all the trouble and expense you are describing you'd practically be doing that to yourself, and I doubt it would have any real effect.

Most people can't afford to go on a crusade no matter how just the cause.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Generic Guy]

And in the end, if they won? That's what bankruptcy is for.

This kind of idiotic armchair posturing (which of course gets modded up) is the reason I'm beginning to hate reading slashdot.

FWIW, if you actually knew anything about the code, Bankruptcy does not resolve you of court ordered payouts. In fact, since the massive changes in the bankruptcy code last year (Oct 2005) bankruptcy doesn't really absolve you of much at all anymore -- you can thank the credit card industry for that.

But go ahead, keep dreaming your Braveheart fantasies.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well said. They're going after the 'low hanging fruit'. Their 'investigation' would never catch actual 'pirates'.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Shadow99_1]

You had also best hope to hell the judge doesn't get pissed about your 'antics' in his/her courtroom... I've seen a judge get pissed at a person for doing that very thing and throwing the case out with a default judgement for the opposing party...

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[brouski]

If, however, I charged people to view that painting, and you snuck into my house, made said copy of painting, then stood outside and started giving away copies, I'd be rightly pissed off.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[zakezuke]

IANAL, but this is great advice to follow. You can always do well in court going pro say. You should be able to prove mens ray without a problem. It's obviously a prema fashuh case once you supena their motis operondeye. Your lingwa franka may be free music coupons in sitoo of money if you don't argue it right, but that's kwid pro kwo in an ex partay decision. You should have some stare deseesis on your side, but still, good luck.

I've got mens rea? How can this be possible? We both use condoms.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[MindspanConsultants]

And if selling that spaghetti sauce was your sole source of revenue? And now your recipe was published all over the Internet for any idiot to use? Maybe this is a bad example, and I certainly have no love for the RIAA, however, this BS about 'it's just copyright infringement and nobody's losing' is just that - BS. If you don't like their business model, then don't buy their products. Don't go making end runs around it and then justify your actions with semantics.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Khyber]

I'm just tossing out possibilities, I'm not saying one way or another that they did cost him his job (but there is potential)

Lost income+the ability to make even more, if they keep it up and end up getting him canned. Anyone has the POTENTIAL to make billions of dollars, if they cost him that potential, it's a valid defense.

No transcript of the conversations, but calling my place of employment to stir up shit without proper proof and evidence, I'd say you were harassing me at work, on my company's time, which they're not paying me to do. Calling my boss to inform them of something strictly between me and the plaintiff is uncalled for, an invasion of my privacy, (not to mention it can taint a court case,) and costing the company I work for money in man hours lost.

While the case is not so clean-cut as you assume I'm assuming it is, there are many, many things that can be brought up to back the RIAA into a bad corner. Think about Hajime no Ippo. This guy's got the potential to become Hajime, and land a dynamite punch right into the jaw of the RIAA, if he plays it smart.

Also, as far as lawyers go - you never know who'd take on a case for free, just for publicity.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[chickenandporn]

Even court victories cost time; Filibustering is like Linux (was): free if your time is free.

I want to be sure you're actually saying:
"I would prefer loss of my time/salary/peace for a few years, followed by filing bankruptcy, followed by 7-year loss of credit, to the option of a settlement with the RIAA for a fraction of the cost"

It's like comparing a broken knee to an amputated foot: both suck, but which can you heal from?

I'd take the knee (settle) probably, but maybe I'm just a wimp: this decision depends on my age (time to recouperate) and my dependents' ability to withstand poverty for a while (I'm currently sole breadwinner). If you have a young child, tell him or her "Santa's not coming for a year or so" -- try it, tough guy. The question is not whether you deserve it; in the US, the law is sometimes not about right/wrong, but more about economic choices and Pyrrhic Victories.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[joshetc]

Never said nobody is losing, it just can't be compared with everyone going into walmart and stealing all the Hershey bars.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[mpe]

Those billions of dollars of lawyers cost money. If I was sued by RIAA I'd go pro-say and drag it out for as long as humanly possible. I'd file motion after motion that they'd have to answer (while paying hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour for that legal help) and tie it up for years. I'd drag out any depositions that they requested for hours and hours. You think it can't be done? I've known people that turned "What is your name and occupation?" into a four page long answer about how that question reminds them of their favorite childhood pet.

This isn't really a viable option for someone who has to earn a living. Only someone who is either retired or unemployed can really take on the RIAA as a LiP.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[mpe]

Who said anything about going to court? I said I'd bog them down with paperwork, answers, interrogatories, etc, etc. I can file those on my way home from work.

The relevent factor is how many times you need to visit the court, especially in working hours. If you can conduct the case exclusivly by mailing documents to the court and/or the RIAA's lawyers then it wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[mpe]

Great idea, except that the RIAA (and, I'd assume the MPAA as well, not that it's relevant to this case) is basically an army of salaried lawyers, so they're not being paid by the hour. While so much as "Ok then, I'll see you in court" almost ensures that the case gets dropped (for both lack of evidence and unwillingness to set a precedent against themselves), dragging the thing out only wastes your time, because if their lawyers aren't going after you, they're going after someone else and will get paid the same amount.

They still have to spend time deciding to drop the case. Also they can't drop the case without you knowing about it, if you have made a counter claim they can't simply ignore it (even if they drop their original claim.)

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Ginger Unicorn]

how do you hold down a 9 to 5 while pissing around like that?

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[LoveGoblin]

How's he going to beat the RIAA in court for that when they've already got billions of dollars worth of lawyers aimed at his family?

Those billions of dollars of lawyers cost money.

Not just money - but billions of dollars, I'm guessing.

Is it unusual

[fluffykitty1234]

For a lawyer to call someone's employer? It sounds odd, but is it really rare and or unusual?

Re:Is it unusual

[Red Flayer]

For a lawyer to call someone's employer? It sounds odd, but is it really rare and or unusual?

Not unusual at all, when someone is attempting to send legal documents (such as a notice of judgment or a subpoena) and attempted delivery at the home address has failed. I personally have had notices of judgment served to debtors at their place of employment many, many times.

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.

Re:Is it unusual

[brouski]

If I had points I would mod you up. Someone who actually read TFA.

Re:Is it unusual

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It's outrageous.

Re:Is it unusual

[Red Flayer]

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.

Re:Is it unusual

[Archangel Michael]

"The lesson is, if you want to play hardball with the MPAA, then you'd better bring your bat, glove, and catcher's mask."

I'm sure he had all of those, but since the RIAA/MPAA was going for his BALLS, he should have been wearing a cup in his jockstrap.

Re:Is it unusual

[Kjella]

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.

Oh, that's not hard ball. Hardball is if they win and go: "750$/song. No deals." I don't understand how people have the nerve to fight these suits, your house could burn down to the ground without insurance and most people would *still* be less screwed than losing a RIAA case. I can sort of understand that there's a lower limit, but the scaling is absurd.

If you steal a piece of candy, there's a pretty stiff penalty compared to the crime. But if you steal a bag of 30 candies, you don't pay 30x the fine. I understand that there's point to having a lower bound so that don't steal candy because if the penalty was $5 it wouldn't cover the cost of policing it. I understand there's a point to having a lower bound so that you don't infringe on copyright because if the penalty was $5 it wouldn't cover the cost of policing it.

If you're going to play hardball, you'd better make damn sure to win. This is just taunting the chained but raving mad dog, and that they showed up at his employer was but a scratch. And if they do find tampering of evidence, he might face criminal charges as well. Broke and with a criminal record, not how I'd like to end up.

The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[Aglassis]

"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."

This isn't a reign of terror. The purges of Stalin would classify as a reign of terror. The French Revolution would classify as a reign of terror. This classifies as merely harassment. I understand that the poster wants to bring up how loathsome the actions of the RIAA are, but exaggeration merely turns people off. When I hear someone talk about a "reign of terror" I typically just ignore that person since he or she is trying to convince me emotionally instead of rationally.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[operagost]

I loathe the RIAA (a strange thing for a former recording engineer), but I agree that statements like this trivializes those who suffered under actual reigns of terror. It's simply not an acceptable metaphor.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

People like you or me wouldn't be 'terrorized' by it. But the kind of people who are being sued are being terrorized by it. I talk to these people every day.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[tehcyder]

No, they're being annoyed, embarrassed, given a few sleepless nights and so on. The jackboot kicking your down in at 2am is terror.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[kimvette]

It's not so strange for one on the production side of the business to loathe the record companies. I know a couple of sound engineers who are also performers who wish that RIAA members would suddenly die. Many engineers befriend the artists they work with, or are also artists themselves, and get sick of the f***ing scams that ruin their friends careers -- especially the record companies' creative accounting practices which result in artists accumulating huge debts to the record company, even when a record charts and becomes a huge money maker.

I for one do not wish RIAA members to die; I wish for them to become mentally disabled from all the coke they snort. That would be a much more fitting punishment for those jackasses.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[faraway]

Fine. It's not a "reign of terror". Call it... "shock and awe".

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[ray-auch]

They might feel terrorized, but generally speaking their heads will still be attached to the rest of them after the lawyers are through.

This does make it rather different to more traditional "reigns of terror" such as the example given (french revolution).

We should be careful about using exaggerated and inappropriate terminology - or we end up no better than people who equate copying your friend's $10 CD with rape and murder on the high seas.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[orasio]

Remember that these are the people who compare you to a pirate (a guy who attacks ships, robs, kills, rapes) when you share your CDs.
Yet most people are not surprised, and even use the term. That's because their (I mean content distributors) marketing worked, and has cought on.

Why shouldn't people say lies about them, in exchange? maybe they will catch on, and people will start calling them "terrorists".

It's not about being right or wrong, it's about having the best marketing campaign.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[jb.hl.com]

Bullshit.

The RIAA called his employer. This alone is a call for concern (no pun intended)...seriously, defaming someone to their employer? For fucks sake.

If they settle out of court, they are down thousands of dollars. If they don't, fight the case and lose, they are down thousands of dollars. If they do, fight the case and win, they still have legal fees to pay.

Maybe this is not Nazi Germany style terror, or Soviet Union style terror, but to these families right now they are shit fucking scared of how their future, not only their financial future but also their career, (thanks to the lawyers calling someone's employer...seriously, that's disgusting) is going to pan out. To them, this is terror. Any legal action from a large corporation against a normal family is largely going to make you 1) shit scared 2) fucked up financially for a loong while.

And this is speaking as someone who defends the RIAA (not the lawsuits, understand) all the time...this is scumbag behaviour.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[tinkerghost]

Check the entimology of the word, piracy has been associated with printing since the 1700s.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well you happen to be wrong. I talk to the people every day, and believe me, many of them are terrorized. People like you and me wouldn't be terrorized.... the typical Slashdotter wouldn't be.... but many of the people who are being sued would be.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[squiggleslash]

Hardly.

The story is that a guy deliberately avoided getting served with papers at home, so they served him them at work. You describe this as a "reign of terror" when actually it's a guy playing games (and losing that game.)

So, let's check off the number of problems with this story:

1. It's fundamentally misleading. The employer wasn't contacted out of the blue.
2. The guy being served actually was in the wrong
3. A summons is no cause for an employer to believe his employee has done something wrong
4. There's no "reign of terror", metaphorically or otherwise, in this particular case
5. You've compared a bunch of legal suits largely correctly aimed at pirates to campaigns of torture and murder
6. But the RIAA gains from the story anyway! "Oh noes! I just heard they'll intimidate my children if I use Kazaa! They're so evil! I better stop!"

Can the pro-freeloading wagon please be detached from the copyright-reform train?

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[Red Flayer]

Very well put... I had a lot of the same reactions but didn't spell it out half so well.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[Himring]

I do disagree. What they will do figuratively, they will eventually do literally. Evil always begins in concept. Don't underestimate the subtleties....

"Men who burn books, will soon be burning men...." Or something to that affect. Bonhoeffer said that? Please google....

I can hear someone in germany, circa mid 1930s, "it's just books. What's the big deal?..."

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[Cederic]

Someone calls my employer, my employer tells them "Go fuck yourself". They are obliged to due to the DPA (although they may be permitted to use slightly different words).

Further than that, my employer would not (and legally can not) fire me or deny me promotion based on something someone said in a phone call.

Perhaps you need to start campaigning for better employment law - fucked up though this RIAA bullshit is, it sounds nothing compared to your utter lack of protection for employees.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[LunaticTippy]

Can you check the etymology of "entimology?" It's not in my dictionary. Perhaps you meant "entomology" but I fail to see what insects have to do with piracy. I guess you could board and loot somebody else's bug.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[jb.hl.com]

Wouldn't be my employment law, i'm a Brit...point taken tho.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[squiggleslash]

The RIAA called his employer. This alone is a call for concern (no pun intended)...seriously, defaming someone to their employer? For fucks sake.

The RIAA contacted his employer so they'd be able to serve a subpoena that they hadn't been able to serve at the person's home, having tried seven times.

This is perfectly legal, fair, and it's hardly defamatory. The reason this was worded the way it was is because the submitter, quite honestly, is an utter knobhead who, like the RIAA itself, has an interest in making the RIAA look like an out-of-control bunch of bastards.

That's assuming he's not working for the RIAA.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[orasio]

It was originally used for people who published other guys books, effectively taking credit away from the authors (credit can be taken away from you, so someone can steal it). That is a very loose comparison, but at least it was about robbing someone.

From a long time, they are using it to talk about people who copy cpyrighted stuff unauthorizedly. Copies don't even take something away fromt he creator, so it's an even more flawed comparison.

Anyhow, in the 21th century, or the 18th century, it's a marketing issue, the copier is compared to an uncomparably worse group, so it gets stained by their characteristics, and the distributor is seen as a victim, like a pirate victim.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[geekoid]

the French Revolution would be a "Reign of Terror". Note the caps. That is different then "reign of terror". nore the lack of caps.

Reign of Terror
1. a period of the French Revolution, from about March, 1793, to July, 1794, during which many persons were ruthlessly executed by the ruling faction.
2. (lowercase) any period or situation of ruthless administration or oppression.

"ruthless /ruls/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rooth-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
without pity or compassion; cruel; merciless:"

Seems like an accurate description to me.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

No, they're being annoyed, embarrassed, given a few sleepless nights and so on. The jackboot kicking your down in at 2am is terror.The difference between you and me is I'm speaking from experience, and you're not.

I talk to these people every day.

Many of them are truly terrorized.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Interesting how you totally accept as true everything the RIAA lawyer said. I wonder why.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[Builder]

Great, thanks a lot you bastard! You owe me a newkeyboard and some advise on how to get the feel of coffee out of my sinuses :)

After some of my run-ins and bizarre discussions with NYCL, I couldn't help but piss myself laughing at your comment. You do realise you'll now be his foe and accused of being an RIAA troll, right? And if he's got modpoints, you'll get a -1 flamebait for this. That's his standard response from what I've seen.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[intheshelter]

I think the people are wrong who think the phrase "reign of terror" somehow trivializes other people's suffering. If using that phrase actually trivializes their suffering then their suffering probably wasn't that bad. I think the same common sense you're asking for should be used in reading these posts. Aglassis was simply making the point that the RIAA will stop at nothing to get the power they want. In that respect I would agree that the RIAA is on a reign of terror. They are hoping to terrorize (or scare) people into compliance.

Considering what I've seen from the RIAA in the past few years I wouldn't put it past them to gas someone just to protect their business model. They don't seem to have a sense of proportion in their response to filesharing (the penalties grossly outweigh the actual damages) and they don't seem to have an ounce of common sense with respect to the new reality in the digital world.

Their reign of terror definitely differs in scale and severity, but it IS designed to be a reign of terror to scare people into complying with what they want.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[Aglassis]

The difference between you and me is I'm speaking from experience, and you're not.

I talk to these people every day.

Many of them are truly terrorized.It is not entirely surprising that you would say this. You don't consider the term "reign of terror" to be an exaggeration so why would saying these people are being terrorized bother you. By changing the definition you have sidestepped the argument (which is what I would expect from a lawyer). I'm not going to follow you down 10 definitions to get to the point. I'll say it now: did these people feel that their lives were in immediate jeopardy? I'm not talking about their quality of life--I'm talking about their lives. Did they honestly expect someone to kill them?

Contrast your responses with the responses of Iraqis living in Baghdad. They are living through a reign of terror. Your clients are living through a reign of harassment.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I will tell you that there are people who are walking around despondent and depressed, because of this, and I know of people who have previously attempted suicide who are now in a depression provoked by the lawsuit. I've spoken to people in tears, people who are distraught, people who don't know what to do. Many people are faced with impossible choices here... pay settlement money they don't have... hire lawyers they can't afford.... go to Court themselves, which they don't know how to do... rat out their own children, or nieces and nephews, or friends, or neighbors, or neighbors' kids.... Many think they or their children will go to jail, because the Settlement Support Center goons told them as much. And I have heard of a suicide, but cannot at this time substantiate the report.

So if you think this is a joke, shame on you. And if you're on the RIAA payroll, you should rot in hell. I'm done responding to your stupidity. I will leave it other Slashdotters, if they choose, to respond to your absurd argument. I hope you get modded down to where you belong, -5 as a Flamebait Troll.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[Aglassis]

Not once have I insulted you, while you have multiple times called me stupid, a troll, or a RIAA hack. Not once have I said that I supported the RIAA or didn't have pity for the victims but you implied I did. You are projecting your hate onto others. You see your victims and since you can't hurt the RIAA you instead lash out at people who are trying to calm you down. You are like the frightened cat in the animal shelter who bites the person who is trying to help it.

I pity the victims of the RIAA and I also pity you. You have a lot of hate and you haven't realized how cruelly that you are treating your fellow man.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

As a matter of fact you insulted me in 2 of your 3 previous posts. Just to set the record straight.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[Aglassis]

I was not trying to insult you, so if you feel insulted I apologize. I don't think you stupid (you are a lawyer after all) nor do I think you a bad person. I think your support of these people harassed by the RIAA is very noble. But I also think your exaggerations and labeling of people as RIAA trolls are counterproductive. I want people who are concerned about the RIAA to tell their friends and family about the lawsuits on 7 year olds and 70 year old grandmas. I want people to talk about the number of lawsuits settled out of court. I want people to talk about the oppressive laws for which the RIAA has lobbied. I don't want people to go around saying that the RIAA is terrorizing people. Facts speak stronger than emotions. I also don't want people to ignore this issue because they have been labeled trolls by people who are overly sensitive about the RIAA tactics. Your long list of foes does more to hurt your anti-RIAA advocacy than any post that you have made. I rarely read RIAA threads due to just this issue.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'd like to see how you would like it if you worked in a prestigious law firm, and some strange lawyer called your employer and insinuated to him, without any basis for doing so, that (a) you were a copyright pirate, and (b) you were trying to evade service of process. I wonder if you'd be engaged in sophistic hairsplitting over the terminology of what to call such a thing.

Low act.

[Merls the Sneaky]

Not only will they sue you, they do everything in thier power to make your life and that of your families a misery.

It is

[unity100]

It is, if it is done intentionally to put fear into people's minds. And it is.

Re:It is

[Phisbut]

Or what about the fact he was using works computer to download music, Does this give them the right?

The RIAA is accusing his mother, not him. Does the RIAA really think his mother would use his work computer to download music? That farfetched, even for the RIAA.

Re:It is

[JoeSchmoe999]

Where did that come from?
Nowhere did I find any indication that the son was being accused of downloading any music, let alone from his work.
These kinds of accusations remind me very much of the RIAA/MPAA.
However, to answer your question, if he WAS downloading music at work and IF the music was from an ILLEGAL site (and not from one of the RIAA shills like Apple or others), then yes, they would have a "right" to contact his employer.
Did I miss something here or are you deliberatly being inflammatory?

Re:It is

[CRiMSON]

I'm fucking with you, and you fell for it. Thanks :)

Home Health Care Aide

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

By the way, this is the case against the home health care aide.... who has never even used a computer.

Re:Home Health Care Aide

[brouski]

Has never used a computer but has an Internet account?

Or was her name drawn out of a hat?

Re:Home Health Care Aide

[ZachPruckowski]

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.

Re:Home Health Care Aide

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I don't have the statistics but I would guess that your "5-10%" estimate should probably be revised to "50%" or more.

Also, if their goal is to find 'pirates', I think it should be revised to "95%" or even "99%".

The 'pirates' would never get caught by the RIAA's so-called 'investigation'.

Re:Home Health Care Aide

[Joe The Dragon]

She may have a cable tv and the new cable tv boxes do get ip address

Re:Home Health Care Aide

[ZachPruckowski]

I don't have statistics either. I'm just saying that I've seen more dumb ones than I can count on two hands. The reverse of that is that naturally, most of the cases we hear about aren't the open-shut ones.

Re:Home Health Care Aide

[brouski]

Do they come from the same pool as their internet products?

full blown AIDS?

[mrchaotica]

Sorry, I couldn't resist

If the guy were working for me...

[b0s0z0ku]

I'd give him a raise (if only a token one) just to give the Bronx cheer to the **AA Mafia.

-b.

Probable Cause?

[CPIMatt]

If you read the response from the record industry, Richard Altman is not an innocent bystander. According to the RIAA he has reinstalled Windows on his mom's computer several times and he was the one who delivered his mom's computer's hard drive to the RIAA. It is not like he has not been involved

The RIAA says that the hard drive they have is not the hard drive that was attached to the computer they are looking for, so they are looking at Richard Altman's computer equipment to see if he has the information they want.

Do they have probable cause to do this? I don't think so, but that is their argument.

-Matt

Re:Probable Cause?

[brouski]

Altman is the attorney for the defendant Lindor.

Raymond is the son of Ms. Lindor who had the subpoena served and the employer called.

Re:Probable Cause?

[sjwest]

if reinstalling wndows is tampering, than god help the riaa if they got a virus/trojan infected pc from him (un-usuable), if person did reinstall windows then the fault is with microsoft for not saving the evidence why dont they sue microsoft ? it seems that either way the riaa look at things the evidence would be 'tampered' with.

for the record: I can nuke a windows xp partition in seconds, i didnt mean to but i just did that several months ago alas thats windows xp for you to get it back i'd need a shareware like recovery disk which i dont 'own', or even have downloaded. So i'd have to reinstall windows, and windows install loves to format things if memory serves me.

Re:Probable Cause?

[RichardAltman]

Excuse me, but I am Richard Altman. I am the lawyer for Mr. Woody Raymond, the son of Marie Lindor, and I am challenging the subpoena on Mr. Raymond's behalf. My computer has nothing to do with this case....Please keep the names of the people involved straight. Thank you.

Re:Probable Cause?

[vertinox]

According to the RIAA he has reinstalled Windows on his mom's computer several times and he was the one who delivered his mom's computer's hard drive to the RIAA.

Ah! So Best Buy and UPS are complicit too?!

Re:Probable Cause?

[rhaas]

FYI, I believe parent actually is the Richard Altman involved in this case. I received an email from the email address listed on the subpoena which refers to this post.

Re:Probable Cause?

[EaglemanBSA]

They don't need probable cause, they need a full warrant.

Re:Probable Cause?

[Cederic]

Assuming for the moment that you are who you represent yourself to be, once the legal side of this is over could you perhaps select a cross-section of the posts in this article and respond to them?

I'd be interested to here the thoughts of the lawyer involved on some of the things discussed here, although I accept that it would be inappropriate for you to comment prior to any settlement or judgement.

Re:Probable Cause?

[RichardAltman]

That is a good idea. I will take a look at the comments and respond to some of them. I have frequently noticed that when people say IANAL, they seldom have a sense of what those of us who are lawyers can and cannot do. And yes, I am who I represent myself to be....but I am not offended by the skepticism.

I don't download music anymore

[drewzhrodague]

See? This is bullshit. I'm so scared of getting sued by the RIAA, that I don't download music anymore -- and I don't buy CDs either. No, I don't have a 20+G inventory of MP3s. Instead, I use many of the online commercial-free radio stations (Like the fabulous SomaFM.com).

Now I've been a little scared of being hit by the MPAA for downloading Doctor Who and James Burke shows. Oh, wait...

Re:I don't download music anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so scared of getting sued by the RIAA, that I don't download music anymore -- and I don't buy CDs either.

Psst... Usenet. Whoops, I've said too much.

Re:I don't download music anymore

[kimvette]

Check out the creative commons web sites, where a lot of unsigned or indie-label bands give away some of their work free for download.

Re:I don't download music anymore

[Luke Dawson]

Don't you think this is exactly why the RIAA is doing this?

Re:I don't download music anymore

[cute-boy]

I sort of agree... mostly I too have given up on buying music by conventional format where I can replay it. Occasionally I really do want to own the recording so I can listen to it when I want to... so I'll buy the CD and rip in in FLAC format for my personal use.

Soma is not "free", it is "listener supported radio". Don't leech off those who contribute, but contribute what you can, and what you think it's worth (obviously you do think it has value).

My favorite is Radio Paradise

-R

Re:I don't download music anymore

[MilwaukeeCharlie]

See? This is bullshit. I'm so scared of getting sued by the RIAA, that I don't download music anymore -- and I don't buy CDs either.

I have never downloaded music. I don't even burn myself copies of borrowed CDs.

Getting something for nothing has always felt, well, wrong, I guess. I know that bashing the RIAA is a sacrosanct activity on slashdot, but could someone tell me please how downloading music isn't stealing?

No, I don't have a 20+G inventory of MP3s. Instead, I use many of the online commercial-free radio stations (Like the fabulous SomaFM.com).

My favorite is Pandora. I've discovered much music that I didn't even know existed, and even (gasp) bought CDs of my newly discovered favorites in a regular store. Please understand I'm not trying to defend the RIAA, but rather seeking a rational explanation of why it's legal (or should be legal?) to download music that the recording studio and artist don't get paid for.

Re:I don't download music anymore

[meringuoid]

I know that bashing the RIAA is a sacrosanct activity on slashdot, but could someone tell me please how downloading music isn't stealing?

If you come into my house and take away my CDs, I no longer have those CDs. You have stolen music.

If you connect to my computer and copy my MP3s, I still have those MP3s. You have infringed copyright.

There are plenty of things in this world which are illegal but which are not theft. Copyright infringement is one of them.

In the land of sweeping statements

[tttonyyy]

From TFA:

However, in this case they basically decided to go for the gold and [the RIAA] made a bold argument claiming that merely making files available on the internet is in and of itself a copyright infringement. It was a shocking argument because if it were accepted it would probably shut down the entire internet.

Because there is no internet outside of the US. Or, in fact, anything. It's all just sea, y'know.

Re:In the land of sweeping statements

[Red Flayer]

Because there is no internet outside of the US. Or, in fact, anything. It's all just sea, y'know

And of the countries outside the US, how many have trade agreements with the US? How many are dependent on the US as an export market?

How many are signatories to the WTO treaty?

If you think that the outside world is independent of US political and economic action, that's just as bad as thinking there IS no outside world.

Of course, it's hubris to think that the US can unilaterally enact decisions this big, isn't it? Even when the US chooses to ignore the WTO whenever it suits them, while economically forcing other nations to comply with WTO decisions?

Re:In the land of sweeping statements

[houghi]

Not all is sea: http://houghi.org/shots/merikans.gif

Re:In the land of sweeping statements

[Red Flayer]

You're missing the point. Ut's not about the US 'shutting down' the internets, it's about the US providing enough of a disincentive for others to put up content.

I know that the world doesn't depend on the US... but plenty of influential businesses do, as well as many countires in the Western hemisphere. Would an action like that cause the US to become irrelevant in the long run, if the position were maintained? Sure. But the US is far from irrelevant now.

even if it's rather the US who depend on China for imports than China who depends on the US for exports.

Are you kidding me? It's a two-way street, and China is, if anything, more dependent upon our markets than we are on their imports (don't you think Indonesia India Brazil et al would be happy to fill the supply void if anything were to happen to China?)

A major reason China is financing the US's domestic debt is that a collape of the economy here would result in a collapse in demand for their products -- and therefore a collapse of their economy.

Europe does not depend on the US, to begin with, not for exports and not for imports.

Are you stll kidding? Here's some info that directly contradicts what you are saying. The world economy is interdependent, and any drastic action like closing a market anywhere near the size of the US (be it the US, the EU, China, SE Asia, etc) would have drastic effects on the rest of the world, a global economic catastrophe.

I suggest that before you make generalizations like you did in your reply, that you read up on global trade, international relations, and macroeconomics.

Re:In the land of sweeping statements

[squiggleslash]

However, in this case they basically decided to go for the gold and [the RIAA] made a bold argument claiming that merely making files available on the internet is in and of itself a copyright infringement.

Did someone seriously say that, or did they say "Making our member's music available on the Internet without authorization is copyright infringement".

Because if it's the latter, it's probably true. (Unless you're able to make the music available on the Internet without, at some point, making a copy. You know, hooking up the CD player directly or something, but not actually doing the copying until the request to download the music comes in.)

I don't really see the problem with that statement, and I fail to see how it can be interpreted as "shutting down the entire Internet" unless the author sincerely believes that Peer-to-Peer Piracy is the Internet.

The Objective: Fear

[mpapet]

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)

Re:The Objective: Fear

[networkBoy]

"I'm liking vhs/dvd's much more now than ever. (until I can build a silent mythtv box anyway)"

modified Xbox with XBMC does nicely for a front-end. Not too noisy, either.
-nB

Re:Go RIAA!

[matt328]

Why not, they already went after a dead guy's kids. Seriously, why do people put up with this bullshit?

boycott music for a while

[192939495969798999]

just don't buy any more cd's or download crap for a while, legal or not. If we all did it at once, they'd get the picture.

Re:boycott music for a while

[finkployd]

They will just use the decline in sales to boost their claims that they need to stop piracy and get some more RIAA friendly laws passed by their pet congressmen. Because there can be no rational explanation for a decrease in CD sales (or even a slowdown in the growth of sales) other than piracy.

Believe me, this is exactly what would happen.

Finkployd

Re:boycott music for a while

[Dephex Twin]

When people stop buying so many CDs, they just blame piracy for it directly. People have been calling for the boycott of the RIAA or claimed to be doing so for years. In any of the mentions of lower CD sales in the media, have you ever once heard a mention of the fact that some percentage of people may be boycotting the RIAA because the music sucks or because they object to their tactics?

Is it legal to...

[DoofusOfDeath]

Is it legal to have, as your stated and acted-upon goal, the destruction of a company?

For instance, one might consider the MPAA to be an utterly evil business. A morally inclined person might see destruction of the MPAA as a moral good. But I've also heard of lawsuits related to "interference with business" or some such.

Does anyone know if it would be legal for us to form the "RIAA/MPAA Bankruptcy League", whose goal is to bring those companies to bankruptcy?

Re:Is it legal to...

[b0s0z0ku]

For instance, one might consider the MPAA to be an utterly evil business. A morally inclined person might see destruction of the MPAA as a moral good. But I've also heard of lawsuits related to "interference with business" or some such.

I'd think that it depends on the methods used. Encouraging people to boycott because of specific grievances is OK, especially if you say that the boycott will end if those grievances are addressed. If addressing the grievances will incidentally involve the company being unable to stay solvent, well so be it. Planting dynamite and ricin at the headquarters of the MPAA is unlikely to be legal :/

-b.

Re:Is it legal to...

[ScentCone]

It would, however, be legal to start a vast company of online users who each chipped in a pittence to form the recording studio/movie studio they could run as they saw fit...

And guess what: many successful recording artists and filmakers and other talent take a chunk of their substantial earnings and do start their own record labels and film studios. And they take less experienced other artists under their wings. And then they shop around for a distributor or marketing partner that can help them get their work better represented, the better to fund more of their efforts on other fronts. And then - what a shock! - some of them realize that being a member of a trade association that's dedicated to, among other things, doing some of the lobbying and other organizational work that protects their interests and those of their signed artists turns out to not always be a bad thing.

Re:Is it legal to...

[tinkerghost]

Certainly it's legal to form such a company. The issue becomes whether or not you can accomplish that act in a legal manner. Lahnam Act restrictions are supposed to limit the ability of one company to interfere with another companies profitability, IE using FUD/slander/legal bluffs to scare away customers. However, a non-profit organization would be exempt from many of those rules - so long as they don't cross into actual slander/fraud etc. Organizing rotating protests outside the offices of the RIAA & it's constituent members is perfectly legal. Talking to the press, writing op-ed pieces, etc are also legal. Even building a Non-Profit around constructing an effective boycott would all be acceptable.

Re:Is it legal to...

[Jaysyn]

... and everyone knows ricin won't work on the undead anyhow...

Re:Is it legal to...

[b0s0z0ku]

... and everyone knows ricin won't work on the undead anyhow...

Ban garlic! It could be used as a Weapon of Mass Terrah! While we're at it, ban crosses and stakes too.

-b.

Boycot purchasing music!

[BeachMouser]

It is in our power to put a major dent in their profits and stop these attacks. How many of you can go 1 year without buying music. I haven't bought any in the last 3 years so I listen to a lot of internet radio. Here is a new year's resolution for us all. Stop supporting the RIAA. Stop buying music! Cheers!

Re:Boycot purchasing music!

[eltonito]

How many times do we need to rehash this? The RIAA does not cover all music, all labels, all artists or all media companies. There are hundreds of thousands of releases on independent labels that have nothing to do with the RIAA. If everyone actually stopped buying all music/artists/labels these independents would suffer far more than the deep pocketed corporate thugs associated with the RIAA.

Don't boycott purchasing music, that is downright stupid. Boycott purchasing RIAA affiliated music and take that money to the Indies. Think of it like cholesterol - you want to lower the artery clogging RIAA while boosting your good Indie count.

In all reality it probably won't work anyway. The RIAA affiliated labels also benefit from music in TV, commercials, games, movies and music in public places. By partaking in any of these, even passively, you will have supported the RIAA in some form or fashion. Good luck with that.

Re:Boycot purchasing music!

[BoberFett]

I haven't bought a CD in years, I will never purchase DRM infested garbage online. I don't go to theaters anymore, and it's been a long time since I bought a DVD. I'm about to cancel my cable TV because, well, TV sucks.

I imagine the media industry includes people like me in the figures about how piracy is affecting business. I have on my To Do list an item about writing to my representatives explaining why I am no longer a media consumer, and copying it to major media companies. Not that I expect it to make a difference, but it's really the only thing I can do.

Try open source music

[I_HATE_THIS]

Simply stop buying any form of music and listen only to radio. Buy CD for classical music only.

HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Don't steal music.

There is no 2! Or 3! 1 Easy step!

Stop stealing music, and the RIAA will have no one to sue. It's that easy.

Unfortunately that's never going to happen in these grand United States, since we've started to devolve into a liberal entitlement society. US citizens believe they're entitled to everything, and nothing (like being unable to afford it) should stand in their way. We have people racking up massive debts to be able to get the latest trinkets with no thought on tomorrow.

People routinely ignore laws in the US. People routinely break the speed limit, ignore traffic signals, and otherwise put their lives and other people's lives in jeopardy solely to decrease their travel time by a few seconds.

If people would stop stealing music, the RIAA wouldn't have to work so hard to defend their music, and less innocent people would get caught in the crossfire.

If you want to stop RIAA lawsuits, you only need to take one easy step: stop stealing music. That's all there is to it.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[b0s0z0ku]

People routinely ignore laws in the US. People routinely break the speed limit, ignore traffic signals, and otherwise put their lives and other people's lives in jeopardy solely to decrease their travel time by a few seconds.

Americans (especially drivers) are almost shockingly law-abiding as compared to other countries, as regards the "minor" laws (not talking about serious crimes here). If the speed limit is 65, they generally drive 75 or 80, not 90 or 100. Mostly they stop at red lights and at least do a "California stop" at stop signs. And they let you in to their lane without too many problems. You want to see "non-law-abiding" traffic? Go to Italy, and Latin American country, or Eastern Europe... I suppose places like Switzerland may be more law-abiding, but those are pretty far between.

-b.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Pojut]

A question:

How am I costing the RIAA money if I never planned to buy a CD anyway? By downloading something I never planned on purchasing, they have lost no money because whether I download the fucking song or not, they are not getting my money.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Jtheletter]

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.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[MooUK]

This is something that's been pointed out many times. It'll never get through to them, of course.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[TheRaven64]

If you wouldn't have bought it anyway, why are you downloading it? Why do you want it at all, if you don't feel it's not worth any money?

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Pojut]

Because I enjoy amassing a large digital archive. I haven't listened to a large portion of the music I have downloaded. Just as I haven't read the majority of the thousands upon thousands of ebooks I have downloaded. Just like I haven't watched all the movies I have downloaded. Etc.

I enjoy having a massive archive. Beyond that, your question is irrelevant at the moment. If I download an album from a torrent, it doesn't directly cost the RIAA, the artist, or the label a single cent because SOMEONE had to buy that original copy to distribute it digitally. If I am not going to PAY for their hard copy (which DOES cost them money to make) and instead opt to obtain a bunch of 0's and 1's (which does NOT cost them any money) they haven't lost anything.

Alternatively, if I do as you say and just say "fuck it" and not download it at all, guess what...THEY STILL DON'T HAVE MY MONEY.

You can't claim to have lost something you never had.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[CellBlock]

The RIAA has the rights to distribution, and they say it's 10 bucks for a CD.

If you obtain the CD, but don't give them the 10 bucks, then they've lost 10 bucks.

It's actually pretty easy to see how it's a lost sale. If you were never going to buy it, why download it? The argument you always hear is "The music sucks blah blah blah." If it sucks so badly (and a lot of it does), then why does everybody desire to possess it so much? It boggles the mind.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Jacer]

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.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Pojut]

read above your post for my reasons.

I realize I am the minority in this, but there are albums/movies/games/etc. that I REFUSE to download simply because I want to show my support for that particular artist/movie/whatever...often times, however, downloading from a torrent is the only way that I have been able to find a CD.

Moreover, when you walk into a Best Buy, and you see a Toby Keith CD on the shelf, guess what? THE RECORD COMPANY GOT THEIR FUCKING MONEY. It's the STORE that get's screwed, not the record company. They were already payed.

Beyond that, explain to me how it DIRECTLY COSTS those companies for me to download something that is COMPLETELY independent from them.

They got paid for the original hard copy that was put on the internet. Someone copied those 0's and 1's. I then read those 0's and 1's, and copied them as well. In this entire process, am I taking something tangible from the record label? Am I charging them my electric bill? My hardware usage? My time?

No. It costs them nothing. The INSTANT a CD is on a shelf in a store, they have already been payed. Why?

Because the store has to BUY the shit, that's why.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Fordiman]

"People routinely ignore laws in the US."

OH NOES! IT'S a WORLdwIDe ProBleM!

Yeah. They do everywhere else too. The idea that the US is the only country in the world with scofflaws is... hilarious.

Almost everyone, whether they realize it or not, apply rational anarchy - the concept that breaking a law is OK if it's more convenient to do so and hurts no one - to their daily lives.

I'm sure the response is something like 'pirating music hurts the artists!'. You're not exactly correct. It hurts independent artists that are pirated. Labeled artists are nicely shielded, in that the larger amount of their income comes from concerts and shows. When it comes to recorded music, the labels hurt the artists, and they do so legally, with the excuse that marketing is *hard*. Never mind the excess to which the marketing is done; the Recording Industry has so many useless mouths to feed.

So, by and large, 'pirating music hurts the record industry' - except not even that's exactly true. Generally, piracy has increased music sales since the advent of peer to peer. Why? Cover art and literature. Extras. Stuff you can't fit into an audio file. Sure, there's scans floating around, but they're almost always of questionable quality and there's no standard for organization and formatting. It's the value-added stuff that keeps fans buying. And it's likely that most people wouldn't have bought the CD anyways. You develop a much larger collection of 'what the hell is this?' music when you're not paying for it.

So, 'pirating music hurts... ' what? Not society; the result of infinitely copyable music is that anyone who wants music has it, and the value of it. Since the harm to the music industry is largely fabricated, the costs are low. Meanwhile, most listeners to independent music are conscientious about what they buy v. what they copy - so the harm to them is relatively low. Mathematically, the social cost-benefit analysis is very highly weighted on the 'benefit' side.

How about the economy? That's hurt, right? I would doubt it. With very little harm in the two major industry domains (label and independent), the economic impact is scarce. Remember, filesharing has done little to affect buying habits; fans still purchase their fandom, and non-fans still don't buy CDs. On the other hand, filesharing has had a radio effect: people who weren't buying CDs before have become fans, and are now buying.

So why is the Industry going buck-nutty? Simple. They're led by old-school (ie: Machiavellian) businessmen. They see piracy - whether a sale was going to be made or not - as lost sales. It's part of the mindset, you see. 'They have the essence of my product and have not paid me for it, therefore they are in the wrong.' These people don't seem to understand that their sales of CDs, T-Shirts, concert tickets, posters, music video DVDs and other non- or poorly-reproducable goods benefit from the wide and free distribution of the non-value-added content (ie: sound only). It's not greed, mind you, or at least not greed that's out of line. It's a self-interest that is unfortunately reasonable in context of an older, less technology-aware business model.

So, when will things change? Well, taking 1998 as the advent of P2P, and assuming those entering college at that point will be the first business people to be, en masse, sympathetic to filesharing, and assuming that, being an old-school group of companies, the youngest executive leaders they will allow in the company would be 30, we can expect the RIAA to stop making asses out of themselves between 2010 and 2020.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Pojut]

Read every one of my comments. Have I ever even *HINTED* that I thought that what I am doing is NOT illegal?

I know damn well what I am doing, just as you do. I also know that if certain video games (read: Galactic Civilization II) and bands/albums (Read: SoaD: Steal This Album) are WIDE open for being stolen (shipping with no anti-piracy security, being distributed freely online by the band) are able to make it, why can't they all?

Galactic Civ II sold an unbelievable number of copies, despite it having ZERO anti-piracy measures. Ditto for Oblivion for PC. These are big-name games, and yet they did GREAT in retail. Now go on the forums and look at how many people cited one of the reasons they actually bought it was because there was indeed no anti-piracy stuff on there.

I know what I do is illegal. I know that. I am well aware and openly admit that. I also know that if I were truly a musician and cared about the masses hearing what I have to say, I wouldn't give a fuck if they stole my albums. Take them all. I'll put them on my website, I don't care. Why?

Because as a musician, your goal should be to get as many pairs of ears as possible paying attention to you, not to get as many dollars as you can.

Many bands have lost sight of that. And yet, there are thousands of bands that still follow that same philosophy:
"This is what I have to say. Do whatever you fucking have to in order to hear it."

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[orgelspieler]

And they let you in to their lane without too many problems.

You're obviously not from Houston.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Don853]

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

Moreover, when you walk into a Best Buy, and you see a Toby Keith CD on the shelf, guess what? THE RECORD COMPANY GOT THEIR FUCKING MONEY. It's the STORE that get's screwed, not the record company. They were already payed.

Ok, this is obviously bullshit. If the store sells more, they'll order more from the producer.

I realize I am the minority in this, but there are albums/movies/games/etc. that I REFUSE to download simply because I want to show my support for that particular artist/movie/whatever...often times, however, downloading from a torrent is the only way that I have been able to find a CD.

Almost everything is for sale on the internet somewhere. I suspect this is a another bullshit argument to justify the fact that you're too lazy to look and too cheap to buy it. I also suspect that your moral stand against downloading things from certain artists is stronger on Slashdot than in real life, especially given the tone of the rest of your posts.

The rest of your argument boils down to "I want things for free!!!". Well, tough shit. Why should you get other people's work for free?

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Pojut]

Don't be so quick to judge.

I own well over 600 retail bought DVD's, as well as well over 400 retail bought CD's. Now, I'm not saying this so I can use the stupid "they ahve enough of my money" bullshit argument. I'm saying it so you can see how assuming things such as I don't want to spend the money and am too cheap to do it are complete crap.

I buy at LEAST one if not two DVD's a week, and at LEAST one CD a week. Does that mean the others that I download are suddenly ok? No. Like I said, I am fully aware what I do is illegal.

HOWEVER. The accusation that I do these things because I am "too cheap to pay" is entirely wrong.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[discordiaaaaaaaa]

1. Don't steal music.

There is no 2! Or 3! 1 Easy step!

Stop stealing music, and the RIAA will have no one to sue. It's that easy.

Excellent plan. I guess solves the problem of all those elderly and disabled folks who've never so much as touched a computer in their life, much less own one, yet still they get treated like thieves and have their reputations dragged through the mud, under the guise of allegedly "stealing" music.

The RIAA is abusing every branch of government they can get their greedy little hands on and they need to be stopped.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[budgenator]

it's called Opportunity cost, to their point of view, they have not only lost income from the music not purchased, but the time you spend listening to the un-purchased music is time you might have spent listening to purchased music!

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Pojut]

See, that is where things get completely stupid (not saying YOU are stupid, just saying what you are DESCRIBING is stupid)

That's the equivelent of them saying "well, we have lost revenue because you are listening to a band on that OTHER record label"

Guess what, whether I listen to a CD that I bought once or five hundred times, you make the same amount of money off me.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Spock the Baptist]

Well, since you've knocked on my door...

The intersection (pun intended) of traffic engineering, traffic law, and public perception is a pet interest of mine.

What the vast majority of the public does not understand is that speed limits in the U.S. are based on something know as the 85th percentile speed.

I reference the following sources:

Establishing Realistic Speed Limits Published by The Office of Highway Safety Planning State of Michigan.

http://www.topslab.wisc.edu/workgroups/tsewg/Estab lishing_Realistic_Speedlimits.pdf

What You Should Know About: How Speed Limits Are Set Published by The City of Lewisville, Texas
http://www.cityoflewisville.com/comdev/brochur3.pd f

Speed Limit Brochure
  AND
Procedures For Establishing Speed Zones
Both Published by The Texas Department of Transportation
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pio/casbr ochures/pub_limits.pdf

The point of relevance here is that speed limits are based on the speed at which the majority of drivers feel comfortable driving at. By majority we're talking 85% of the drivers. This is law that is based on the behavior of the majority of drivers. What study after study has shown is that it is the speed differential between vehicles that causes an increases in traffic accidents, and not 'high' speed. The net effect is that lowering speed limits actually caused more accidents rather than reducing the number of accidents.

For many folks this is counter-intuitive and gives them a bad case of dyspepsia. The fact that many folk find it hard to grasp that 'common sense' is often just DEAD DOG WRONG has lead me to formulate the following maximum:

"Just because something isn't 'logical' doesn't mean it's not true."

Which I must admit is sort of my version of my all time favorite line from the orginal STAR TREK seires.

Stonn she is yours. After a time you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting.
It is not logical--but it is often true.--Spock, Amok Time

STB

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Scarletdown]

How am I costing the RIAA money if I never planned to buy a CD anyway? By downloading something I never planned on purchasing, they have lost no money because whether I download the fucking song or not, they are not getting my money.

And likewise, how can it be stealing if I have already paid for the music? (looks over the large collection of vinyl, 8-tracks, and cassettes built up over the past decades)...

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[9Nails]

Hold on a second... If you download an album from .torrent, you do cost the RIAA their share of that album (or song). The RIAA expects consumers to consume. Whether you listen to the album or delete it from your hard drive, they account the download as a lost sale. But more importantly, the RIAA expects that you do not share your albums with anyone and further perpetuate lost sales. That's the 0 and 1 about it. If you don't want to give them money, don't listen to their music. Period.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Pojut]

Hold on a second...last time I checked, the RIAA didn't produce music, musicians did.

I have never once wanted to listen to a song from the RIAA. I have wanted to listen to a song by a musician. When I buy an album, it pisses me off in a way that human vocabulary prevents me from describing that part of that money pays for companies like the RIAA.

If I had my way (which I know is a pipe dream, no need to comment on that) The RIAA wouldn't even exist. Why do I think that? Because I want to support an ARTIST, not a COMPANY. Quite honestly, I do my best to steer clear of any artist or group that is on the RIAA's side...what cattle. Do they not realize that the portions of album sales going to that farce of an organization could have instead gone to them?

Musicians are supposed to care about music. You want to care about money? Fine. Don't have a double standard though. Don't just be pissed at the guy not paying for you music, be pissed at the guy DIRECTLY taking a slice out of your pie.

I have NEVER, not ONCE, bought an album and felt all warm and fuzzy because I was supporting the RIAA. Because I don't support them.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>how long is it going to be before it becomes to not be profitable to make music?

It's already unprofitable to *make* music, and pirates aren't the problem. Look at the terms of a normal record label contract. The label gets to write checks to themselves against your hypothetical royalties for any "service" they choose to provide at whatever price pleases them. The money is in *distributing* music, and will be until the economics of moving bits around finally destroy the business of moving plastic discs around.

It's already unprofitable to make music, and that's never stopped a musician. It might stop opportunists and scam artists. List the great music of history, list the music written for a profit motive, and meditate upon the intersection of the two sets.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[b0s0z0ku]

What the vast majority of the public does not understand is that speed limits in the U.S. are based on something know as the 85th percentile speed.

Maybe in Texas (80mph speed limits - yay!). Here in NJ, the speed limit is set to 65 mph by legislative fiat. Speeds are generally 75-80 - you see hardly anyone going under 65. 70/75 would be a more realistic limit for non-urban highways by that metric. Maybe also use variable limit signs and lower the limit in case of congestion or foul weather.

-b.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> If the store sells more, they'll order more from the producer

The point is that the production run is done already. The industry hates to make more than two or three production runs of anything. That "triple platinum" record on the wall isn't copies sold off of store shelves. It's copies sold out of the production warehouse to the distributor warehouse.

The parent was correct. The producing corporation isn't the one losing. The people losing are the warehouses that still have tens of thousands of NKOTB and Backstreet Boys albums in stock that nobody will ever want to buy. The artists made their money, the production company made its money, the promoter made its money and the retail outlet, as long as they sold their stock, made their money.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[slimjim8094]

Bullshit. The RIAA sees a IP address infringing.

Now, let's say I have an open wi-fi network. Or, somebody hacks the password (it's WEP). They're on my IP address, right?

So, if they steal music, am I stealing music? From behind a NAT, how can they tell? And that is one major flaw in their argument.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Achromatic1978]

I guess solves the problem of all those elderly and disabled folks who've never so much as touched a computer in their life, much less own one

Except it rarely is that simple. That's the nice sensationalist newsgrab. What we usually read then was "bought a computer for her granddaughter to use when she came to stay, and signed up with an ISP so the granddaughter can have internet access" (gosh, they assumed the subscriber to the service might have been the one using it, how quaint), or similar.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[TCM]

how long is it going to be before it becomes to not be profitable to make music?

I hope not long. This will weed out all the one-hit wonders and "popstar" puppets and leave only those musicians who make music for the sake of making music instead of making money.

The best music is made with passion not greed.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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? ....This is totally off topic, because the RIAA doesn't know of anybody making free copies of anything when it sues them.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[B.D.Mills]

What study after study has shown is that it is the speed differential between vehicles that causes an increases in traffic accidents, and not 'high' speed.

If only someone will tell this to those citizens that insist on driving really slowly in traffic. It's not always the fast cars that cause accidents.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[budgenator]

No they are marketers primarily, I once read a book "If you want to catch mice, make a sound like cheese", a main point in the book is a customer who purchased something recently is more likely to make a near future purchase, so they honestly believe if you buy a sony labeled artist, you'll buy another sony labeled artist, which also means if you download a sony artist from a pirate, that's what you'll be most likely to do again and you'll also corrupt other purchaser along the way! If you really want to put the screws to 'em, throw a killer party, and put a sign over the sound system " all music played is released under the creative commons license and is free" and play good music.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Jacer]

Sorry, I don't often get around to checking slashdot and just now received your reply. You're taking it a bit out of context. While I agree music should be made for the artist's intrinsic desire to make music, and not profit, that if this snowballs fully, there will be a lot of artists, real, true musicians who can't make ends meet and will have to choose between a pipe dream and feeding their family. The stories of the underdog making it big are very heartwarming, but they're few and far between.

Am I missing something?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

The guy was illegally downloading music, dodging legitimate subpoenas, having people lie about his whereabouts to avoid legitimate subpoenas, having people *impersonate his dead father* to help him dodge legitimate subpoenas, and then after finally being served he tampers with evidence?

Say what you will about our thieving jackbooted fascist powertripping RIAA overlords, I'm having a hard time mustering up much sympathy for this guy. I disagree with much (if not all) of the **AA's tactics, but I'm just as rapidly running out of compassion for people who don't have the nerve to man up and just *do without* all their downloaded music and movies. At least the stoners have the nerve to stand right in front of the cops in a crowd of thousands and say "go ahead, arrest us all." I've yet to see a single person say "yes, I'm illegally filesharing and I'm willing to take the legal consequences as a symbol protest." Instead all I hear is "b-b-but it's not stealing, it's sharing! Everybody does it! Your business model is outdated and you're *mean*! Lower your prices! Britney sucks!"

Re:Am I missing something?

[theKiyote]

I've yet to see a single person say "yes, I'm illegally filesharing and I'm willing to take the legal consequences as a symbol protest."

Yes, I'm illegally filesharing, but I'm not willing to take the legal consequences. I'm really hopping to avoid those ^_^

Re:Am I missing something?

[gad_zuki!]

I think the submitter "http://info.riaalawsuits.us/" is really just waiting to get that big class action against the RIAA and carefully crafts an image that techies can sympathize with, cuts out 'extraneous details' like the ones you mention, and waits for the big payola.

Too much self-promotion here and casual tossing of the facts for my taste.

Re:Am I missing something?

[jb.hl.com]

I've yet to see a single person say "yes, I'm illegally filesharing and I'm willing to take the legal consequences as a symbol protest." Instead all I hear is "b-b-but it's not stealing, it's sharing! Everybody does it! Your business model is outdated and you're *mean*! Lower your prices! Britney sucks!"

That's because what you have in the latter case is someone driven more by not wanting to pay a reasonable, or indeed any, price for something than any kind of overriding moral commitment. They tend to be the ones who have 200GB of MP3s off BitTorrent and no intention of paying for any of it whatsoever (as opposed to the "try before you buy" type people, who I have infinitely more time for, and may just have more of a point.) They wouldn't want to take a stand, because they're not in it to make a stand. "It's not stealing"/"Everybody does it"/"Outdated business model"/"High prices"/"Shit music" is just a convenient justification (esp. the last one...the RIAA's music is so shit...except for the stuff you've downloaded. Right.)

Re:Am I missing something?

[Scudsucker]

They tend to be the ones who have 200GB of MP3s off BitTorrent and no intention of paying for any of it whatsoever (as opposed to the "try before you buy" type people, who I have infinitely more time for, and may just have more of a point.)

And how many of those 200GB collectors pay for even 1% of the stuff they own? These guys are likely to have maxed out consumer debt already and couldn't pay for the stuff if they wanted to.

"It's not stealing"/"Everybody does it"/"Outdated business model"/"High prices"/"Shit music" is just a convenient justification

To which I would add "doesn't make any difference to the record labels because the person couldn't buy the music if they wanted to." Downloading stuff off P2P isn't about getting it for free, it's about convenience. And it's more convenient to download the stuff you want now when you're 20 than wait until you're 50 and have enough money.

Re:Am I missing something?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> How do you know he put up people to mistate his whereabouts

It's one of the accusations listed in the very last PDF file linked in the story.

> Have you ever been served? Do you know the process?

Never been served, but I took a couple of law classes and I've seen it on tv a lot. Doesn't make me a lawyer, but I think I understand the process fairly well. (said 50% tongue in cheek)

> it would be natural for people not to reveal true identities to a stranger knocking on the door.

True, but this is a guy involved in a lawsuit and the pdf file I mentioned makes it pretty clear that the guy knew what was going on. Admittedly the pdf is from the opposing side, but you can only fudge the facts so much in a legal document. Unless they're flat-out distorting the facts (who? Lawyers? Never...) the guy doesn't seem to be acting like someone innocent, but someone who's trying to hide. He was served on multiple occasions and was mysteriously *never* at his primary residence (according to his dead father and brother who he hasn't seen in a year.) Despite the "ZOMG TEH RIAA HARASSES MAN AT WORK!1" tone of the story, the call at work was more along the lines of "Hi, we've been trying to serve an employee of yours for a month. Are there legal papers on his desk?"

> How do you know he tampered with evidence? And by the way, what evidence?

Again from the pdf. They subpoenaed (confiscated? shangaied?) his hard drive and the one he handed over, again, according to the prosecuting side, couldn't possibly have been the one that they requested. I don't know if that's "tampering with evidence" as it's defined in the law, but it certainly seems shady.

I still haven't read all the documentation concerning the case (there are a zillion links for this one case along) and I was incorrect about Raymond being the primary defendant in the case, but when the RIAA files suit against you and the very first thing you do is reinstall your OS and wipe the drive... well, let's just say that it seems a little suspicious.

Re:Am I missing something?

[thomasdn]

At least the stoners have the nerve to stand right in front of the cops in a crowd of thousands and say "go ahead, arrest us all." I've yet to see a single person say "yes, I'm illegally filesharing and I'm willing to take the legal consequences as a symbol protest." Instead all I hear is "b-b-but it's not stealing, it's sharing! Everybody does it! Your business model is outdated and you're *mean*! Lower your prices! Britney sucks!"

Maybe that is because if you are a stoner and you get arrested nothing is probably going to happen to you anyway. Maybe you are brought to the station and held there for a couple of hours but then they will probably let you go. If you make a protest like the one you suggest to the *AA's they'll sue you for all your money. They will not let you go after a few hours.

Also I think it is a lot easier to get people to protest if a bunch of people are together. Maybe it also helps to be stoned? :)

Re:Am I missing something?

[RexRhino]

Except that with the RIAA's tactics, people who don't download any music illegally are being sued along with people who do. A good third of the people sued by the RIAA most likely never shared music and are only guilty of having their windows machine compromised or of having not secured their wireless network. A sizeable chunk of the people being sued by the RIAA don't own computers or have internet connections.

Given the RIAAs tactics in indiscriminatly sueing those who they know are innocent, one can only assume that this guy is innocent. The RIAA are trying to devistate innocent people financially, in a way that is a complete abuse of the legal system if it isn't outright illegal, so any and all tactics in escaping their attacks are legit. The way I see it, the people running these legal attacks should be in prison, not being allowed to continuing harming innocent people.

Re:Am I missing something?

[elpapacito]

I'm just as rapidly running out of compassion for people who don't have the nerve to man up

Man up ? So why don't you throw yourself against the evil RIAA empire, narq yourself and stand up for the cause ! Because your putting yourself on the frontline will serve something else than getting you shoot ?

Re:Go RIAA!

[ZachPruckowski]

I can't wait for them to sue a deaf guy.

And?

[drsquare]

You have a multi-billion dollar cartel suing unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids

This may sound harsh, but how does being any of these things affect whether you should be allowed to infringe copyright? Argue against the copyright system all you want, but don't play the 'little old granny' card: being disabled, single or unemployed doesn't give you a right to piracy.

Re:And?

[Ruzty]

They are suing people who are NOT GUILTY of what they are charging them with. The defendants being in these groups indicates they are unable to afford proper legal counsel and are forced to settle with the RIAA for thousands of dollars for doing absolutely nothing wrong. They choose to settle because a defense lawyer costs even more and a judgement against them would be even more. It's a form of extortion utilizing the legal system as its muscle.

Re:And?

[*s.panzer*]

They're not saying that its right to infringe copyrights. They're saying that its wrong to ruin peoples lives because of it.

Re:And?

[shark72]

"While these are civil cases, most reasonable people probably feel that saying some grandma with 2 pirated albums has cost some asshole at BMG $300,000 worth of damage is not right. If she has benefited at anyone's expense, it's not any more than the $20 total value those pirated Tom Jones albums."

Can you clarify? I am of the understanding that the intent is to go after the "whales" who typically have at least 1,000 songs in their share directory. There's clear evidence that due to technical errors or just plain shoddy investigative work, some of the defendants are named by mistake (Mr. Beckerman says 50%), but I don't believe that the record companies are deliberately going after people with just 20 songs in their share directory. I believe the threshold is much, much higher than that.

At any rate, the RIAA has been going after the statutory $750 per work, so a suit for 20 songs would be more on the order of $20K, not $300K.

Re:Legal?

[nurb432]

Sure it might be illegal, but if you cant afford to fight, you dont get your rights.

Alternative RIAA scheme

[brenbart]

You know, people probably wouldn't hate the RIAA so much if they changed their tactics from the "Trying to make a point/set legal precedent" to one of "trying to get the recording industries fair share"

Wander with me a moment if you will...

DRM - Change the DRM so that instead of trying to block copying of media it's more of a tattletale. Periodically it informs the RIAA what songs you have, when you copy them, whatever. I don't have this completely fleshed out but it would probably entail some sort of RIAA song registry.

Then the RIAA takes the same vague sources of data that they have now and instead of suing someone they send them a bill for a set reasonable fee for each song plus a 50% "You were being bad" fine. The consumer has several options upon receipt:

1. Pay the bill - Somehow a system of what music you have would have to be registered somewhere.

2. Refute the bill - Set up an arbitration process that doesn't actually involve a court. Some third party looks at the evidence and makes a binding decision. This process would have to have some mandatory fee to prevent everyone from clogging the system. Fee to be paid by the loser! So if you do have "stolen" music and you lose, you'd pay the cost+fine+arbitration fee. Ouch! But in the case of all these other people now being sued it'd be a lot cheaper. Ooo, and if they got their greasy hands on evidence that you tried to screw with the tattletale DRM then there would be an additional fine.

3. Ignore the bill - After a certain length of time the RIAA would have the option of pursuing it like any other debt. Black marks on your credit rating, "selling" the debt to third-party debt collection agencies etc. Or if it's some massive amount of songs/money then they could sue you in the appropriate civil court.

The end result of this? A new source of income for the recording industry. Potentially it could change the primary distribution model to one of mainly media downloads. (Why leave out the MPAA?)

For music the DRM could allow you to play the song a set number of times before you have to pay or delete it. I doubt the movie industry would go for that. Maybe a set number of minutes into the movie like hotel room pay-per-view used to be? "Warning! If you continue to view this movie you will be required to pay $XX.XX or you can stop now."

Re:Alternative RIAA scheme

[PygmySurfer]

I've a much better and simpler solution - the artists simply need to wake up and leave the RIAA. The artists would actually see the money they've earned, and fans would be more likely to purchase their music. Let the RIAA member labels wither and die, independent labels that actually care about the artists can take their place.

Usenet downloading

[drewzhrodague]

Psst... Usenet. Whoops, I've said too much.

Of course there's usenet. That's where I get my porn =_) Seriously, though, there's the issue of content. I sure like to listen to specific bands I like, and some old freaky psychedelic goodies that I like. I do have some old CDs that I've *bought*. More often than not, though, it is so much easier to scan through my favorite Internet radiostations (MythTV friggin' *rocks*).

Usenet will always be there, but there are a shortage of good free usenet servers that carry the binaries. That, and the extra tools needed to decode RAR, PAR, and all that -- I wanna listen to tunes now, not screw with writing scripts and tool figureoutage. The Internet gratifies me instantly, for free, and without the terror brought on by these silly lawsuits.

Re:Go RIAA!

[aevan]

They could always claim he ran it through some visualisation program (like the winamp one) and used mp3s to fuel the patterns, or played it for his plants.

good idea, but just to be safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I'd suggest not sending anything that can be tracked back to you. Small bills in an opaque envelope with no return address, printed with the cheapest trash inkjet printer you can find, should be pretty safe.

Ban trade association enforcement

[HangingChad]

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.

Re:Ban trade association enforcement

[Sloppy]

The simple solution would be to ban trade association enforcement.

I think that is a horrible idea. I should be able to designate anyone to act as my agent in any of my activities.

But I should not be able to use that power to avoid responsibility. It would be totally fair to demand that, in all legal proceedings, press releases, etc, it be very clearly disclosed who is being represented. If RIAA does slimy things on Sony's behalf, Sony's name should be dragged through the mud. But do not outlaw voluntary collectivism, middlemen, etc.

Re:Ban trade association enforcement

[LividBlivet]

Better yet ban corporate campaign contributions. Only people who can vote can contribute. Opensecrets.org would dry up but so would the best gov't money can buy.

alternatives ?

[jovius]

Will these lawsuits ever cease ? There may be a few people who have stopped sharing because of RIAA's campaign, but I guess most have done it because of legal and affordable alternatives. It's sad how the industry can't admit being slow in reacting to on-line music, and now blames the consumers. CD has been the format for music about 20 years, and it's getting impractical as a medium nowadays. Meanwhile, P2P usage has been steadily growing..

I wonder if a system could be established, where all the songs and films had a unique watermark data in them, which is then read by the software and the hardware, and the creators would be compensated for any use of any portion of the products by a third party, who would keep track of the usage ? The more you share or listen, the more the creators would be compensated. You could sample or remix freely, and the original watermarks would still be retained along with your own. This sort of system is quite utopistic, and the source of the funds is a bit of a mystery, but the culture would flourish and the people would get rid of these stupid lawsuits.

Stop sharing music illegally

[KalvinB]

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.

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

All of which would be a reasonable argument, if the RIAA were only going after people who were genuinely breaking the law. But, as NYCL and others have pointed out on several occasions, they're not.

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[gEvil (beta)]

easy to say if you make a decent living, try makin 20gs a year and budget out money for cds and movies its fucking impossible

If you can barely deal with buying food and keeping shelter, maybe, just maybe, music and movies shouldn't be at the top of your priority list.

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[gravyface]

And of course there's no copyright infringement on any of those musak'ed ringtones you're peddling in your sig?

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[Garse Janacek]

Ah! If I'm innocent, I have nothing to hide! Thank you for clarifying.

Now what about the fact that they keep suing people who don't know how to use computers?

Or the fact that, even when they do sue someone who is guilty, 1. the damages they request are grossly disproportionate to the offense, and 2. the people being targetted can't afford the legal firepower needed to deal with point 1?

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[bhalter80]

See if they could actually catch me red handed that would be one thing but finding the IP and then weeks later coming and knocking on my door doesn't make me guilty. Any of my 5 roomates can use the internet access and while Comcast gets common carrier status for some reason that's unavailable to me as a private citizen. Unless I can offer up a better suspect I am the one who has to go to court and even then I have to go to court and produce lots of evidence of who it actually was to get the suit against me dropped. If someone was paintballing people on the sidewalk from my house the cops would come and investigate and the person who had most recently handled the paintball gun would likely be halled off to jail not the person who happened to have the misfortune of having their name printed on the deed. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[First Person]

I think you mean stop sharing music through open P2P networks. There are other alternatives that are arguably much more effective and dangerous:

I could, for instance, give you a set of hard drives containing my entire music and video library. You would be able to watch or listen to whatever you wanted before returning the drives. Within the spirit of copyright laws, I would be unable to access the originals or any backups until the drives were returned. If you were to copy the contents, you would be breaking the law but your actions would not be visible to the **AA even though terabytes were transferred.

Alternatively and so far as I know untested legally, I could create a program that allows you to 'borrow' a recording from my library which is streamed to a destination of your choosing. Within the spirit of copyright laws, I would be unable to access the originals or any backups until the lease were over. If you were to copy that stream, you would be breaking the law just as if you'd copied a borrowed physical CD. I could open such a site to the general public if I wanted. If a network of such servers existed, one could listen to virtually any music at any point.

Food for thought.

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[LividBlivet]

just a reminder ..... nothing was "taken".

The copyright holder's exclusive right to make copies was infringed upon.

And when copyright holders engage in price fixing and STEALING from the public domain by purchasing laws (DMCA, copyright extension ad infinitum) that defy, ignore and subvert the intent of the copyright clause in the Constitution then perhaps they deserve to have their rights defied, ignored and subverted.

Copyright is a bargain between the creator and the public and the middlemen (publishers/distributors) have broken that bargain to their advantage and everyone elses loss.

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[daft_one]

You're right of course; booze should be right at the top!

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[permawired]

Well the issue here IS how extreme they are. What they are doing is akin to someone's house being broken into and the closest person that matches the description being brought into court to defend themselves. This is not how the system is meant to work. The problem is not the fact that they are unjustly hunting down pirates... it's the fact that they are behaving more like a lynch mob on a witch hunt.

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[psychrono]

There's nothing nobel about taking things you have no right to have.Robin Hood would disagree with you :)

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[RexRhino]

Well, here is the thing. Give me your static IP address. I can (with your explicit permission, of course) try to make it look like you are file sharing to the RIAA. If you get sued, then you will understand that many of the people currently being sued are innocent. If you don't get sued, then I will stand corrected that the RIAA are only going after true file sharers. Sound fair?

But if you are not willing to give me your IP address and permission to try to make it look like you are file sharing, then shut up. If you are scared that I might make you look guilty of file sharing, then obviously you know that many of the people being sued can also have been misidentified the same way. If the RIAA don't sue innocent people, then you should have nothing to worry about, correct?

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Unfortunately, none of your assumptions are accurate. The majority of people being sued haven't 'broken any law'.

Shenannigans!

[TheCabal]

Read what is going on before commenting blindly. I'm probably one of the last to defend *AA but everyone is screaming bloody murder without reading the documentation.

His employer was called because:
1) Son is actively trying to avoid being served with legal documents. RIAA attempts to serve him at his place of business (standard practice)
2) Employer got himself involved in the case. Specifically, he left instructions on how to handle the legal paperwork trying to be served, plus went into discussions on obtaining a court order to protect his company's documents.

Re:Shenannigans!

[micromuncher]

Yep yep, the latter footnote claims they tried to serve him several times at home, and each time he claimed to be someone else (including his dead father.)

The best way to avoid being served is to have a ferocious pitbull with you at all times.

Re:Go RIAA!

[norminator]

I'm pretty sure the dead guy mentioned just above qualifies as deaf, too... since you can't hear when you're dead.

Where's mainstream media?

[HockeyPuck]

How come we never see these stories on the ABC/NBC/CBS nightly news? Surely Brian Williams could do a segment about the "Fleecing of America".

Re:Where's mainstream media?

[Builder]

Because this story as presented here is wildly biased and the summary has omitted some very important details. The full story with all of the facts properly researched and fairly presented just wouldn't be a high-impact report.

Booohoooohooooo!

[xTMFWahoo]

Why do we all ignore the fact that downloading copy write material, without paying for it, is just illeagal???

I agree that the RIAA is and has gone to far in prosecuting people, but they are only trying to protect their investments. Everyone is missing the point that people are still breaking the law, even if it's not as serious as stealing a car...

Re:Booohoooohooooo!

[intheshelter]

I think you might be missing the point as well. The RIAA sues anybody and everybody it can. Not in the hope of a judgement, but rather a settlement. Why? Because a judgement could very well go against them and set a precedent that harms their goals. There are plenty of examples of the RIAA getting it wrong and suing people who obviously did NOT steal music, and yet those people are pretty much forced to pay the RIAA tax because mounting a legal defense, even if winnable, would financially ruin them. Paying the settlement becomes the lesser of two evils.

I won't argue that stealing is definitely wrong, but the RIAA's poor methods of detection coupled with their heavy handed tactics make me root for the little guy. If the RIAA suddenly grew up and grew a conscience then I'd think of swinging their way, but the laws they are supposedly enforcing are the same laws they bought with corrupt political bribery. If I was rich enough I could probably buy the laws I wanted too. Maybe one that said you have to work 3 jobs and give me all your money. It would be a law. . . but it would be wrong.

The Writs Must Roll!

[geoff lane]

Always remember as far as a lawyer is concerned, if it's not illegal it's a legitimate business process.

This is just flamebait

[ShawnMcCool42]

But yea, you are missing something. The more the RIAA is coerced into taking these asinine actions the more press can be used as a tool against them. This is bigger than tampering with evidence and corpse impersonations. We need to set a precedent that consumers are the ones with the power. When consumers pay for a product, it becomes theirs. Have some common sense. Fight these people in every way, pirate all their material. Someone will come out with a business model that respects consumers, and when they do BUY into it. Until then, screw these old ass disconnected men and their concept of product leasing. If you want to pay into their racket and rent from them the right to listen to their music for only as long as your CD lasts then you're a sucker.

Re:Go RIAA!

[ZachPruckowski]

As I understand it, the dead guy was alive when they claim he pirated the songs.

What's really interesting

[arrgster]

Is that we never see any of this in the main stream news...

And?

[palladiate]

Does it make them culpable for millions of dollars in IP damages? In this country we enshrined the notion of no cruel or unusual punishment. While these are civil cases, most reasonable people probably feel that saying some grandma with 2 pirated albums has cost some asshole at BMG $300,000 worth of damage is not right. If she has benefited at anyone's expense, it's not any more than the $20 total value those pirated Tom Jones albums. I tell you what, we'll stop playing the granny card when you stop playing the moral equivalence card.

Re:Nobody likes a bully

[PygmySurfer]

Actually, I think the RIAA and MPAA are largely ignored outside the United States.

Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading

[wombat13]

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.

Re:Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading

[prshaw]

>> Article shows just how screwed a Band will Get for Signing a contract

I think if anyone signs a bad contract they can get screwed. That is why you are supposed to read them and agree to them before you sign.

This is a if you don't like the terms don't sign the contract.

Re:Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading

[rentmej]

"What they are really afraid of is Musicians bypassing the record companies entirely and selling their music directly to consumers online."

This is what really scares the RIAA, not having control over the medium. The worst thing that can happen to the major record labels is for artist to find another means of distributing their music. Years ago record labels made sense if you wanted thousands of people to buy your record, the up-front cost of recording and then distributing your music was just too prohibitively expensive for any band to do alone. But who needs them when any band can now record their music to their computer, edit it, and then burn a hundred copies?

Back in the sixties and seventies we saw a huge amount of music that dealt with social issues. There wasn't this idea of becoming rich, just insanely popular, but with the advent of the multi-million dollar record label and then we see the amount of control those labels are able to exert over what is broadcast. In a way begin to control the masses themselves, what's "in" and what isn't.

When the major labels control who is making music, they are able to create all of the "one-hit-wonders" we've seen over the years. They are completely in control of the old distribution models (Record Stores, Radio, etc) but when you have bands that are able to create a huge buzz on MySpace and then give them a cheap alternative to be able to distribute that music, they loose control.

Remember, that's all it is really about; They fear loosing that control and no longer having that monopoly that they enjoyed for so long.

Re:Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading

[brouski]

I'll take your word that you're a musician, but your credibility is taking a hit with your revisionist telling of MP3.com's closing.

It's...how shall I say this...completely wrong.

Re:Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading

[sog_abq]

While they may be afraid of this, what does that have to do with suing p2p file sharers?

Re:Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading

[o'reor]

Please read the article. The problem is not with the contract in itself, but with the "letter of intent" that majors have the artists sign. Basically that "letter of intent" is a promise made by the artists that they will engage a contract with the major. The trouble is... you can't cancel that letter of intent (and this is usually not specified anywhere on the letter -- so unless you are experienced with such legal traps, you have no idea what you are really getting into).

You can't withdraw from your engagement ! So when presented with a contract, however bad its terms, you have to sign it, and forget about calling it off : the letter of intent has locked you into the process.

Re:Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading

[wombat13]

Well the reason they gave was the My MP3.COM service which was reading from Wickapedia "On January 12, 2000, MP3.com launched the "My.MP3.com" service which enabled users to securely register their personal CDs and then stream digital copies online from the My.MP3.com service. Since consumers could only listen online to music they already proved they owned the company saw this as a great opportunity for revenue by allowing fans to access their own music online. The record industry did not see it that way and sued MP3.com claiming that the service constituted unauthorized duplication and promoted copyright infringement." But also taken from Wickapedia "it is better known for its original incarnation, as a legal, free music-sharing service, popular with independent musicians for promoting their work." Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com Sorry you doubt my credibility, but my Band sold a lot of Cd's and downloads of individual tracks on MP3.COM and it really help promote our Music. Overall Between this and other websites plus our Own Website we sold over 45,000 Cd's in 2000-2001. The cost us $1.68 do have Mass produced and we sold them for $8.00 US plus shipping. I doubt any band starting out would have that kind of profit from signing with a label.

Re:Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading

[brouski]

That's great. I wish your earlier post had explained that MP3.com was not attacked because it was a repository of indie music.

Passionate appeals for the short-attention-spanned

[mi]

[...] suing unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids, all kinds of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations

So, the unemployed and the "home healthcare aids" are allowed to infringe on copyright? How about crossing the street on red signal? Perhaps, they can also drive with a suspended license?

There are problems with our legal system being too expensive, but that's true in all cases, not just RIAA's...

How did the quoted crap even make it to the front page?

All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[jocknerd]

They'd drop the case. They are nothing but bullies without the balls to fight. They are hoping you give in.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

Well I doubt it would be that easy given what they are doing in other cases where the people have decided to fight instead of rolling over.

Still, even accounting for "time is money", I know that I could cost a hellva lot more money then they could cost me, were they ever to come after me. And I have nothing to lose. I have few assets and little disposable income. If they beat me, hello Chapter 7. And they'd still be out the money.

If I did have money to lose then I'd run up huge legal bills defending myself. My lawyers get priority in any bankruptcy proceeding and I'd rather give them all the money then RIAA.

If everybody had this attitude they wouldn't be able to get away with this.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

The answer to ridiculous lawsuits is not more ridiculous lawsuits...

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[TheCarp]

Sure you can cost them more money than they can cost you....

but can you cost them a larger percentage of their revenue stream than the percentage that they can cost yours?

I dunno about you... but I am pretty sure the RIAA can take a million dollar hit much more gracefully and with less notice than I could personally take a thousand dollar hit.

Not that you are wrong, I agree... these are the sorts of tactics that could work. Just make them drop the case by dragging it out.

-Steve

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[balsy2001]

Hey and if you have to go that route just remember that your assets in 401 k)s and IRAs and other tax exempt retirement accounts can not be taken from you during Chapter 7 (http://detroitbankruptcylawyer.com/dosdonts.htm).

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

It's about not filing a ridiculous lawsuit. It's about making it un-profitable for them to continue with their existing ridiculous lawsuit.

If you want to come after me then I'm going to stipulate nothing. I'm going to send you a merry paper chase with my interrogatories. I'm going to drag out any depositions that you may request to the point that you walk away with nothing useful. I'm going to file a counterclaim that you'll have to answer.

The point is that they are spending hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour on their lawyers and that if everybody did this then even RIAA would not be able to justify that sort of expense. Do you think the shareholders would approve of pouring tens of millions into a legal black hole when you are only expecting to cover a few thousand per case if you win and if the defendant has any money or assets that can be seized.

And if RIAA does get a judgement, then so what? You think civil judgements are the end of your life? Ask OJ how hard that civil judgement hurt him -- he didn't even need to file bankruptcy (always an option) to avoid paying it!

Make it massively unprofitable and sooner or later the shareholders of the RIAA companies will demand an end to this little adventure.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

Hey and if you have to go that route just remember that your assets in 401 k)s and IRAs and other tax exempt retirement accounts can not be taken from you during Chapter 7 (http://detroitbankruptcylawyer.com/dosdonts.htm).

Nor can they be taken from you for a judgement either.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

The RIAA isn't suing people to get the specific money that person owes them, that is not their point. They are worried about the big picture. They want to scare the average person into doing what they want- not downloading music - without having to sue everyone . Your idealistic solution would not work on them - anyone that is serious about fighting them will never make it to a courtroom, that is part of their plan. I applaud your attitude, but realistically don't think it would work out.

And as far as filing bankruptcy goes to spite them, that's great if you don't want to purchase a house, car, major appliance, or anything else you may need credit for in the next 7 - 10 years. If so you are only screwing yourself.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

And as far as filing bankruptcy goes to spite them, that's great if you don't want to purchase a house, car, major appliance, or anything else you may need credit for in the next 7 - 10 years. If so you are only screwing yourself.

Not exactly. A timeline for you:

Sep 2005: BK (Chapter 7) filed.
Dec 2005: BK discharged.
Dec 2005: Obtained $200 secured credit card.
Dec 2005: Obtained $500 secured installment loan.
Mar 2006: Obtained $1,000 unsecured credit card with $25 annual fee and 24.9% APR.
May 2006: Obtained $12,000 car loan at 13.6% APR.
May 2006: Obtained $2,000 unsecured credit card with no annual fee and 16.9% APR.
Nov 2006: Re-fi'ed previous car loan with local lender: 7.5% APR.
Nov 2006: Obtained $5,000 unsecured credit card from same lender with no annual fee, 9.9% fixed APR and 1% cashback.

Less then one year after a BK discharge this person has a car loan at a more or less prime rate and a FICO score of 660. In another year they will be able to obtain a mortgage at the same rate as anybody else. They could get one now -- it would just cost more.

Bankruptcy isn't the end of your credit life by a longshot these days.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[compro01]

he didn't even need to file bankruptcy (always an option) to avoid paying it!

AFAIK, court-ordered payments are not erased by bankruptcy.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[RespekMyAthorati]

The point is that they are spending hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour on their lawyers ...

Wrong.

The RIAA doesn't hire lawyers, they are lawyers: the RIAA is effectively a specialized law firm engaged to pursue copyright infringers full-time. They can not be deterred financially, having hundreds of millions available from the record companies. Their sole purpose in life is to harass a few people to the point that everyone else becomes too scared to download. They don't really care whether they win or not.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

['nother poster]

They aren't.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

That's extremely fortunate for that particular person. The experince I had dealing with my ex-wife's bankruptcy was not the same. It prevented us from buying a car, and delayed the buying of our house by a good year and a half. Cars and credit cards are one thing, but I bet that person would still have a hard time buying a house without having at least 25% cash downpayment.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[IAmTheDave]

The answer to ridiculous lawsuits is not more ridiculous lawsuits...

I can't see suing the RIAA for their current crusade as being anything close to ridiculous.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

It is ridiculous if it is fruitless. The RIAA has millions of dollars to counter lawsuits against it.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

Generally, only if they relate to a criminal case of some sort.

Nondischargeable Debts.

Generally speaking, civil judgements are dischargable, unless they relate to drunk driving or some sort of intentional harm done to someone as a result of a crime. Since the whole point of bankruptcy is a fresh start I find it exceedingly unlikely that a bankruptcy judge would allow a RIAA company to keep someone in financial slavery for the rest of their lives.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

That's extremely fortunate for that particular person. The experince I had dealing with my ex-wife's bankruptcy was not the same. It prevented us from buying a car, and delayed the buying of our house by a good year and a half. Cars and credit cards are one thing, but I bet that person would still have a hard time buying a house without having at least 25% cash downpayment.

Sorry but my experiences say otherwise. I've seen people buy homes with zero downpayment less then a year out of bankruptcy. IMHO, it's a foolish move (what's wrong with renting?) because you will pay more in interest, but it is done and it's not as uncommon as you'd think. I've also spoken to mortgage brokers who tell me that with a little bit of effort at credit repair (post BK), they can get a lot of people the same rates as anybody else a lousy two years after filing.

I don't know the scenario behind your ex's BK but generally speaking BK is not the end of your credit life. Ironically enough, filing BK will often increase ones credit score, because credit scores are based on tiers and your credit file that shows in the top 50% of your current tier (people who haven't filed BK) might be in the top 95% of those that have.

Who would you rather lend money to? Somebody drowning in debts who doesn't have enough disposable income to pay them all off or somebody who just filed BK, owes nothing and whom can't file again for at least six to eight years (depending on Ch 7/Ch 13 and old laws/new laws)?

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

If declaring bankruptcy is nothing but a positive thing that increases your credit score, why isn't everyone bending over backwards to do it?? And when you debts are "magically" erased, who do you think pays them?? Do you think that companies just eat the losses? No, they increase the prices of their goods and services to make up for them. So there is no "trick" to beating the system - you end up paying one way or another.

You should really look into all the new bankruptcy laws and laws that have changed in the past couple years - it isn't as easy to wriggle out of debt as it used to. My sister just declared and they took everything from her but her house. Her car, 2 boats, and even her gym membership included. So I guess the experinces I have had (not personally thank god) with bankruptcy seem to be a little different than yours.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well spoken.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Andrewkov]

I'd be curios to know what this guys income is. I'm sure someone making $25,000/year would have a much tougher time re-establishing credit than a guy making $100,000/year.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

If declaring bankruptcy is nothing but a positive thing that increases your credit score, why isn't everyone bending over backwards to do it?? And when you debts are "magically" erased, who do you think pays them?? Do you think that companies just eat the losses? No, they increase the prices of their goods and services to make up for them. So there is no "trick" to beating the system - you end up paying one way or another.

I was stating things that I've learned from my own experiences with the subject. I didn't say it was "nothing but a positive". I said that in certain scenarios it can raise your credit score. This is a known fact. If you don't like it then argue with the people making the formulas for the credit scores, not with me!

And if my "debt" was a civil judgement owed to RIAA and I successfully get it discharged, then exactly who the heck else is going to "pay" it? That was a fake debt that they created. I received no goods. I wasn't talking about purposefully running up credit cards and walking away from them. Is this a touchy subject for you?

You should really look into all the new bankruptcy laws and laws that have changed in the past couple years - it isn't as easy to wriggle out of debt as it used to. My sister just declared and they took everything from her but her house. Her car, 2 boats, and even her gym membership included. So I guess the experinces I have had (not personally thank god) with bankruptcy seem to be a little different than yours.

If your sister had two boats and a car with a massive amount of equity then they should have taken it! That's how the law works. Nobody needs two boats and in that scenario the creditors have a legitimate interest. Perhaps she should have sold them herself before filing and tried to avoid BK altogether? When I was forced into BK (for reasons that I won't go into here) my car was worth less then $2,500, I had no assets, no nothing. In that scenario BK was the right thing for me to do. And if faced with a huge RIAA judgement I'd file in a heartbeat and wouldn't feel an iota of remorse about doing so.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[drinkypoo]

If your sister had two boats, she had no fucking business declaring bankruptcy. I'm glad she got what she deserved.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[morcego]

Make it massively unprofitable and sooner or later the shareholders of the RIAA companies will demand an end to this little adventure.

See, you are very wrong there.

Lets try the "whats more likely" approach and see what happens, shall we ?

Ok, what is more likely ?

1) RIAA will just give up chasing people around
or
2) RIAA will lobby in congress and supreme court and have some new law/precedent stopping people from doing this kind of stunt ?

Not sure about you, but for me, #2 seems MUCH more likely.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[westlake]

And I have nothing to lose. I have few assets and little disposable income. If they beat me, hello Chapter 7

say hello to ten years of living with the bankruptcy on public record. don't forget that you get only one bite of the apple every eight years. try for liquidation again and the courts won't be so forgiving.

If I did have money to lose then I'd run up huge legal bills defending myself. My lawyers get priority in any bankruptcy proceeding [pretty sure about that, aren't you?] and I'd rather give them all the money then RIAA.

a lawyer of even modest integrity will walk away from a client who insists on paupering himself and his family to no intelligible purpose.

you are and will remain just another file in the tens of thousands of cases that the rights agencies pursue each year.

you won't make law. you won't change anything.

you will in all probability never rate a mention even on Slashdot.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

"And if my "debt" was a civil judgement owed to RIAA and I successfully get it discharged, then exactly who the heck else is going to "pay" it? "
People that actually buy CDs. The RIAA calims losses due to "piracy" and all the record compaines charge more for their goods. Or, in other words, one of the main reasons behind the lawsuits in the first place. Even if they lose, they win.

"I wasn't talking about purposefully running up credit cards and walking away from them. Is this a touchy subject for you?"
Maybe you weren't refereing to this specifically, but you did take the attitude of bankruptcy as a way of getting out of debt. Tell me, did you have any credit card debt when you filed? ANd yeah, if I end up paying more for stuff because people do exactly that, rack up debt knowing they are going to file, then yes, I will get touchy about it. The only way to win is be a weasel and I won't stoop to that.

"If your sister had two boats and a car with a massive amount of equity then they should have taken it! That's how the law works. Nobody needs two boats and in that scenario the creditors have a legitimate interest. Perhaps she should have sold them herself before filing and tried to avoid BK altogether? When I was forced into BK (for reasons that I won't go into here) my car was worth less then $2,500"
Well, as you won't give details on your bankruptcy, I hardly think you are qualified to make judgements about someone else's that you don't know the details on. (In my sister's case, her only fault was letting her now ex-husband handle the finances.) Besides, if you know you are going to file, and sell all your assets beforehand, you have commited a crime.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

You don't know my sister, or the details of her bankruptcy, so please kindly shut the hell up - I don't care what you think. If you have something pertinent to add do so, otherwise go away, the adults are talking.

It must be lonely up there by yourself on your pedestal, judging all those below you who can't be as "perfect" as you.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

Maybe you weren't refereing to this specifically, but you did take the attitude of bankruptcy as a way of getting out of debt. Tell me, did you have any credit card debt when you filed? ANd yeah, if I end up paying more for stuff because people do exactly that, rack up debt knowing they are going to file, then yes, I will get touchy about it. The only way to win is be a weasel and I won't stoop to that.

What debts I had are none of your business. We could argue about credit cards all day long and it probably wouldn't change either of our opinions. Consider the fact that in my case they made something like 70% to 80% of the principal back with all the finance charges and fees they hit me with over the years. Yet they still get to claim a huge tax write off? Business is business and while they seek to take advantage of every single thing they can you'd be a fool not to do so as a consumer.

Well, as you won't give details on your bankruptcy, I hardly think you are qualified to make judgements about someone else's that you don't know the details on. (In my sister's case, her only fault was letting her now ex-husband handle the finances.) Besides, if you know you are going to file, and sell all your assets beforehand, you have commited a crime.

I wasn't suggesting selling her assets to hide them from the BK estate. I was suggesting that if she had those kinds of assets to dispose of then perhaps she should have sold them and tried to avoid filing BK in the first place. Obviously she kept her house, so I don't really see what the big deal is? And none of this changes my point that for better or worse, BK is hardly the end of your credit life these days.

And why should I care why she got into debt? You obviously don't care about why I did. The fact is that BK exists so people can have a fresh start. Debtors prisons don't exist anymore. Society has decided that it's better for somebody to be able to start fresh then it is for them to exist in indentured servitude for the rest of their life. If anybody was facing a massive judgement from RIAA then they'd be a fool not to consider filing BK.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[drinkypoo]

It must be lonely up there by yourself on your pedestal, judging all those below you who can't be as "perfect" as you.

Yeah, it's windy up here, too - I couldn't hear what you said with it whistling in my ears.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

"The fact is that BK exists so people can have a fresh start. Debtors prisons don't exist anymore. Society has decided that it's better for somebody to be able to start fresh then it is for them to exist in indentured servitude for the rest of their life."
I agree whole heartedly. Unfortunately, there are people out there who are intent on taking advantage of the situation. Welfare, on paper should accomplish the same, but look how many multi-generational "welfare families" are in existence today.

I agree with most of the points you make, and I appreciate the fact we can have a discussion without resorting to ignorant assumptions about one another. Our viewpoints may not be exactly the same, but that doesn't stop us from having an intelligent conversation about it, and I thank you for that.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

I'd be curios to know what this guys income is. I'm sure someone making $25,000/year would have a much tougher time re-establishing credit than a guy making $100,000/year.

Actually income has less bearing on credit then you might think. Your income usually will figure out how much a lender is willing to lend to you not if they are willing to lend to you. In my example the person makes

In any case I've gone way off topic here. My original point was that RIAA can't completely ruin your life. BK is always an option and it's not the end of the world by any means.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

say hello to ten years of living with the bankruptcy on public record. don't forget that you get only one bite of the apple every eight years. try for liquidation again and the courts won't be so forgiving.

And your point is?

a lawyer of even modest integrity will walk away from a client who insists on paupering himself and his family to no intelligible purpose.

You don't know many lawyers do you? I'm personally not worried about a RIAA lawsuit, but I am stubborn enough that if I was hit with one I'd give every dime of my money to a lawyer to defend myself before I'd give them a cent. And if I lost then I would file BK.

you will in all probability never rate a mention even on Slashdot.

No, but my point was what would happen if everybody fought them tooth and nail instead of rolling over and taking it. If everybody who was sued by RIAA decided to fight them (even pro-say without any legal help) then they wouldn't stand a chance. They are relying on quick settlements so they can move their resources to the next case. Every person that fights them forces them to spend time, money and resources on that one case then they could be out there intimidating dozens of others.

I may be wrong in my original points about the lawyers costing them thousands of dollars per hour if they are on staff, but even RIAA doesn't have unlimited resources. If everybody fought back against them using the full power of the legal system then they wouldn't be able to keep up.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I thought you couldn't get court judgements discharged in bankruptcy court.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Technician]

Hey and if you have to go that route just remember that your assets in 401 k)s and IRAs and other tax exempt retirement accounts can not be taken from you during Chapter 7 (http://detroitbankruptcylawyer.com/dosdonts.htm).

If I were drug through a very expensive legal trial and had nothing to lose, I would make it clear there was nothing to gain. I would start by quitting my job to work the defense full time. From there I would make it clear after it is all over, I would have lost everything and would then be a ward of the state. Do they want me as a burden or a taxpayer? Shaking me down past the end of the barrel would simply put me into hand to mouth existance with no incentive to produce just to have it taken for some settlement.

Let the press know these lawsuits destroy people.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

Usually you can unless they relate to a crime or taxes.

Otherwise there would be no point to bankruptcy. Why? What happens when you don't pay a creditor? They sue you. They get a judgement. BK wipes away that judgement.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

They can not be deterred financially, having hundreds of millions available from the record companies

One would think that sooner or later the shareholders of the RIAA member companies would question why they are spending all this money on lawsuits for no net return. Is there any evidence that the lawsuits have scared people away from file sharing? I'd suspect that you can name any one of a number of songs put out by RIAA labels and I could find them in less then two minutes. It may not be as easy as it was with Napster and a nice centralized database but it's not exactly hard either.

My original point (now lost in the argument about my tactics being justified and the side debate on bankruptcy) was that if just half of the people extorted^Wsued by RIAA decided to fight them tooth and nail in court that it would become so unproductive and expensive for them that the shareholders would probably make them reconsider. Even the record labels don't have limitless resources and even staff lawyers only work so many hours per day. I think that point would be even more true if you could make the case that none of their intimation tactics have deterred file sharing.

Hell, somebody made the point in reply to one of my posts that there is no public outrage because nobody (beyond /.) knows about the RIAA suits. If most people don't know about them then what is stopping them from sharing files?

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

I agree whole heartedly. Unfortunately, there are people out there who are intent on taking advantage of the situation. Welfare, on paper should accomplish the same, but look how many multi-generational "welfare families" are in existence today.

And there are creditors who take advantage of the situation. And even before BK "reform" the game was clearly rigged in their favor. While I'd agree that people need to own up to their responsibility and not charge shit they can't pay for, I'd also make the argument that the credit card industry doesn't need to make it so easy for people to get into trouble in the first place. If I wanted to I could go out and get credit lines equal to ten times my annual salary. Would you lend somebody money who had the potential to go into that much debt overnight?

Plus, I've always been skeptical of the people crying BK "abuse". Everything that I saw when I went through the system (under the old laws) suggested to me that any abuse would be fairly rapidly detected and dealt with. Most lawyers won't help you game the system. All the new laws seem to have done is make it harder (and more expensive) for people who need to file to file. More then half of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. I don't think anybody can make the argument that somebody deserves to be in financial prison because they got sick. Where's the abuse?

I agree with most of the points you make, and I appreciate the fact we can have a discussion without resorting to ignorant assumptions about one another. Our viewpoints may not be exactly the same, but that doesn't stop us from having an intelligent conversation about it, and I thank you for that.

I don't make assumptions because I have been through BK. I hope you don't think I was making assumptions about your sister either. It sucks that she lost her car (your state has lousy exemptions or she had too much equity in it I guess) but given that even I understand that the creditors have the right to some recovery, I honestly can't say I'm surprised that the Trustee took the boats. It sucks, but it's better to liquidate your assets and start over then it is to be in prison for the rest of your life. That's why BK exists, IMHO.

Take it easy!

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[geekoid]

actually, it is. That's a GOOD thing.

The only other thing is to do away with the only opportunity people have to fight large orginizations. That is BAD.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

There is more than one way to "skin a cat". Going into their element (court) where they have all the power to fight them is a noble thing, but most likely not a GOOD thing, especially if you are not wealthy. As stated plenty above, this isn't about taking people to court - it's about scaring people into a behavior more favorable for the RIAA. They don't want to go to a higher Federal court and have a precedent set that doesn't favor them. That's why as soon as anyone fights them, the drop the case before it gets there and move along to the next victim. So unless you have the independent wealth to keep fighting for years, they will swallow your income before you swallow theirs.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[geekoid]

sadly, in now costs 1500 - 3000 dollars, plus a ton of paperwork.

Ironically, if I ahd 3000 in the bank, I wouldn't need bankruptcy.

Thanks Republican administration for screwing the hardworking people ...again!

And I dont' have ANY credit card debt, just a 'victim' of the bursting bubble.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[geekoid]

"Welfare, on paper should accomplish the same, but look how many multi-generational "welfare families" are in existence today."

do you relized that a large majority of welfare recipients work full time?

Yes, some people abused it, but it was a tiny minority. I can not file becasue ti costs too much and I am only slightly behind, but sinking. A BK for me, right now, would allow me to start saving money right now.

When talking to my finacial advisor/lawyer, he said he ahd never seen a more frugle person come to him for bankrutcy.

No credit cards, not cable/satalite. a house payment, 2 car payment, and a bunch of minor stuff. Yet I acn not afford to file anymore.

Basically they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[jamar0303]

Problem is, seems like half of Slashdot is on that pedestal- not as lonely as you think, is it? And if your sister had 2 boats, couldn't she sell them to get out of bankruptcy? Earlier you said that she let her ex-husband handle her finances- she couldn't do it herself? Maybe you could add details if you want people to judge you fairly.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[starakurva]

Ok, Westlake...You said:
"a lawyer of even modest integrity will walk away from a client who insists on paupering himself and his family to no intelligible purpose."

So....like...How do you manage to post to the internets from 1954 Mayberry???

(No offense, NewYorkCountryLawyer, but you gotta know that kind noble folks such as yourself in the law profession are quite a minority, no?)

But that said, you also posted:
"you are and will remain just another file in the tens of thousands of cases that the rights agencies pursue each year.

you won't make law. you won't change anything.

you will in all probability never rate a mention even on Slashdot." ....Bit of a douchebag, aren't'cha?

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Zaphod2016]

**standard IANAL disclaimer applies**

The answer to ridiculous lawsuits is not more ridiculous lawsuits...

I understand where you are coming from. Ideologically, no rational geek wants to stoop to the **AA's level. Having suffered a few frivilous suits myself, I understand 100% how frusterating and ridiclous the U.S. legal system is, especially when being faced by someone with limited capital and time.

However, there *is* something to be said about "fighting fire with fire". These lawyer mafias exist for one reason only: profit. Destroy the profitability of these tactics, and they will stop. Fight lawsuit with lawsuit, and you might just help to establish prescedent which will impair (ever so slightly) the next round of **AA bulying.

As best I can tell, it is a *lack* of lawsuits which embolden the **AA. For example: suing those without the ability to defend themselves. Just like any bully- they swing at the small kid, the one who looks most likely to drop. I say, that skinny kid *must* swing back.

Some will argue, hitting a bully back will only encourage further violence. I argue, a bully surrounded by those willing to defend themselves will either a) mellow out or b) find new (read: easier) targets elsewhere.

Terrorists. They're all terrorists... ;)

[msobkow]

Medical cannabis patients, people ripping their media for playback in other formats, open source projects, people praying in airports...

They're all terrorists: they freak the current money-grubbing power elite right the f*** out!

Re:Terrorists. They're all terrorists... ;)

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Nobody likes a bully

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Not so. They're an international organization. They just have different acronyms in the other countries. Bear in mind that 3 of the 4 corporations carrying on this litigation juggernaut are foreign corporations, not US corporations.

New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[Archeopteryx]

When we go to an antiwar protest, we always play "Spot The Fed" as we look for the inevitable FBI/Homeland Security plant in the crowd.

Well, I think we need to play this game here on Slashdot!

Who here is the RIAA plant?

You *know* they are here! Just like we knew, before we actually confirmed it, that there were Feds at the protests.

CDs are Crappy Presents

[quokkapox]

I'm pleasantly surprised that this site is still around.

CDs make crappy presents. Don't buy them.

what if the RIAA/MPAA made cars?

[Johnloves2ski]

You would not be able to let anyone else drive it, ever. You would have to pay an extra licensing fee to drive with a friend in the car. If other people look at it, you would have to pay a fee. You would not be allowed to sell it. If you totalled it, you would not be allowed to remove and reuse the stereo, or anything for that matter. The RIAA/MPAA would be the police, and would follow you around at random to see if you have someone else in your car, or or loaned it to someone. Tell me this, if the movie industry did not constantly brag about how they made $500 Million dollars in the first weekend while you have to pay $8 for popcorn to watch thier movie, wouldn't you feel better about buying the movie? I would. Tom cruise is not worth $50 million a movie. Stop paying him this much, and I will reconsider.

Re:what if the RIAA/MPAA made cars?

[intheshelter]

Exactly. No one would tolerate this licensing crap with their car. They bought the laws they wanted to MAINTAIN CONTROL. The laws are wrong, were corruptly attained, and I have no sympathy for the RIAA/MPAA.

The artists deserve compensation, and luckily we're in a brave new world where they could bypass the RIAA/MPAA and still be compensated. The RIAA/MPAA simply want control so they can exploit those artists for as much money as they can. I'm tired of their bullying and their fake sob stories about them protecting the artists. They'll get nothing more from me.

What about breakages?

[hughk]

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.

Re:What about breakages?

[Reziac]

That would be this article by Steve Albini, which lays it out in real numbers:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

See also Courtney Love's speech on "The Real Pirates" at http://www.cdbaby.net/articles/courtney_love.html

A related article:
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

Re:What about breakages?

[hughk]

Thanks for that reference. It is pretty frightening. I once worked at a company that shared a building with a record company headquarters. This was one rich office. Apparently they weren't even investing in their studios, but marketing artists is always rather more improtant than making records.

Re:What about breakages?

[Reziac]

Kinda makes a person wonder about the real value of goods, vs manager salaries and marketing, for every sort of product, eh??

RIAA & Scientology -- Evil Twins

[Nom du Keyboard]

had their lawyer telephone the son's employer.

Those are Scientology tactics.

Hummm.

Leading entertainment industry players openly flogging LRH's science fiction. RIAA attacking you at your job. It really is all one big evil conspiracy, instead of several smaller ones.

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think there are at least 5 or 6 user ID's being used as RIAA trolls here today, maybe even more. That's the primary reason I started using the "Foe" function, so that I wouldn't waste my time trying to engage in dialogue with them.

One sure tip off is if the comment starts "No one hates the RIAA more than me". I think the RIAA trolls, here and in prior posts, are trying to do the following: (a) propagandize for their lawyers' positions, justifying their conduct, (b) take things off topic, (c) waste my time, (d) try to draw me out on undecided legal questions, and (e) discourage people from seeking legal counsel.

Re:How low can they go? Yeah, Sure!!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Personal service requirements are a constitutional protection to guarantee that people aren't being brought to court without getting notice to defend your self.

Yeah, sure. Tell that to the RIAA the next time they file ex parte John Doe suits to force your ISP to reveal your identity without you ever having a chance to contest it. As far as proper notice goes, the RIAA only cares about proper notice when it benefits them!

Yes it is

[Opportunist]

Fight fire with fire.

They don't listen to reason, they listen to money. Denying them money is like denying fuel to fire.

Re:Yes it is

[Shawn is an Asshole]

If they get less money, though, they claim it's because of the "pirates." Then they just use it as an example of how "piracy" is hurting them.

Re:Yes it is

[drinkypoo]

Regardless, if everyone they sued did this, they'd have to abandon their tactics and move on to something else. We can't even get to THAT point if we sit around HERE where we are now.

Re:Yes it is

[Opportunist]

It's the only defense you have against those scare tactics. You have the choice, duck and cover or stand and fight.

I'm from a country that was overrun by Germany (Hi Godwin) before WW2. I know where duck and cover leads.

Re:How low can they go? Yeah, Sure!!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Good answer!

Quit your job

[Opportunist]

You're going for bankrupcy anyway, why bother working? You will be bankrupt after the fight, that's a given. Working only means you have to stuff their pockets with money for the next witchhunt.

Really? How so?

[Opportunist]

Where're the terror guys to bomb away those RIAA HQs when you need them?

My guess is still that the WTC was choosen instead of the RIAA HQ so the people of the US don't simply shrug it off and say "good riddance".

Then again, it would've been a surefire way to get a lot of sympathy and support inside the US... what a wasted opportunity.

Reason why I don't buy cd's

[f0rtytw0]

Last time I bought a cd was back when Napster was still kicking. That would be sometime in 2000. So I've some how managed to go 6 years without buying a cd. Sorry RIAA no money for you.

Re:Reason why I don't buy cd's

[neongrau]

if you compare the possible financial losses and other potential consequences reulting from

a) illegally downloading a _single_ song alone
  or
b) physically stealing the whole album in a store

i'd say visiting store wins! ;)
</irony>

Re:Reason why I don't buy cd's

[geekoid]

ever go into a bar or resturant?

Oops, thats money for the RIAA, so you better stop going out.

Ever go to/rent/buy a movie? oops, money for the RIAA, so no movie viewing for you.
Ever watch TV? oops, money for the RIAA

Stop buying their product will not work because it is not practical to do so. Only slapping them down in court will stop this madness.

It's a sad state we're in...

[DulcetTone]

... when hiring a lawyer to defend you against charges of stealing music costs so much more than the computer and ISP service you used to steal the music.

Re:It's a sad state we're in...

[LividBlivet]

For the last time, not one of the 20,000 lawsuits ever mentions stealing. Nothing was stolen. Nothing was taken. Stop being a tool.

Nuclear Hyperbole = Irony

[bigtallmofo]

This isn't a reign of terror. The purges of Stalin would classify as a reign of terror. The French Revolution would classify as a reign of terror. This classifies as merely harassment. I understand that the poster wants to bring up how loathsome the actions of the RIAA are, but exaggeration merely turns people off.

This isn't nuclear. The bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki would classify as nuclear. The generation of electricity via fission would classify as nuclear. This classifies merely as exageration. I understand that the poster wants to bring up how annoying it is to use hyperbole, but using hyperbole to do so merely turns people off.

What do you call 10000 Dead Music Industy Lawyers?

[Il128]

A slow start.

Complacency

[st0n3cr3st]

The thing I don't get is two-thirds of the people that bitch and complain about RIAA policies and tactics do so while they stand in-line to buy the latest Brittany Spears album. If you want these cretans to stop their 'reign of terror', then stop funding them. *** DO NOT BUY MUSIC FROM RIAA ASSOCIATED LABELS *** Get your music from independents or anyone that doesn't pay a tithe to the RIAA - that includes Apple. If you do this already, great, pass it on to your little sister and her friends, etc. If you don't then start, then pass it on...don't be complacent.

Re:Go RIAA!

[compro01]

Seriously, why do people put up with this bullshit?

because the civil legal system is so fucked up that most people have no choice but to put up with it?

Before anyone tries this,.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

make sure you understand the concept of "vexatious litigant", when a court might decide that you are one, and what can happen next.

What do you call someone who gets legal advice on Slashdot? "Inmate".

Re:Hopping

[Anomalyst]

Here's hoping you are not tired yet. However, you have piqued my curiosity. Are you hopping on your left foot, right foot, both feet or with mechanical assistance of a pogo stick?

(w00t! FFv2 has saved me from looking like a typographic idiot 5 times in just this post)

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[Red Flayer]

It's pretty funny though, that people can disagree without being employed by any of those organizations. I mean really, heaven forbid someone has an opinion different from yours, and points out the problems with your arguments.

And, like a coward, instead of defending your arguments, you just add the posters to your foes list.

Very weak, sir, very weak.

PS. If you check my full post history, I think you'll see that I am very much against the gorilla (intentional mis-spelling) tactics used by the **AA. The reason for some of the comments I've posted today is that you make baseless claims ("outrageous"?) without explaining them in any way -- you appeal to the emotions of the slashdot crowd, without backing them up with any kind of justification. How does a SOP become an outrageous act, particularly when used against someone who has seemingly acted outside the law in their desire to avoid prosecution?

Until you can defend your statements, I think you need to refrain from making them -- or you are no better than the **AA.

Re:How low can they go? Yeah, Sure!!

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>Tell that to the RIAA the next time they file ex parte John Doe suits to force your ISP to reveal your identity without you ever having a chance to contest it

Maybe I'm missing a step here, but if they don't know who you are, how could they notify you to contest anything? At least they aren't pushing to require to all run valid identd processes listening at each publicly available IP address so its owners could be identified easily.

Should they rely on the ISP who has only a casual business relationship with you to reliably notify you of anything?

If you wanted to serve me with papers, can you reasonably argue that giving it to the grocery clerk that I usually see, asking her to pass it along ot me, and consider that reasonable service?

Like I said, maybe I'm missing a step, but I'm just not seeing the unreasonableness of going after the only link to you, as lnog as they have evidince that somehow that connection was used in harming them somehow.

it has become nearly impossible not to infringe??

[MooseTick]

"Copyright law has become so ridiculously restrictive that it has become nearly impossible not to infringe"

Can you explain this further? I don't see how is it sooo hard to not infringe. If you use P2P, only share things you know are allowable in the public domain.

I am also unaware about how "copyright law has become so ridiculously restrictive." Other than extending the duration of time a copyright lasts, how has copyright law changed in the recent past?

Alternatives ... ?

[Rhabarber]

I stopped buying music years ago when I had a really busy time studying. After that period of withdrawal I heard about some free music labels, got curious and never looked back again.
In the beginning I was impressed by programs that automatically download free music, based on ratings you give.
Today I have a quite large collection of free tracks and albums. From time to time I visit, some, of those. All that is 100% annoyance-, tool-, ad-, DRM- and RIAA-free.

Has anyone died, yet?

[dpilot]

These RIAA lawsuits are financial ruin for most people. I find it plausible that someone, when smacked with out of these suits, would look at their financial future going down the drain, themselves condemned to poverty for the rest of their lives, and commit suicide. (Not necessarily likely, but plausible.)

Has this happened, yet?

Can a human death yet be blamed on these lawsuits?

Re:Has anyone died, yet?

[dpilot]

My point is simple. Find one of these people, preferably with some screening for sensibility and stability, then call 60 Minutes, Larry King, etc.

damn it people burn 100 cds of mp3s and give them

[XHIIHIIHX]

Burn 100 cds packed full of mp3s and leave them in random places with FREE MP3S written in large letters on them.

Re:it has become nearly impossible not to infringe

[EzInKy]

Can you explain this further? I don't see how is it sooo hard to not infringe. If you use P2P, only share things you know are allowable in the public domain.


Could you please a provide a link to a database that informs people what exactly is in the public domain and what exactly is not?

Where does the "neighbor" come into this?

[Software]

Why does the summary say, "RIAA Subpoenas Neighbor's Son", when there's no neighbor involved in this story? FTFA:

In UMG v. Lindor, RIAA lawyer Richard L. Gabriel, in opposing the motion of Ms. Lindor's son

It's all in the Lindor family.

Re:Where does the "neighbor" come into this?

[brouski]

Facts and accuracy are not Mr. Beckerman's strong point. Sensationalism, though? He's your man!

nono... DO buy a zune.

[RincewindTVD]

Like in the http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/17/20 36255 case where the guy said that he was covered... if your zune has an 'infringement tax' on it... are you now covered for anything you put on it that is RIAA property?

I wonder how that kazaa case is going.

Re:Nobody likes a bully

[PygmySurfer]

Well, here in Canada, they're known as the CRIA, and they routinely get their asses handed to them when they try this shit, so they're largely ignored. I assumed the rest of the world felt the same, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be.

Even labels in Canada have split from the CRIA, due to disagreements in the way they do business (including labels for larger acts like Rush and Sara McLachlan). The CRIA was founded to protect Canadian artists and companies, one of the reasons these labels left was because the CRIA was more interested in protecting US companies, than Canadian artists.

Is there anything to indicate the CRIA, RIAA, and the equivalent body in other nations are actually the same companies, though? Seems to me calling the RIAA an international organization is a bit of a stretch. They may have similar goals, but I don't think they're one and the same. Although, I suppose if they're comprised of the same corporations (Sony, EMI, Universal, Warner, etc), they might as well be one entity.

What the heck...

[Net_fiend]

When is someone going to finally say enough is enough and call their bluff? Just about *everyone* and their brother downloads music. I don't care about that issue. I want to *see* the RIAA *prove* their case in court. Exactly what evidence do they have on someone? Eh? An IP address. Ha. Those can be spoofed my friend. MAC address? Those can be spoofed too.

I hope (or not) they have something more concrete to stand on than just some number that is supposed to be unique to each person online. I'm more than sure Kevin Mitnick could prove this otherwise in a court of law. Matter of fact he'd be a decent witness imo. Seeing as he is more than qualified in this particular area.

I also want to know how these people are getting caught. What are they using Ares? or limewire or some other such piece of garbage? Also it seems they haven't gone after anyone worthwhile such as a lawyer, doctor, et al. Seems they only go after families or teenagers nowadays.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[scottsk]

All this good stuff is possible because people give the RIAA members their money. If you quit buying their wares, they'll have no resources with which to sue people. The only thing that matters in this debate is the money that Americans (and others) empty into the buckets of RIAA members each year.

Re:FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[/dev/trash]

It'd be simpler to convince the artists to refuse to sign with these cartels.

The publicity I take away from this...

[AmazingRuss]

...has pretty much got me to the point I will never purchase anything that nets RIAA members a dime, and will do my best to convince others to do the same. Further, I'll be looking for opportunities to kick them in the nads when they aren't looking.

This big bully crap might work on a subjugated population, but I think most Americans (particularly the ones that purchase the rebellion glorifying products of RIAA members) will have a similar reaction.

You hear that you big bully?!?! In the nads! RIGHT IN THE NADS!

Re:Note to self

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Claiming that not all "unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids" are innocent doesn't imply that they are all guilty. I suggest you start reading here.

Dont you think its time ....

[teknosapien]

For the IT/Geek Community at large to stand up and play the game by their rules...
Let them make accusations and demand that you bring your hard drive to court to find, yes thousands of MP3's on your hard drive then bring in all of your paid for music and toss it at them, along with a law suite for wrongfully accusing you of Pirating music/media. then raise a suit of libel/slander. It is obvious that the current tack is not working. Heck set up a /. music trading p2p site that is nothing more than a renamed music from Archive.org and let them look like fools.

The biggest problem I see is that they have not been made accountable for actions taken -- no one has yet found away to make them look real bad in court

SSG101 -- Under the Radar Living

[HomelessInLaJolla]

You can do it for far less than that and go further under the radar if you really want to and are very diligent and meticulous about personal cleanliness and general lifestyle cleanliness.

You need one set of durable clothing. The basics: socks, shoes, underwear, long pants, t or a shirt. Additional according to target climate: zero or more additional pairs of cotton pants (for layering in the cold), zero or more cotton long sleeve shirts (for layering in the cold), zero or more wool or cotton sweaters or sweatshirts (for layering in the cold) one or more jackets suitable for the weather--a good setup for even the coolest climates is t-shirt, two long sleeve cottons, one cotton sweatshirt, one wool sweater, one cotton hooded sweatshirt, one field jacket or heavy coat--one pair of gloves, one hat (anything more effective than a baseball cap will do). Multipurpose: one rain poncho (rainproofing, doubles as a ground layer). One sleeping bag suitable for the target climate--get a compression bag to reduce bulk, Marmot makes nice ones. Additional survival necessities: steel fork, knife, spoon, Swiss Army or Leatherman style multifunction pocket tool, Toothbrush, toothpaste, baby powder (for feet), antibacterial ointment (for first aid), miniroll of duct tape, small roll of kite string (50 pound test), one large roll of thread (pick your color) and at least five sewing needles (you'll break a few unless you have prior proficiency in hand-sewing). You can fit just about everything (except the sleeping bag, which should come with its own tote bag) into a standard size backpack. Extra clothes can be folded up or secured, with the kite string, to one of the bags. State issued ID--preferably a US passport (not 100% necessary but makes random encounters with local authorities go quickly and without mishap). It may take a bit of practice to refine your particular carryall system.

That's about it. Choose an urban location in a moderate climate (ie. not the desert, not anywhere with heavy snowfall or severe cold temperatures) with readily accessible toilet facilities, a readily accessible supply of drinking water, but far enough towards the edges of urban jungle so that you can find a sleeping spot that's relatively secluded. You should be able to set up your sleeping spot in less than five minutes and pack up in the morning in a similar amount of time. Use the rain poncho to cover the ground where you will spread out your sleeping bag. If it rains during the day then you can wear the rain poncho and have what I used to call "free car wash day" but is now "free rain poncho wash day". If it rains at night, well, spend the night walking around in the rain poncho. If that's the worst of your worries--staying awake for a night--then life isn't so bad.

Note that this lifestyle requires staying clean. No heavy drinking as humans tend to become forgetful, at best, or outright stupid, at worst, when drinking is involved. Heavy drinking is the number one cause for torn clothes, dropped items, unfortunate encounters with the police, or falling asleep under the wrong tree and being awakened by the police (or worse). Heavy use of hard or debilitating drugs is also discouraged--habitual use of cocaine, crack cocaine, or crystalline methamphetamine will cause you to become involved with people who will only see you as a potential slave. Habitual use of marijuana isn't, in and of itself, terribly debilitating but be forewarned that "street demons" look for marijuana users and prey on them to satisfy their addiction to the harder drugs. Don't worry about showers. During the summer time spend time on beaches or at parks where you can sponge bath (a bathing suit comes in handy) off after a good sweat. Don't worry much about body odor--with proper self-care and maintenance it will eventually moderate itself.

Learn to deal with hunger. You will have days where you are hungry--COPE. As long as you have water the human body can go for, probably, months without a good meal. I can personally go for abou

Re:SSG101 -- Under the Radar Living

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, I was pretty much assuming that people would mostly be looking for what they've been looking for for literally millenia; a stable living situation. I mean, if you want to be nomadic then more power to you and you're doing even more to poop on the system than I will be... But personally I like to have some creature comforts. I mean, I'm just of the opinion that we didn't build tools and use them to get to the top of the food chain so I can grow up and sleep in a bush.

Re:SSG101 -- Under the Radar Living

[HomelessInLaJolla]

I agree with you. I'm not living this way out of choice but out of necessity. When you've done as much to piss off "The Man" as I have then he doesn't relent when the evil eye turns your way.

There's something obviously suspicious about sending out several hundred resumes (in response to actual posted advertised positions--not spam) over the course of eight months and only receiving three telephone calls and no interview offers. Management and HR departments don't tell me what they're doing behind the scenes but this situation is certainly not normal.

Re:SSG101 -- Under the Radar Living

[Anonymous Coward]

You could be a neo-nomad, instead.

Start with a cheap and reliable car with decent mileage and reasonable size with comfortable seats. In my case, this was a 93 Chevy Camaro Coupe (V6, not V8). 29MPG, built extremely well, easy to repair, cheap parts, decent power and very roomy with extra space available by leaving the hatch up partway. Add two large deep-cycle lead-acid batteries in the trunk with a switchable setup allowing the batteries to be connected, in an emergency, to start the car. The main purpose of the batteries is to power your gear.

Seven shirts, seven pairs of socks, seven pairs of undershorts, seven pairs of pants (preferably thick denim). One windbreaker jacket. One reasonably heavy coat if necessary in your climate. All of the clothes should be machine washable/dryable. Preferably stuff you don't have to separate into different loads. Two or three pairs of shoes (always have a change in case of wet shoes; you might need steel-toe shoes, too). Two towels (TH-HGTG was right).

Use laundromats to get your clothes clean.
To keep yourself clean, get a membership at a nationwide fitness center chain. Have a workout and then have a shower.

Income:

Keep your body clean inside and out and you'll qualify to donate blood plasma for an average of $50 a week for about 4 hours work, tops.

Buy stuff from second-hand stores and re-sell on craigslist and ebay. Ship using USPS with Flat Rate boxes being your primary method. Have a cheap digital camera for photos. The best kind are those which became outdated due to low resolution. You don't need anything more than 1.3MP. Look for high-quality optics. No pinhole lenses.

If you have a particular area you will stay in, a storage bay might be a good idea if you build a large inventory. Eventually, when you can go back on the radar for whatever reason (statute of limitations, maybe?), you may want to start a full-on business. It's totally an option.

Use library computers for your posts or do the following...

Communication:

Get a cheap laptop, preferably with a metal case. Toshiba Portege 7000 and 34xx series are personal favorites of mine. Mostly the 34xx series for the fact that you can clip a second battery to the bottom and run over eight hours at still less than 6lbs (and with the drain of an EVDO card, you'll need that capacity. Get an inverter or a DC-DC converter to charge the laptop from your battery bank. The DC-DC converter is preferred as it's more efficient (>90%) and has less background drain.

Sign up for the EVDO data card plan at your preferred carrier. Unlimited is the rule here. It's about $60 a month. Sometimes a lot less. This will give you nearly DSL speeds as long as you're in the coverage area. If you're close, but not quite, buy a cell booster and antenna and install it in your car.

Skype phone. Good for outgoing calls.
Cheap cell phone. You'll need it for eBay. Maybe you can have a plan with your data card? If that's the case, get a Bluetooth USB dongle and a Bluetooth headset.

Night parking:

Walmart allows people to park on their lots. Mind your manners and you'll be fine.

Food:

Don't do the fast-food thing. Ever. You can have plenty to eat by getting creative. If you want cooked food, build a cooker that uses the heat from your engine or use the heat off the dashboard when the sun is shining.

This is just a quick rundown and I know I've missed a lot of stuff, but I'm not a regular member and I'm pressed for time.

Re:SSG101 -- Under the Radar Living

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> Start with a cheap and reliable car

I had a car--a 1999 Saturn SL2 with 94k on it. What is your plan when your registration and/or insurance expires? Insurance is compulsory in many states. Many insurance companies require you to notify them of a change of address--and being homeless is not acceptable. It's certainly against the law to assert to the DMV that your residence, for registration purposes, is somewhere that you don't live. Maybe the night parking thing is working for you. When I had my car on the road (for about a month) I could rarely sleep for more than two hours before a security guard or police officer would wake me and tell me that I couldn't sleep there.

> Get a cheap laptop, preferably with a metal case

I had a laptop--a customized Compaq V2000 (Turion64, Radeon 200M, Debian/LFS/XP Pro, Office 2003 SBE, other goodies). I managed to keep it safe on the streets for about five months before the other street people managed to steal it. I'd like to meet anyone else in real life (ie. stories don't count) who could keep a laptop safe even half that long while living on the open street.

> Keep your body clean inside and out and you'll qualify to donate blood plasma for an average of $50 a week

I've seen many other homeless people get drunk, smoke crack, get tweeked out, and donate plasma the next day. I will not donate blood or plasma as a source of income. I believe there are health risks behind those establishments which do not surface for years down the road--especially if one is donating on a weekly basis. If you're comfortable with it then good for you. I am not.

> Buy stuff from second-hand stores and re-sell on craigslist and ebay

First, that nearly qualifies under a "hustle"--I'm too honest to have a hustle. Second, why would I want to spend my life as a junk reseller? Third, this requires having an interest and proficiency in spending hours combing second hand stores, craigslist, and e-bay. I have no interest in giving my time to any of those establishments.

I have no need for a Skype or cellular telephone and both of them have requirements, restrictions, and technological security considerations which, whether or not my suspicions are well-founded, I find it easier to live without.

> when you can go back on the radar for whatever reason (statute of limitations, maybe?)

How about when I get another job since that's the only thing which put me in this situation to begin with? The management was treating me like a third-class employee, I called them on their bull, and they pulled the strongarm maneuver ("If you don't like it then you can leave."). When I left the company was extremely vindictive and has made it very difficult for me to gain new employment.

Why not?

[jgoemat]

So, the unemployed and the "home healthcare aids" are allowed to infringe on copyright? How about crossing the street on red signal? Perhaps, they can also drive with a suspended license?

Copyright infringement has no direct negative effect on another. Crossing the street on a red signal? You might get run over, cause an accident, or at least interfere with traffic. Also, I see people do it all the time and not get caught when the street's not busy (but I always wait) and I don't think it's a big deal. Driving with a suspended license? If you have a suspended license, you probably were involved in unsafe driving (numerous moving violations, DUI, etc.) and there is a good reason to keep you from operating a two ton killing machine.

Violating copyright? I don't think the free exchange of information should be restricted. Making money off it should be restricted as that government-granted monopoly is designed to promote progress of science and the useful arts. Should the record companies be allowed to control the music however they wanted? Should they be able to keep you from listening to the radio whenever you wished? Should they be able to keep you from tape recording songs from a radio station? Should they be able to extort money from you if you are caught humming a tune on the street? Of course not. Not that they wouldn't like to, but the law just hasn't given them that power yet. I don't believe that copyright is a moral right, and I don't believe that copyright violation absent financial gain is morally wrong. I do believe that the RIAA's tactics are morally wrong, and I don't think they should even be allowed.

Anyway you cut it, this is a big corporation with huge resources picking on an individual with meager resources to defend themselves. Either case you cite would be settled in front of a judge, probably without having to hire an attorney. Here we are talking about a court case brought by a multi-million dollar company against an individual, not a violation of the law witnessed by a law enforcement officer. This case has probably already cost them thousands of dollars (many times the fines for jaywalking or driving with a suspended license), many hours of wasted time, invasion of their privacy and embarrassment. They have been unable to find anything against the person they brought suit against, so they are now trying to obtain every computer or music device their son has access to or control over.

Re:Nobody likes a bully

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The Netherlands gave them short shrift like Canada did. In other countries it's a mixed bag.

Really?

[jgoemat]

Well they are subpoenaing a third party to the lawsuit for starters, and requesting every computer or music device that he has control over. That is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and an invasion of privacy. Having failed to find any evidence that the defendant in their lawsuit had improperly done anything, they should have immediately dismissed it. If they wish to subpoena the son's computers and records, they should file a lawsuit against him.

They already have

[jgoemat]

When people stop buying so many CDs, they just blame piracy for it directly.

In fact, the year Napster debuted, CD sales shot up 20% and they had their best year ever. After they closed Napster down, CD sales plummeted and they actually blamed file sharing!

Re:How low can they go? Yeah, Sure!!

[Talondel]

I don't dispute your claim that the RIAA is only interested in the spirit of the law when it benefits them. I view most of their current law suits as a clear abuse of the adversarial legal system. That point conceded, just because they do it doesn't make it okay for everyone else to do it also. There is no "Whhhaaaa Mommy, they did it first" clause in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice

Kinda, but not totally

[jgoemat]

The guy apparently tried to avoid getting served at home. All we know for sure about that is that someone at his house probably gave misleading information to the process server, who tried seven times to serve him there. Maybe the son has an active social life or stays at his girlfriend's house. Maybe he lives with his stepfather and half-brother, or a friend and his father who may have misrepresented who they were. I doubt the process server mistook him for his own father due to the age difference.

After that, the server was apparently harassing and threatening, and embarrassed him at work. The server apparently decided to talk directly to his boss and leave the subpoena with him after falsely claiming he was ducking service. All this for a subpoena of a third party to the lawsuit. A subpoena which is being quashed because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Of course the employer would not want the computer to fall into the RIAA's (and their lawyers') hands if it has company information on it. There is no likely reason to connect his computer with copyright infringement by the defendant. If the RIAA wishes to accuse the son of something and subpoena his computer, they should file suit against him.

1. How was the employer contacted? Are you talking about having a reason to contact the employer? Surely it's not standard practice to harass someone's employer while serving them and act in a threatening manner, then leave the subpoena with the employer without actually serving it?
2. How do you know he was in the wrong? You are simply taking the third-hand word of the process server, which is at best circumstantial evidence with unfounded conclusions of the Plaintiff thrown in.
3. No, but when the person serving the subpoena acts in a threatening manner and the items being subpoenaed contain material and confidential records of the business, there is cause for concern. Apparently the employer read the subpoena and was contacted directly by the Plaintiff.
4. That's your opinion, it looks like it to some.
5. First, I have to take issue with the term pirate. In the case against Kazaa, the judge correctly chastised the plaintiff's lawyer for using that derogatory term (along with theft) to describe people and actions incorrectly. The correct terms would be "copyright infringer" and "copyright infringement". What is your data to suggest that the aim is largely correct? I've heard that between 50% and 90% are incorrect.
6. Exactly. The RIAA gains from harassing and terrorizing innocent people, like a fascist regime.

Re:Kinda, but not totally

[squiggleslash]

My, what a large number of assumptions for someone criticizing me for making so many.

There were seven attempts to serve him at home. They failed. They then tried serving him at work. This is standard procedure. It's hard for me to see how this is wrong. It's also hard for me to see why you believe the RIAA lawyer would have been talking to the guy's boss without good reason. Oh! I know! Maybe the lawyer was cackling gleefully, waiting for the guy to leave his home before "trying to serve him at home", just so he could contact his boss. Riiiiiight.

Exactly. The RIAA gains from harassing and terrorizing innocent people, like a fascist regime.

The RIAA gains from tools like you and NYCL pretending they're omnipresent monsters, prepared to stoop to any level. Including, apparently reading the above, rounding up pirates and gassing them in concentration camps.

Get a sense of proportion and you'll understand why these descents into lunacy from the freeloading apologists do little but cement the position of the RIAA, and do nothing to actually prevent the lawsuits. The more you scream about how monsterous the RIAA is, the longer this campaign will continue.

Want to really do something about it? Encourage people to download legal, authorized, music. Or make some yourself. Being a tool for the RIAA is hardly the best way to fight them.

Re:Go RIAA!

[belmolis]

The deaf guy is perfect for them. Since he can't enjoy the music, obviously he is just downloading to cheat them out of sales. He's even worse than the hearing downloaders.

Reply to a wasteful moderator or dogmatist

[OldHawk777]

Well, I was moderated off topic on this one, ... someone misunderstood, wasted a moderator point, or is politically motivate as much as myself.

Anyway the NewYorkCountryLawyer said, "To those who might think that I might be exaggerating when I describe the RIAA's litigation campaign as a 'reign of terror'." To any normal human a "reign of terror" is a war on defenseless and/or innocent people; Therefor, my comments were not off topic in any way ... if the person can stretch their mind around the reality that the RIAA and other such governing corporate bodies in the US, EU ... are corporatists' waging a war of oppression on US citizens. This is perhaps why the person did not understand history and my other comments and/or associations with today's dark-comedy of errors.

I guess the moderator is a corporate-terrorist sympathizer and a cock-sucking Bush lover [AKA: Bush Jock Supporter].

Oh well, I just have a hard time being witty?

The point is

[geekoid]

that they can not defend themselves and have no real opportunity for a court to determine if they are guilty.

Remember, innicent until proven guilty? well the MPAA is conviently getting around that.

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[Archeopteryx]

Wow, you just revealed yourself.

Not as an **AA plant, but as a human being born totally without a sense of humor.

Can't you tell the difference?

I suggest some therapy. Or maybe just some hashish.

Wrong

[NaCh0]

You call that offensive?

Here is offensive AND defensive:

Stop infringing their copyrights.

Stop making lawyers rich.

Really.

[TheCabal]

Read the documentation instead of just reading the salacious headline. Son admitted that the computer was in his possession at the time in question. RIAA has been trying to serve him with paperwork and he's been playing fuckaround fuckaround dodging the process server and his family is helping him.

better think of something else

[alizard]

MS apparently threw so much DRM crap into it to make it incompatible with other MS music products to make Hollywood happy that sales are tanking.

Is the RIAA really wrong every time?

[beaverfever]

Has there ever been a story on slashdot in which someone somewhere admits that the RIAA had a legitimate reason to sue at least one person for copyright infringement? Is every single person accused by the RIAA really innocent?

Re:Is the RIAA really wrong every time?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What I can say is that without exception the RIAA never has a basis for its suit. And that almost without exception, after it brings suit, even after it learns the defendant has not infringed its copyrights, it will continue with the lawsuit until it gets its money.

Undoubtedly some of the people sued have infringed a copyright.

If you go out and sue the first 500 people who walk down the street, no doubt you'll find some copyright infringers.

But that does not mean you should just go out and sue the first 500 people who walk down the street.

And if you do sue someone, and find out they didn't infringe your copyright, you should drop the case with apologies.

What is more, even if you knew of a copyright infringement, you shouldn't just go ahead and sue people indiscriminately, if (a) they didn't know they were infringing a copyright, (b) they're willing to sign a "cease and desist" agreement, (c) they weren't getting any commercial gain, and (d) you can't really show that any damages were sustained by you. Fairness and decency and respect for other human beings should still count for something in this world.

used is OK

[alizard]

If you buy a used CD, no more money gets paid to RIAA labels. BTW, the RIAA has said that this is 'a problem that needs to be fixed'.

Are you an idiot or simply an astroturfer?

[alizard]

The RIAA claims you parrot are completely unsubstiantiated. An RIAA complaint simply means a law-bot thinks something with a filename that resembles something that might be a track from a record label may have been downloaded to a specific IP address.

The people who modded you up should delete their slashdot accounts to ensure they won't be moderating braindead posts like yours upwards ever again.

As for you, the best thing you can do for the slashdot community is leave.

I recommend that you Darwinize yourself.

mod parent up

[alizard]

He makes a lot more sense than the jackass he's responding to does.

so why aren't the tech companies stepping up to

[alizard]

the plate?

Our interest in this is tens or hundreds of bucks per year as individuals. The consumer technology industry has hundreds of billions per year at stake, in fact, they have far more at stake financially than Hollywood does.

So why aren't they telling their lobbyists to tell Hollywood's politicians "back the fuck off or else?" Why aren't they buying new politicians and getting ready to go to the mattresses?

They're still hypnotized with the same delusions they had a few years ago. Hollywood told them that if they give them everything they want with respect to content restrictions, that Hollywood would make all its content accessible to it and everybody would go onto a future of infinite profit together.

It's the same smoke and mirrors that goes into their movies... but targeted at CEOs who really ought to know better by now. Who's gotten nailed by this? Steve Jobs and the other Apple stockholders. . . whose iTunes would be a money-loser if it weren't being cross-subsidized by iPod sales instead of a stand-alone profit center adding to Apple's bottom line as it should be given the service it provides.

The latest sucker? Steve Ballmer, who let Hollywood turn his MS iPod killer into the Zune (snicker) via the side effects of content restrictions so heavy that one can't use the Zune with some content previously purchased from Microsoft. . . which is sinking without trace in the retail market. Hmmm... didn't he let Hollywood kill off "Microsoft Media Center" as well? Is he capable of learning from experience? (thinking about Vista) Well, maybe not.

All we can do as consumers is buy used, encourage up-and-coming musicians to sell their own music over the Net as CDs and tracks (and get an honest $5/CD instead of 20 cents after the label gets whatever its accountants say its cut is). . . buy used, and to buy music as tracks and live from non-RIAA musicians.

If you're a major stockholder or C-level at a consumer technology company. . . ask the others at the top of the tree "why the fuck are we letting a bunch of low-rent Hollywood companies tell us what we can sell consumers?"

Re:How low can they go? Yeah, Sure!!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yeah you're missing some steps.

The ISP knows the person's name and address. The RIAA could ask the judge for an order directing the ISP to give the person notice that the RIAA is seeking an order to get his or her name and address. Instead they go ahead and get the order first, and then ask the ISP to give notice of an order that's already been granted, and with no information about the basis for the order, the basis for the suit, the Court's rules, etc., so that once the victim gets the 'notice' he doesn't know what to do with it, because there's just about nothing he can do with it. See How the RIAA Litigation Process Works.

You've taken another big leap when you say that the person whose name and address is turned over by the ISP has 'harmed' the record labels in some way. They have no clue about that. They just go ahead and sue. Sure that person would be a good person with which to start an investigaton into whether there's someone out there infringing the RIAA sound recording copyrights. But there's no justification for just going ahead and suing that person. See Brief of EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen, AALL, and ACLU-OK and Brief of Communications & Computer Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association.

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[Builder]

Dude, NYCL regularly distorts facts, then when you call him on it he adds you to his foes list and accuses you of being an RIAA troll. I'm not sure when /. started covering RIAA stuff, but I'm pretty sure I've been here since long before then. But now I'm an RIAA plant?

This is the same man who states in a /. discussion that the RIAA is an international company (false, and a good clue is that one of the As stands for America :)) and that they have 4 members (false, they have hundreds). When I point this out, I am accused of being too technical. Excuse me for wanting a lawyer to present just the facts.

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm sure you're right that some of them are just morons.

The only reason I've "foed" them is to remind myself that they're time wasters. If there were a "foe" process that's private, I'd use it in a minute; I'm not out to tarnish anyone, just want to keep a list for my own use.

But I would be willing to bet there are at least 5 or 6 user ID's out today that are actually on the RIAA payroll.

As for being the "devil's advocate", I'm a professional in that department. Every good litigator is capable of making the other side's arguments even better than the other side can. We need to be able to do that, in order to anticipate and crush the arguments that are made. So I don't mind it at all when Slashdotters play the devil's advocate.

But I do hate phonies, liars, fakes, shills, plants, and trolls, who apply all kinds of critical thinking to my post or to the defendant's arguments, but show none of that same skepticism when rattling off the RIAA's company line as though it were gospel.

Meanwhile, as to the original post about RIAA plants.... I've been noticing some very interesting patterns here. I think it is a fun game to try to detect the patterns and find the shills. Their saving grace is that they're not that smart, and usually tip their hand.

Because it is dishonest

[mi]

So, the unemployed and the "home healthcare aids" are allowed to infringe on copyright?

Copyright infringement has no direct negative effect on another.

Is that a yes? As in: "Yes, the unemployed and the "home healthcare aids" are allowed to infringe on copyright?"

Violating copyright? I don't think the free exchange of information should be restricted.

Oh, ok, so you are against copyrights in general? Then just say so and argue that point, instead of the passionate crap about "home healthcare aids".

I do believe that the RIAA's tactics are morally wrong, and I don't think they should even be allowed.

Immoral is not illegal. Copying someone else's work without permission — to give away or for oneself — is immoral too. And it is also illegal. To hell with RIAA, if you copy and start giving away my pademelons design, you'll be wrong (both morally and legally) and I'll come after you... That RIAA is many thousand times richer than I am makes no difference — we both hate people copying (a.k.a. stealing, yes, stealing as in "depriving of something valuable") our works. Even if those copying (the thieves) are unemployed...

Here we are talking about a court case

We are? We just talked about free flow of information — get your story straight and stay on subject...

brought by a multi-million dollar company against an individual, not a violation of the law witnessed by a law enforcement officer.

What's the difference? One's chances of success in court rise greatly with hiring a lawyer regardless of who the claimant is — a "multi-million" (don't you hate them just for that?) corporation or a law-enforcement officer... Those hired lawyers are very expensive and the richer side will always have an advantage in court. That is the problem — not RIAA's "playing" by the current rules of litigation.

If RIAA went after "trustafarians" and CEOs copying music, would you approve of them? No, you wouldn't, because you think, there should be no copyright on music. Then stop pretending, it is about "home healthcare aids"...

How about

[Loucks]

Provigil and graveyard shifts? Anything to ineffectually combat the RIAA!

Re:How low can they go? Yeah, Sure!!

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>Instead they go ahead and get the order first, and then ask the ISP to give notice of an order that's already been granted, and with no information about the basis for the order, the basis for the suit, the Court's rules, etc., so that once the victim gets the 'notice' he doesn't know what to do with it, because there's just about nothing he can do with it.

But all this is doing is getting your identity to the RIAA so they can go ahead and sue you. I don't like it, but it just doesn't seem that wrong within that context.

To compare... Assume I'm caught on camera allegedly committing a crime or a tort at a store, but the store doesn't know who I am. The person who committed the crime already suspects me, and forces the store to hand over the tape so I can be visually identified. The store has no obligation to notify me that I'm being handed over.

(Should ISPs be required to protect our identity? (I lean towards yes, but worry about the ability of individuals to actually start an ISP). to the point of having to spend money defending these sorts of things before the end user has to... just short of indemnification, since discovery seems to lean towards giving info up front and getting it disqualified later.)

>See How the RIAA Litigation Process Works [riaalawsuits.us].

Ohio election 2004?

>You've taken another big leap when you say that the person whose name and address is turned over by the ISP has 'harmed' the record labels in some way.

Nah, I was just assuming they believed they had been harmed.

>They have no clue about that. They just go ahead and sue.

Well, they have a clue actually... they have an IP that is the apparent source of infringement.
They believe they've been harmed. They seem to believe they have information that can be used to identify the person behind the alleged harm... so they go after that person.

>Sure that person would be a good person with which to start an investigaton into whether there's someone out there infringing the RIAA sound recording copyrights. But there's no justification for just going ahead and suing that person.

Moral or legal? From attorney advice while having been sued in the past, anyone can sue just about anyone else with just a slight hint of reason and there will be no legal problem.

In fact, I was out over 50 grand fighting a civil suit that I and my attorney believed was frivolous. About the only reason you could see it was connected to me was that I knew her ex-husband, and he was missing money... so he MUST have been hiding it from her through me. We showed very clearly that there wasn't a problem, but never got any fees or even an admonishment. I'm just out 50 grand because a friend's ex-wife was pissed off.

>See Brief of EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen, AALL, and ACLU-OK [ilrweb.com] and Brief of Communications & Computer Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association [ilrweb.com].

I looked around the site, but didn't find what you're referring to.

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[Red Flayer]

Yeah, but I want to call him on it every time until it's common knowledge.

While his motivation may be in line with most of the Slashdot crowd, it sucks having a Jack Thompson on your side -- it damages everyone's credibility.

Further RIAA sillyness

[wombat13]

I used to manage an Auto Parts store and played a local Music Station as hold music on my phones. One day I received a letter in the mail demanding I pay royalties for the music that played while people are on hold. I have heard from my Dentist that he has also received a similar letter about the music he plays in his Office. My question is how does these "Royalty payments" ever get back to the artists involved? There was no mention in the letter of me having to provide a play list with the payment. Radio stations are required to keep a log of the songs they play so the royalties get back to the songs copy write holder ( notice I did not say artist or songwriter) often they are not the one who receives royalties. All the letters stated was you owe us $$XXX amount of dollars pay now or be sued. I wonder who pocket these payments go in?

Re:Hopping

[theKiyote]

Who's to say that I can't hop on both feet without a pogo stick? Perhaps I just like to hop? It is my favorite mode of travel ^_^ Here's to bad spellink and the falure of the Amerikan skol sistem!

Cowards run away

[msobkow]

Cowards and nutbars run away to hide.

Citizens fight back as best they can.

Patriots go beyond "best they can" and deal with consequences that would stop "regular" people.

Go hide in the bushes. We don't need cowards.

Re:Cowards run away

[drinkypoo]

What you're missing in your eagerness to talk shit from behind the protection of your computer is that I'm not talking about hiding. I'm talking about having minimal economic impact. This doesn't prevent you from participating in social activism.

You're making assumptions. Stop it. It only makes you a jackass.

Re:Cowards run away

[msobkow]

Precisely what does your low impact hiding in the bushes have to do with a freaked-out power-elite infringing everyone else's rights?

You go that far off topic without expaining yourself, and get offended? To me your post looks like a recommendation to bury one's head in the sand and hide from the freaked-out power-elite.

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[squiggleslash]

Want to play a game?

Here's his foe list.

Now read the responses to the article. Whenever something comes up where someone disagrees with the premise, take a quick look.

I'm finding the matches are 1:1 right now in every case I've looked. Yesterday, there were differences, but he's "fixed" them now. The guy not only cannot handle people disagreeing with his "The RIAA will sue you, eat your babies, and drink your blood" thesis, but even "Now, hold on a moment, I just read the article, and that's not quite what happened" stuff is enough for him to want to foe you - to mark you as someone he can't "reason" with.

Would you hire a lawyer so bad he cannot even listen to the facts if they appear to contradict what he's claimed in public?

How does this guy stay in business? Other than constantly shilling for his work on Slashdot I mean?

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[squiggleslash]

That's a nice thought, the idea that NewYorkCountryLawyer might be an elaborate joke that only one or two of us have failed to cotton on to.

Seriously.

[Sareteni]

Someone should create a 'What To Do If You Are Being Sued By the RIAA/MPAA' pamphlet or webpage.

Instructions about filing motions to delay, countersuing and what to countersue for, and an explanation that if everyone does this it would cost too much for the RIAA to continue its thuggish, kneebreaking tactics.

Simple, step-by-step intructions with explanations - because most of the people being sued are people without a lot of resources or law knowledge. Lets face it, the law is a nighmarish labyrinth for any non-lawyer; even intelligent people with the desire and time to wade through the pertinent details. Even then the law rarely means what you think it means.

Re:Seriously.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Lawyers couldn't do that because you can't give cookie cutter advice for everybody; legal advice basically has to be tailored to the needs of a particular individual. Each person's situation is different.

Re:Seriously.

[Sareteni]

Ah, but most people aren't even aware they *can* countersue. Not cookie-cutter advice per lawsuit, just a general overview of a person's rights in a suit like this, and some possible courses of action.
Every bankrupsy is not the same, yet you can pick up easy, simple, how-to kits on filing bankrupsy at any bookstore.

Lack of easily available information is one of the most powerful weapons being used here.

Re:Seriously.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well my blog and web site are chock full of information about the cases, and provide hundreds of samples of different types of litigation documents that have been used:
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/howriaa.htm
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm

How about a no-debt timeline?

[silicon not in the v]

I think Americans have a bad habit of worshipping at the altar of the credit score. That timeline you listed just made me sad. 24.9% APR? A $12K car loan for a broke person? Why do you talk about these like they are good things? That person is immediately diving back into credit cards and car loans. Isn't debt what put them into bankruptcy before? One of the sayings of alcoholics anonymous is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Their plan of living on credit worked so well for them before, why do they think it will work better this time?

My timeline was that it was finally driven home to me that having debt adds risk to your life and just costs you more in paying interest to banks than just saving up and paying for things. My wife and I got very focused and lived on a tight budget for a while, and paid off all of our debt except our mortgage in about 10 months. We are now working on paying off our house mortgage early, and will have a paid-for house and no debt at all in about a year and a half to two years.

When you don't owe your life to banks, that is a kind of freedom that most Americans don't understand or appreciate.

FICO isn't everything

[silicon not in the v]

Also, you can get approved for a home loan with a good interest rate without a FICO score. Even someone who has been through a bankruptcy can get a good loan if they have paid their bills (rent, utilities) early or on time for about 2-3 years. Then, a mortgage lender who does manual underwriting (meaning they actually look at the person's situation, instead of just the FICO number) can get them a good loan. A FICO score is just the easiest, brainless way of evaluating for loans.

The FICO score is an "I love debt" score. It is entirely figured on the amount and types of debt you have and your payment history on them. Someone who has a net worth of millions and makes $200K a year income would still have a 0 FICO score if they paid cash for everything. That person could write a check to buy 2 of those houses, but couldn't get approved for a loan from a finance company that only looks at credit scores.

All I can say to the RIAA is

[infidel13]

You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs!
Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person!
I blow my nose at you!
I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper!
I fart in your general direction!
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[Rakarra]

This is the same man who states in a /. discussion that the RIAA is an international company (false, and a good clue is that one of the As stands for America :))

To be honest there is some truth to that statement. Granted, the RIAA by itself an American organization, but it is not a company in itself. It's a grouping of companies, some of which are quite international.

Dishonest? I don't think you know what that means

[jgoemat]

Oh, ok, so you are against copyrights in general? Then just say so and argue that point, instead of the passionate crap about "home healthcare aids".

I am indeed against copyrights being used against people that are not profiting from them. If you're not trying to make a profit from copying, I don't think that should be illegal. I thought that was pretty clear. I am for copyrights in that a company shouldn't be able to make money off the copyrighted works of others. That would preserve the limited monopoly granted by copyright law to promote progress in science and the useful arts.

Immoral is not illegal. Copying someone else's work without permission -- to give away or for oneself -- is immoral too.

That's your opinion, mine happens to differ. I see nothing immoral about copying someone else's work without permission. Do you have a TiVo? Did you ever have a VCR or a tape player? Chances are that you copied someone's work without their permission. Have you ever sung a song in the shower or to yourself? I doubt you had the author's permission. Did your mom ever make you a Superman outfit for Halloween when you were a kid? Did you ever sing a song with different words to be funny? Ever sing along with the radio? Do you consider those acts immoral? If not, then what makes them moral and not other acts? Just because something is illegal does NOT make it immoral.

If RIAA went after "trustafarians" and CEOs copying music, would you approve of them? No, you wouldn't, because you think, there should be no copyright on music. Then stop pretending, it is about "home healthcare aids"...

I only mentioned "home healthcare aids" in a quote from the previous author. I never pretended, I would also be against the RIAA going after anyone this way because it is harassment. I don't know why you're putting words in my mouth. I just think that personal copying not for profit should not be illegal. If you have every taped a song off the radio or recorded a TV show, you are a hypocrite. If you think that laws are the genesis of morality instead of thinking that laws should reflect morality, then you are an idiot.

Re:Dishonest? I don't think you know what that mea

[mi]

Your opinions viz. copyright laws in general are off-topic both in this thread and the entire board. So I will not discuss that.

That's your opinion, mine happens to differ. I see nothing immoral [...]

Excellent illustration to my point: Immoral is not Illegal. Immoral is relative, illegal is pretty well defined, and the arbiters are known even better.

I only mentioned "home healthcare aids" in a quote from the previous author.

I am the "previous author" and I mentioned it, because the article (and the /. write-up) did — in an attempt at "passionate appeal", which was foolish.

I don't know why you're putting words in my mouth.

It now seems, that you participated in this thread (and the whole board) because of some convictions on an entirely different subject (that copyright should not be transferable, and that those not profiting from copyright violations should not be prosecuted for them). It is your fault, that your opinion was mis-interpreted to have been on-topic: whether or not the poor (those, who can't afford legal defense) defendants can be prosecuted by a (much richer) claimant.

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

4 companies are doing all the litigation.

3 of those 4 are foreign companies.

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

So you think it's an effective use of my time to (a) debate with you and every Slashdotter who thinks he knows more about copyright law than I do, and (b)sit around checking each's "full post history"? I suppose you are aware that that would consume my entire life.

I participate in Slashdot to impart information to people who are willing to learn. I am also delighted to learn from people who have information to impart. I've been researching copyright law for 32 years, and have been in the trenches every day for more than a year and a half in this RIAA v. Consumer battle. So I think I have something to contribute.

I am not here to win over every anonymous user ID that happens to be trying to engage me.

I am certain that there are a goodly number of user ID's that are RIAA trolls. I use the foe designation to remind myself of those whom I consider potential RIAA trolls, and also "others with whom I cannot engage in meaningful dialogue". Sometimes I use it for someone who is obviously a far right wing nut, or someone who is highly opinionated and overly argumentative but never backs up their arguments with information. It is just a waste of time for me to talk to those people, so I mark them as foes and set up my comments preferences so I don't have to waste my time reading their stuff.

I would never designate someone as a "foe" just because they disagreed with me, if they could substantiate their arguments with something real.

I don't mean to insult anyone with the "foe" designation; I consider it a failing of Slashdot that it does not have a private, personal means -- for each user's own personal reference -- to designate those Slashdotters with whom he does not want to get involved.

As far as "defending" my statements, I support my statements with information based on (a) documented litigation events, and (b) my year and a half of daily experience fighting the RIAA war. That's a lot more than you do.

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Why don't you name a fact that I distorted?

My take

[nyghtraven]

The RIAA and MPAA are nothing more than bullies, although they are upholding their legal rights. kinda of a catch 22 there. I dont like them for what they do and the tactics they use. And instead of embracing the electronic age, they fight against it, and attempt to take away consumers rights to fair use. Personally they need to be stopped IMHO, however until that point I will continue to decrypt DVD and music to store on my computer. I do not share it nor download (illegally) the media however, as that is morally wrong. Remember, when you do that you are osting money that the artist deserves to make. Yes it supports the RIAA and MPAA, but many punish them and not realize it hurts the artist as well. Oh yeah its illegal, but I dont really care about that part anyway, lol