Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues Stroke Victim in Michigan
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has now brought suit against a stroke victim in Michigan in Warner v. Paladuk. The defendant John Paladuk was living in Florida at the time of the alleged copyright infringement, and had notified the RIAA that he had not engaged in any copyright infringement. Despite the fact that Mr. Paladuk suffered a stroke last year (pdf), rendering him disabled, the RIAA commenced suit against him on February 27, 2007. Suing the disabled is not new to the RIAA. Both Atlantic v. Andersen in Oregon and Elektra v. Schwartz in New York were suits brought against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing, and whose sole income is Social Security Disability. Both of these cases are still pending. The local Michigan lawyer being used by the RIAA in the Paladuk case is the same lawyer who was accused by a 15 year old girl of telling her what to say at her deposition in Motown v. Nelson. In the Warner v. Scantlebury case, after the defendant died during the lawsuit, the same lawyer indicated to the court that he was going to give the family '60 days to grieve' before he would start deposing the late Mr. Scantlebury's children."
The RIAA is going to run out of people to sue and then they will have sue themselves.
We all know the ill and disable are pure of heart, love their moms and are made of kitten whiskers. Slashdot is getting seriously pathetic trotting out extremist nonsense like this.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
It is times like this that I wish America would switch over to a system where blank media is taxed and they don't prosecute piracy. Sure it might stretch the bottom line for the Mafiaa, but wouldn't it be beneficial to society at large? Hopefully in a decade or so it will be a big enough hot-button topic to spur actual political change. Until then keep it up RIAA... if you stop being the stereotypical evil corporation all we will have left to overthrow when the revolution comes is Microsoft :-)
Having a stroke and/or receiving disability payments renders one incapable of copyright infringement? Does the BitTorrent client refuse to install if it detects a Social Security check in the vicinity?
Being disabled isn't evidence of innocence, unless the disability is such that one is incapable of even using a computer. If the guy broke the law, he broke the law. I happen to think the law sucks and needs to be changed post haste, but it sucks for everyone, not just stroke victims and the handicapped.
In short, the RIAA is as within its rights here as it is in any of its other cases.
How long until they start suing dead people? ...
They haven't sued dead people, have they?
The RIAA has now brought suit against a stroke victim in Michigan in Warner v. Paladuk.
And by "stroke victim", they don't mean someone with a medical condition. That's just what they call someone who gets caught downloading a Billy Squier album.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I've read articles where the RIAA have sued a person who had no computer. Even then, they don't get as much sympathy as someone who has a disability.
What I really want to see is the RIAA sue someone that is deaf (and MPAA sue someone that is blind). If reported properly, then maybe the general public will finally realize how stupid all these lawsuits are. Instead of being outraged by a nipple on TV, we (the collective we, as a nation) can rise against something that is worth it.
I know it's a slimeball move to exploit someone with a disability, but if they were to be sued, I'm sure they'd love to go after the MAFIAA as well. You have to fight slimeball moves with slimeball moves.
hackers of the world unite!
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but those of you who aren't in the legal field fail to understand that RIAA has to continue this suit or risk being found to have abandoned its copyright infringement cases and being found to have used what is known in the legal business as "selective prosecution" or "de facto" prosecution.
Selective prosecution would render virtually all of RIAA's future cases moot because they would fall under the legal status of "unequal prosecution" and essentially be considered extortion.
Much like defending trademarks (or risk abandonment and loss of trademark), these types of lawsuits have to forge ahead. Otherwise it gives the appearance to the courts of favoritism and targetted vengeance.
Satan must be a pirate too, cause these guys seem to be trying to get an express ticket to his crib.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
He suffered from the stroke ? Shouldn't he be suing the RIAA and Billy Squier?
The more I hear "RIAA" the more I wonder what it's really for. It seems like whenever stuff like this happens, we say the RIAA is suing a stroke victim. The RIAA sues dead people. It seems like the RIAA is doing a great job redirecting all of the bad press for this campaign. To me it looks like Warner is suing this guy, not the RIAA. Let's at least identify who is calling the shots here. Maybe if more people heard about Warner's actions, they would buy CDs from other record labels. (Yes, I know other labels sue people just as much, but it'd be nice if there was some bad press to come with stuff like suing disabled people.)
Can you cite a source on this? I've only ever heard of this with trademarks, not copyrights.
Okay, I'm pretty sure that we all understand that the RIAA is not the nicest organization by now. How many more of these stories do we have to read?
did they even know he was disabled? when you're flinging out lawsuits left and right, you're bound to hit a few disabled folk.
they probably have no idea, but they probably don't care, either.
It might work in pansy liberal love fests like the netherlands but with the various fringe groups that inhabit the USA such a system involving fees on blank media would never work.
first of all you got the "tough on everything" morons that will think it "sends out the wrong message" and secondly you got the "randian" cultists^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h libertarians who will cry bloody murder over the fact that "they might use the blank media for something else".
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Judge: Are you the Sony BMG lawyer who defended the root kit?
Lawyer: No, that was the Warner lawyer.
Judge: The same Warner lawyer who indicated to the court that he was going to give the family '60 days to grieve' before he would start deposing?
Lawyer: No, that was the Motown lawyer
Judge: The same Motown lawyer who was accused by a 15 year old girl of telling her what to say at her deposition?
Lawyer: No, that was the Michigan lawyer
Judge: The same Michigan lawyer brought suits against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing, and whose sole income is Social Security Disability - a lawyer whose story that has just been posted on slashdot?
Lawyer:Dohhh!!
the RIAA victim strokes you!
Look at all the bullshit this nation is willing to put up with!
Do you really think this means anything?
The American ideal is dead. We are all just trying to keep our heads down and to survive the machine we have built.
I just saw 'RIAA sues victim in Michigan' and thought crap, they're getting closer!
You are, by purchasing their steaming piles of shit (err, music). Well, possibly not you personally, but the royal You, as in everyone who supports the extortionist business model on the back end.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is the job of a lawyer to do what is being done to the theifs out there. If you do not want to be at on the wrong side of the table do NOT "share" what is not yours to "share". Don't STEAL and you won't get wrung.
Whats the difference between recording music you hear on the radio and downloading the same song from the Internet?
Honestly expecting one to be illegal and the other not and somehow your doing something wrong and "stealing" and hurting the world by using one over the other is utter nonsense.
The fact that the US has gone off the IP deep end is just a reflection of bordom caused by technology making life way too easy for people. If people had a goal/mission that they really cared about they certainly would care much less about IP lawyers, who copied who..etc and do something that adds actual value and improves peoples lives.
It works with books. People who illegally do large production runs of coprighted material are almost almost always prosecuted, but those who xerox a few pages - or even a whole textbook - seldom are. Prosecute the large scale copiers and the small scale copiers will be discrete. Publishers don't suffer much from the small copier.
And while there is no significant tax on paper, the intrinsic cost of it functions much like a tax.
The US book publishing business has been stable in this regard for decades.
Instead of using RIAA start calling it the record labels. Now they're just pushing the bad pr over to an organisation that has nothing to lose.
How do you prove you did not commit anything ? Find an alibi ? That's right : in most of the case you won't be able to prove you DID NOT commit anything. Proving a negative/absence of crime is illogical and neigh impossible. That should be the RIAA job to prove you commited infringement without reasonable doubt.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Yes, Valve is bad, but Steam isn't as bad as you're making out
The more the RIAA presses these bullshit lawsuits the less I feel the need to purchase a cd ever again. I now make it a point to download/steal any song that I require.
Come get me you pieces of shit. *waving my giant cock*
This is an Appeal to Pity.
Yes, we all know the RIAA kills puppies and causes gout. But is it too much to ask to find articles about the RIAA that simply tell the facts as they are about them? They're bad enough, and they'll stand on their own.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
All RIAA has to do is say they reviewed their facts after considering the defendents reply, We now understand that a mistake was made. It is likely they were wrong on this one particular case.
OR they could talk to the defendent and make a deal with him and say, "We have come to an agreement that settles the dispute on copyright infringment without going to trial." "We move to have the case dismissed."
There isn't anything binding them to court. There are provisions within the realm of law that will allow this to be stopped without any ill effects to their position. Any lawer with enough imagination to get into this mess certainly has enough to get out if he wished to.
Understatement of the year brought to you by Slashdot.
Why not? Their tactics are intended to scare people into changing their behaviour without regard to the victims involvement in the process. Isn't that the definition of terrorism.
Has anyone ever compared the percentage of the people RIAA has sued that are disabled to the percent of disabled people in the general population?
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
I say BOYCOTT THE ENTIRE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY! Don't steal their putrid crap, don't give them any excuse to indemnify you. But don't buy it, either. Don't go to movies, don't rent movies, don't buy DVDs, don't buy CDs, don't download music for 99cents a pop, don't do any of it. Attack them legally by not giving them any more money. Show them who's boss. Us. The people. Remember, if you go see a movie or buy a song, you are financing these scum sucking litigants. Power to the people.
god damn ri FUCKING aa recording asshats fuckers can suck my ass and die. EAT SHIT fuckwads i'll rip yer doddamn balls off you piece of shit cumswallowing gay shit pushing fuckwads you GODDAMN DISABLED PARALYSED GRANDPA RAPE FUCKERS!!!!!!!
How long untill they sue the deaf?
Warner Music are suing this person. Where does it say that the RIAA are suing ?
I'm not completely familiar with the US disability system, but I know that in other countries, disability cheques are protected income...they can't be garnished or otherwise taken from the recipient by any means, as the money is legally considered to be the bare minimum the person needs to live. Can the sued guy not just say to the court "Yup, I did it. I'll send the RIAA a cheque as soon as I can afford it." (meaning never)?
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
where have you been?
Copy all the CDs you want, legally!
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and ethically - you've paid for the right to do so. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, MAFIAA!)
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
..that one day, our Congress will rise up and force the **AAs to give back the money they extorted from every single file sharer, all 50,000 or so who were ever sued.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
They want a tax on blank media AND prosecute file sharers. That at least is the case in the netherlands and you can see them trying to do the same in canada. Just because the judges have made it "legal" to download in the frozen wastelands of north america does not mean it is legal to upload.
So no a tax on blank media would NOT be good, not until the RIAA and the likes learn to accept that they cannot have it all.
What you have to remember is that the RIAA is not so much against file sharing but against any loss of absolute control of what happens to content. If you elimated all filesharing right now they would launch a crusade against people ripping CD's and putting them on mp3 players, you would have people in court being charged with having more then one copy of a song they bought.
Somewhere in the media industry the idea has grown that they have the absolute god given right to control exactly what happens to their product even after it is sold. It is unique to the content/software industry and it is an evil thought. Imagine for a second any other industry doing the same, Ford saying that you cannot share your car with your wife, cookie company forbidding you to go halfies, it would be idiotic.
You cannot reason with the RIAA. It would be like trying to reason with a hungry shark and you in the water, miles away from land. Sure I suppose you could cut of your finger and feed it to the shark and hope that will satisfy it. It is a novel approach and untested. Or maybe people tested it and for some reason they were never heard from again. I wonder why.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Really, someone should make a documentary or movie about all these lawsuits. I think there is *enough* material for a good documentary and I am sure people in USA would pay more attention if the information was spoon fed by TV.
...
Were are the "The Corporation" guys or Michael Moore when he is needed?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
First off some people have trouble admitting something in court that they did not do. Silly isn't it?
It would also mean that he owes that money for the rest of his life (even presuming that in the US they have socialist protections against people being forced to live below the bare minimum, hell even in the EU these basic human laws are being torn apart by the servants of evil)
Imagine he won the lottery or got an inheritance OR even managed to recover, he would then have to pay the RIAA whatever he got for something he didn't do.
That is your idea of a smart move?
The guy claims he wasn't in the state were the infringement took place, offcourse that in itself doesn't prove a thing, there is after all remote access. I am not in the same province as my webserver either, doesn't mean I am not responsible for it. IF he is telling the truth then he is innocent. I would hate to think that innocent people have to say they are guilty just to avoid the cost of a lawsuit. I am aware that this happens in criminal cases already and it is extremely bad. It is a fundemental attack on the very basis of a fair legal system. Make it so costly to defend yourselve that the poor are criminals by default.
The witch hunts worked this way. I think that in general it was thought to be a good thing that these and similar practices were ended and that everyone deserves a fair trial. Even the innocent.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I haven't even owned a television since last summer!
This is just insane but it doesn't do much good for us all to sit here and whine about it to ourselves. *we* are not the market that keeps funding these people. Howver, *we* have a responsibility to mobilize and get the word out to the *regular public*. Call every talk show you can print flyers.. Spread the word, while we still have the right of "freespeech" on our side.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Here, I propose an easy solution: 1. Grab pitchforks 2. Storm RIAA headquarters with 1,000,000 people 3. RIAA never screws with an American (Disabled or not) again Problem fucking solved. You're welcome.
okinawa japan
1. The surest sign of an RIAA troll is a post that starts out
2. That is a complete fabrication about the law; there is no such thing as "selective prosecution" in civil litigation. (In fact, even in criminal law it's a concept that exists on paper, but is almost never an issue in reality. Prosecutors are supposed to be selective and have "prosecutorial discretion" to pick some cases as worthy of prosecution, and others not.)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
1. This story, for some reason, has the RIAA trolls out in droves.
2. I don't know if it's several of them, or if it's one person with several ID's.
3. But I'm finding it fun to spot the user ID's that are trolling for the RIAA, and marking them "foe", other than the AC's.
4. I hope you'll all join in the fun.
5. I hope those of you with moderation points will play, too.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Okay, I've got to say this about the RIAA - I well and truly hope that somebody puts them down for good. A class action suit, SOMETHING.
I am a published author, and assuming nothing falls through with my publisher, I've got a book coming out later this year that should be quite interesting - and, I want my copyright protected. I don't want people pirating the year and a half of hard work of myself and my co-author. I'm not greedy, I'm not evil - I just worked (and am still working) hard on this, and I want what is reasonable - that my, and my co-author's, wishes in regards to how it is distributed be respected. That's all.
What are these wishes? That the students who buy it (it's a textbook on ancient Greek and Roman humour) buy it as it is published - as a printed book. We're even looking at having an electronic copy attached on CD that they can use on their laptop during class. If they want to sell it to a friend when they're done with it, that's fine. If they want to buy it from a used bookstore, that's fine too. It's if they take the book and post it on a newsgroup or website for anybody and everybody to download, undercutting my publisher - that's when I object. All of this is reasonable, and none of this takes away from the rights of the purchaser to do what is reasonable with their copy of the book.
But the RIAA - they're being completely unreasonable. The problem isn't the people who are downloading music, it's the people who are uploading it. And, in the process of filing lawsuit after lawsuit against people who are doing so little damage as to not even be worth the time, they're painting the entire artistic field in this litigious light. I'm tired of seeing my profession demonized as being greedy and evil, when most of us writers barely make enough to survive, because of these bastards.
It's one of those moments where I really wish I lived in the United States, just so I could have a chance to fight them. But, as a Canadian, I can't do that without it being meddling. Sigh.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
If you buy an " Audio " CD-R, that statutory fee has been paid for.
If you buy a cassette, that statutory fee has been paid for.
Unfortunately for all the people file-trading out there, not a single one of the
piracy tariffs cover the act of infringement via file-swapping.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Many of the people they're suing never did anything- they're just believing the people they hired
to fetch IP addresses of "traders". It falls under vexatious litigant at that point. They're not
protecting anything other than their failing business model via lawsuits.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I'm surprised that nobody's filed a RICO suit against them and the labels at this point...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
And why shouldn't they file suit against him, just because he had a stroke? Not that I agree with the *AA suing people left right and centre, but if a known spammer had a stroke, would you want them to get off the hook just because something bad happened to their health?
This is pure shock-factor feeding to the masses, propaganda against the *AA. If we're going to lobby against these kinds of actions, can we please do it on a valid basis, such as fair-use etc.?
Aikon-
It seems to me that nobody has ever been sued for sharing movies or music using Bittorrent; the worst that happens is that RIAA may send an inconsequential letter to one's ISP. I think we need to evangelize more for Azureus+transport encryption+SafePeer, to defend everybody's educational fair-use private sharing rights.
Hey, the only reason that these legal proceedings are allowed to continue, the government sees the value of the taxes generated from the sales of music and the legal proceedings. If you were to take this taxing power away, the ROI for investors and the government would limit the value to continue this course of action.
Both the MAFIAA and Government have a mutual interest in a part of your wallet... This will not go away until people vote the current strategy away...
Another way to look at it, both entities are trying to maintain current and future revenues. The Government sees a taxing opportunity ahead... The MAFIAA dinosaurs are allowed to believe that people will want to continue purchasing their content etc.
Internet connectivity has stalled in the US for this reason alone, the MAFIAA only want the internet as a tool to dispense and control their content. Without the control they'd disappear overnight. Their afraid of losing control of their purpose.
I propose that anyone who is confronted by the RIAA say the following "Dantooine...they're on Dantooine"
I didn't know having health issues made you exempt from the law.
If having a stroke means you are immune from copyright suites my ingrowing toenail must be able to get me out of a speeding ticket or two.
God Be Gone
"Both Atlantic v. Andersen in Oregon and Elektra v. Schwartz in New York were suits brought against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing, and whose sole income is Social Security Disability."
1. If "disabled" people are to be treated with respect, we shouldn't pity them and excuse them from laws that apply to the able-bodied
2. It's easy to collect SSDI! Simply go down to your local Social Security office, say you have a bad back (if your a man) or "I'm DEPRESSED" if you're a woman, and you'll get free cash and pills for life. Then start a cash business doing construction (if you're a man) or selling on eBay (if you're a woman) and be a SSDI king/queen! Only in the RARE CASE is someone collection SSDI blind/deaf missing both legs and an arm, etc. Most are no more DISABLED than YOU ARE.
Congrats to the RIAA for treating disabled people as equals (1) and perhaps exposing some SSDI Scamsters (2)
I think it should be clear to everyone by now that the RIAA is specifically looking for press. Suing someone who truly deserves it will net you a passing mention in some news recap. Suing someone who is pitifully innocent is guaranteed to elicit all sorts of publicity and get people talking/thinking about it. It's like the music industry is trying to brand us with this overhyped nonsense. It's like those nasty political TV spots that consist of 30 seconds of name calling and finger pointing. Most educated and balanced people see them as ridiculously low-brow jabs worthy of a preschool yard, but the fools, the apes, the imbeciles that make up the largest demographic group, they somehow identify with the vapid messages, devoid of fact but bursting with emotion.
If the RIAA wanted money out of these suits, they'd sue people with money... obviously! Most people who want to sue, will first determine if their mark is "worth suing"; that concept alone is a terrifying testament to how our current legal system is broken beyond repair. Suing someone who has no income, like a child or a disabled retired individual, is about as effective as launching missiles at a puppy. It's real exciting, and real scary, but ultimately you're just wasting a ton of money to accomplish squat. My opinion is that the RIAA is going after that excitement and fear, nothing more and nothing less.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Now, the same thing, except instead of Alice loaning a blank, Bob first gives her a blank from his stash. Again, no distribution, loaning or sale of copyrighted material, only copying under the terms of the AHRA.
Now, same thing, but Bob starts with an authorizedly-made CD. Makes no difference - the AHRA does not distinguish where the source material comes from.
But, all of that isn't necessary. A re-reading of the AHRA shows:
Now, because Congress saw a need to specifically state that last part ("embodies a sound recording at the time it is first distributed"), it is clear that, even after copyright material has been copied onto it, an Audio CD-R falls under that definition, or there would be no need for that provision (and it meets the rest of the definition). That determined, the AHRA specifically allows "first sale" type of distribution: "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the
So, make CDs under the AHRA, and give 'em away!
Your original post said "That would infringe the distribution right due to an extremely careful bit of rewording of the bill that RIAA got through without anyone really thinking about the effect. You see, the big exception to the distribution right is the first sale exception, which applies to any copy lawfully made under the Copyright Act. But AHRA compliant copies are not lawfully made, technically, they're just not actionably made. "
I don't think you were considering the specific "distribution is non-actionable" exemption of the AHRA.
Do you still disagree?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You DID read the part about how the RIAA has flimsy evidence and these people most certainly don't admit to being copyright infringers of any kind, right? The ad misercordiam, as you call it, is to call attention to the fact that, even when the RIAA is on notice that it's case is poor, they refuse to drop the lawsuit. Even though they're putting some poor, innocent person through hell.
I mean, if you were shown how little of a case you had, wouldn't you drop it? It's not like they don't have plenty of people to sue, some of whom might have even infringed upon their copyrights (although I'm suspecting that any such people identified are all but accidentally found, given what we've seen in their prior cases).
Well, you have to realize that there have been trolls on Slashdot since LONG before the RIAA. Some people are just plain stupid, or like to be contrarian just to piss folks off. By pointing out how much you dislike this, you're likely to have the "don't stuff beans up your nose" principle come into effect. Also, it's arguably offtopic, and as sympathetic as Slashdot is to anyone fighting against the RIAA, they're being polite not to point that out or mod you down more often. You're better off just detailing what all the RIAA is doing wrong this week.
:-)
Speaking of which, while I agree that it's terrible that they're suing defenseless people, you might want to put their innocence ahead of their disability. Otherwise, you'll have people calling you out for appeal to pity. So if you disagree with someone, stick with the facts of why. Calling them trolls or whatever won't do anything; the last thing you need is more foes, because the minute you mark someone as a foe, they're likely to polarize their opinion in a direction contrary to your own. Conversely, undermining the facts upon which they rely will influence people's opinion in favor of your direction. If you do it well enough, even those 'trolls' who are just normal people may come around to see things your way.
So to recap, an author must know their audience, and for this audience you're best off putting the innocence first and the pity second. Slashdot posters are highly analytical and will consider logic before human factors. I can't change that, that's just how things are here. You're also best off not trying to make foes. Where they're wrong, stick to the facts. It's simply not relevant whether they're RIAA-paid or not if they're right, so stick to proving them wrong. That does YOU more good and them more harm.
I think that, whatever the case, Slashdotters do feel for these people, though. But you'll have a better time on Slashdot if you ignore the trolls except to correct their misstatements of fact, you'll get along better with more posters, you'll influence more people to see what heartless bastards the RIAA is being, and you'll probably get more help when you ask for people to rebut their shoddy technical evidence.
That aside, I say all this to help you. I'll happily swear under penalty of perjury that I do NOT work for the RIAA or any affiliate thereof that I know of (I'm in the completely unrelated industry of window manufacturing, if we have ANY affiliation, I sure as hell don't know about it). I just want to allow you to be more persuasive in front of this audience and that's something I DO know how to do. More than a few times, I've hit +5 from an anonymous post, so you know it was my ideas and not my reputation that came forth.
In any event, good luck on your cases! I hope that you collect attorney's fees and court costs and send them packing. I sincerely hope that you someday force them into a corner and that you terrify their attorneys by bringing their misconduct to the attention of the local bar (speaking of which, have you?). I hope that you discredit their "expert" witnesses very thoroughly, such that their testimony isn't even considered in future cases because their reputations have dropped so much in prior cases.
But please consider what I've said. I only want to help you out here. I mean, why the hell would an RIAA troll want to enhance your reputation on Slashdot? Hmmm, unless they wanted you to spend all your time here instead in legal research... Devious bastards
Heh, and here I thought the extortionist business model WAS the back end. albums with COVERS sold in STORE FRONTS are probably considered what they are SUPPOSED to be giving a shit about.
they're the primary market for new CDs, since there the ones that can afford $21 bucks a CD. Good luck getting them to boycott the RIAA though.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and you said:" As for this, I'm really sure I disagree. It's certainly an interesting reading, but it doesn't pass the laugh test, IMO. Congress' intent was to only permit blank media to be distributed, and I think that a court would interpret the statute in that manner."
Reread the definition:
If the above definition does not include blank media which has later been recorded with content as allowed by the act, it would also have the obvious effect of removing protection for the re-recording of either audio-DAT or audio-CD-RW after an initial use was made (if not using a "digital audio recording device", i.e. you could only record once on such media using a computer). It's ludicrous to conclude that was the intent.
(ii) excludes regular (data) CD-Rs, and similar. What does (i) exclude, and why? The only item I can think of would be a pre-recorded DAT. But it's not reasonable to think that was Congress' intent - a consumer can/could buy a blank audio-DAT for less money, so there's no incentive for them to record over pre-recorded ones, and no reason for Congress to address that as an issue. That's a very reasonable assumption when it's generalized, too - that blank recording media will always be cheaper than equivalent pre-recorded media. Manufactured CDs can't be re-recorded, so they don't fit the base definition, and don't need exclusion. So, why did Congress make those exclusions, written the way they are? I believe they were made so that the excluded items were not subject to royalty payments, which is to say, you get the benefit of the "non-actionable" clause IFF a royalty has been paid. That's certainly passes the "laugh test;" pay the royalty fee, make a copy which you're able to distribute noncommercially.
Is there any reason to think that's beyond what was intended? Do you think Congress intended that people only be able to make copies for themselves, and pay royalties for the privilege? Did the RIAA fight for this act because people were making copies for themselves of material they already legally had a right to? Was that a big problem? That people were buying devices and media exclusively for that purpose? The act was created because the technology was being used to make copies from/for others.
Furthermore, it is clear that Congress knew of, and wanted to distinguish in the definition between blank media and media which had sound recordings. If Congress's intent were only to protect distribution of blank CD-Rs from contributory infringement action, as you appear to be claiming, why would they exclude only pre-recorded media from the definition? Distribution of pre-recorded media is well covered elsewhere, and is of no particular concern to this act. They would simply say "(B) Such term does not include any material object - (i) that embodies a sound recording" (i.e. a non-b
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Premium Dollars
In establishing the notion of Premium Content, Microsoft and other Premium Content stakeholders (notably the RIAA and MPAA organizations), have attempted to place limitations on the "Fair Use', "mediums of distribution", time limits, and other rather reasonable restrictions on the End User. However practical, this agreement has been somewhat one-sided and there has been no universal, standardized method in place to codify End-User agreement and intention to comply. So this document attempts to establish the concept of "Premium Dollars" which can be used to purchase "Premium Content" and thus bind distributor and end-user together in a "Premium Contract".
The various Premium Content providers are mainly concerned with the ability to control distribution, ensure the end-user purchases duly-licensed copies for use on every possible method of distribution and to ensure the end-user purchase at least one or more copies in the potential event that they might ever conceivably loan a copy of that media to a friend. These "friend" copies, as we'll call them, should also be purchased for every conceivable media distribution method, and a special "Premium Content Insurance Policy" created in case a medium of distribution is invented to protect the end-user from potential liabilities to viewing, hearing or otherwise consuming content that the end-user does not yet have a license for. Examples might include watching a new type of TV at a friend's house, going to see a 3D digitally-encoded movie in a newly developed "in-the-round" theater, etc.
In accordance with this new "Premium Content Contract", a new type of currency shall be developed to bind the distributor to the rights and wishes of the consumer. For example, the currency given to the Premium Content distributor cannot be used to ship American jobs overseas. It cannot be used to pay for attorneys or lobbying congress. Nor may it be used to compensate executives in excess of standardized, scale salary plans where, for example, the top-executive may receive no more than 11-to-1 compensation as the lowest paid worker in the organization. Additionally, these Premium Currency dollars may not be used to fund sweat factories in unknown lands, be transferred to off-shore banks or un-numbered Swiss bank accounts. They may not be used to buy drugs, hookers, or pay off gambling debts.
Furthermore these dollars may only be used by the store or franchise to which they're given. They may not be transferred, given, or passed-along by any means to a third party without giving additional "Premium Content" rights to the original consumer. They may be placed one-time in one bank that is registered to that Premium Content distributor, and is also on the "Financial Institutions Approved List" put together by the "Premium Currency Consumer Protection Review Board". The Premium Content may not be further transferred by the Premium Distributor or assigned to any other person or organization.
I think this is a fair system... what about you?
1. First they ignore you. (1995 -1999)
MP3s were released into the wild circa 1995 and shuttled around underground networks of FTP, HTTP, Hotline, IRC and other 'technically-oriented' services. At this point, MP3 were not cool and held little social cache. The record company realized that there was something going "out there" but it was "somewhere else". Being that they did not understand technology and pursued purchasing regulation per institutional habit.
2. Then they laugh at you. (1999 - 2000)
Napter was released in 1999 and very quickly moved file sharing from the domain of nerds into the mainstream population of anyone with a broadband connection, a computer and half a brain. Napster quickly moved the party from "somewhere else" "out there" to "in here" "right now". At first MP3s were maligned and audiophiles published studies decrying the lower quality of the MP3 compared to the overly-engineered Red Book CD. Record companies didn't know what to do... they didn't even understand what was going on... and so they laughed at it, called it a fad and attributed it to a trendy flash in the internet pan. After all, the market was focused on new music and their profits focused on turning over artists for the latest boy band, thus as long as people still bought new CDs, let them download all the other stuff they want. The quality sucks anyway, right? Ha! Stupid Lusers
3. Then they fight you. (2000 - Present)
That changed when Metallica and Madonna nearly simultaneously were bitten by demo tracks sneaking on the network. Suddenly, a triple threat emerged.
a) Pre-release tracks has to be released early to make it to radio stations and start building demand for the album's release. Nothing whips a population of buyers into a frenzy more than being unable to procure and control something new. However, someone funneled pre-release tracks onto Napster thus disrupting the cycle of building demand. Instantly, anyone who wanted the track could have it.
b) Since the hot built-for-radio track was already released and in the wild, there was absolutely no reason to go buy the rest of the CD which was mainly composed of filler songs and had niche appeal. Especially not when you could get most of those songs immediately after the release. Beside the fact that being of questionable quality, no one really missed them anyway.
c) The above had the effect of partially neutering the marketing machine which turned ordinary people with lots of talent into global superstars. That's when the fight began. It's one thing to release Madonna's track on the air; it's quiet another thing to destroy super-stardom by making it a commodity that can be chopped up and traded freely. People began to realize they did not like Madonna as an institution. They liked a few of her songs. Just like every other band they liked a few songs of.
Then the guns came out and the lawsuits started. For the last six years, it's been limitless suing and suing and suing as a smokescreen for the real problem: copyright law. How are you still going to charge breakage on an MP3 when a 'broken' packet is redistributed and the cost built into the price of the internet connection itself?
Initially, they sued college students at a time when girls gone wild and lake havasu were giving college students a bad name. They're drunks and sex fiends... now they're intellectual pirates as well. The lawsuits went mainly un-noticed by the general populous.
It's time for a moment of legal education. There are two types of enforcement. General enforcement and specific enforcement. General enforcement relates to tax cases, file sharing and stop signs. Violate the law and you will probably not be cited, however if you are dumb enough to get caught, then they will make an example out of you. Then there's specific enforcement, murders, rapes and all the rest that investigators make careers of.
So, along with the social epidemic of reckless college students came the general enforcement of file sharin
Very, very well said! I hope everybody in this discussion reads it.
Somebody, please mod the man up...
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
> you think we should discriminate so that disabled people are presumed more innocent than fit people?
No, I just think it's a bit dishonorable to sue people who can't defend themselves when you know or should know that your evidence isn't very good. Instead, they use that as an excuse to subpoena the people and find out if any of their neighbors or relatives happen to be copyright infringers.
> defending copyright theft again
No less than the Supreme Court has said that, while both are illegal, copyright infringement isn't "stealing." So it's a bit hypocritical to use loaded and legally wrong language while complaining about "justification" isn't it?
All they have is an IP address. They certainly don't know if the user of that IP has cancer, gout, or an irritable bowel.
Look, I don't appreciate the RIAA's tactics, either, but this article is definitely nothing more than an Appeal to Pity.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
How is it trolling to say, "Disabled people aren't immune from the law"? It's not like the RIAA is specifically targeting disabled people (to my knowledge, anyhow), which would, of course, be reprehensible.
You seem to have a "You're either for us, or against us" attitude. Why is it trolling to have a discussion? I mean, we're all happy that attorneys like you are fighting the good fight against the RIAA, but I don't think it's trolling to ask the good questions.
Here's mine: "Why do you think disabled people should be treated differently from those who are not disabled?" I don't like the RIAA's "settle or face being sued for $100 million dollars" any more than you do, but how is a person's disability or lack thereof relevant to the issue?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
I am a landlord, and as such am subject to fair housing laws (specifically the Federal Fair Housing Act). It states that I cannot discriminate against several protected classes of people, including the handicapped in all areas of housing.
It could be argued that if I never sued disabled people who damaged my units, but sued others that I would be violating the act. In reality, nobody is going to bring a fair housing complaint for something like that, but it would be against the letter of the law if I treated disabled people differently.
Personally, I treat everybody the same. It's only fair. And yes, I have sued disabled people who have caused damage and won. In fact, I nearly always win when I sue because if I'm going through the effort to file, it's because a tenant really damaged a unit badly (as opposed to wear and tear). But whether or not a person is disabled doesn't enter into the equation.
Why do you think it should?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Isn't that what he'll be demonstrating on his day in court? That he's innocent?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock