Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Says Accused Students Are Settling
As we've been reporting, the RIAA has been offering settlements to college students suspected of sharing music online. Reader Weather Storm notes that more than a quarter of the alleged music pirates have accepted the RIAA's offer. Quoting: "...an attorney Ohio University arranged to meet with its students... said $3,000 is the standard settlement offer, though cases have settled for as much as $5,000."
Because it has been about 3 weeks since that campus wallet inspector took mine.
What choice do they have but to settle really? Unfortunately the RIAA can throw mountains of money into any legal proceeding, what's Joe Pirate to do :) ?
Why...Why would a prominent university like Ohio St. bow down to the RIAA?
Many college students live off of credit cards and have no time for anything else. Consequently, without neither the time nor the financial resources to defend themselves, they are a vulnerable group. As former college students, the RIAA attorneys almost certainly know that.
Do you like German cars?
At my local university 20 students were just leveraged into settling with the RIAA due to illegal downloading via campus machines. I suspect we'll see more "Settling" around campus dorms in the foreseeable future.
Mr Orwell, you were right.... sadly
FTFA:
"Reasonable data retention policies are essential," he said. "Lawsuits for music theft are just one example, but there are a host of other crimes regularly perpetrated on computer networks.
"As services providers, one would think universities would understand the need to retain these records."
This only goes to highlight what I believe is the governments complicity in the **AA litigation activities.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
...what now? Options:
1) Find a lawyer to defend you; worry about the final verdict; worry about legal fees; worry about what your friends think; worry about possible ramifications from your school administration/student government...ad nauseum...
2) Pony up the money, which, upon consideration, is probably less than the credit card debt you've managed to rack up.
Honestly, I'm not sure I can blame them for their choice.
It doesn't matter how much I dislike the RIAA. Stealing stuff is wrong and if these students who settled did so because of a guilty conscience then they deserve to be out the 3-5 thousand USD. Students today need more courses in ethics.
Alright! I know I'm in there! If I don't come out, I'll have to come in after me!
Even the innocent will settle. The only people who stand a chance are those who are so obviously innocent that the RIAA case against them is ridiculous. If you're a 95 year old illiterate, non-computer-owner there is still a chance that the RIAA will come after you because somebody with the same name lives within twenty miles of you. The RIAA will continue to push the charges even after they should know they have no basis because most people won't/can't afford to fight back.
If there is ANY chance that you could be guilty, you don't stand a chance no matter how innocent you are.
If "More than a quarter of the alleged music pirates have accepted the RIAA's offer", what are the other 74.9% doing?
copyright infringement is not "stealing".
If you'd actually take a moment to educate yourself on the long history of artistry and creativity and the comparatively short history of copyright, you'd understand how the recording industry has twisted the law to its own evil purposes. Using bribes to have legislation passed which fences off huge swathes of our common culture from us, so they can charge admission. Copyright is supposed to be a limited time monopoly of copying, not a perpetual right of complete control.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
And don't play your music loud so people who didn't pay for the CD can hear!
God spoke to me.
If you appreciate us Humornauts, then why would you want to mark us -1?
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
>Stealing stuff is wrong and if these students who settled did so because of a guilty conscience then they deserve to be out the 3-5 thousand USD.
I certainly agree. Stealing is very wrong. However, why do people that didn't steal deserve to be out $3,000?
>Students today need more courses in ethics.
I agree. I would also suggest courses in something a little simpler, first, like how to ">use a dictionary. In fact, I would suggest that course for you, since you are misusing the language.
People paid protection money to organized crime outfits too, it really shouldn't be that surprising. Not always worth protecting your money and pride in the face of such potential troubles.
Unfortunately, the RIAA is operating under the guise of lawfulness, and has its hands in the lawmaking process. Hopefully the efforts they are going through to kill their market will cause change for the better.
Let's just start a big campaign to email RIAA members songs to the execs of the RIAA. After a few million from domains/users that don't even exist, that should exaust a lot of their time/money. They'll never see it coming.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Maybe the RIAA should advertise their pricing scheme to the students, give them some flexibility in their settlements.
"Now see, you can settle for the average $3,000, but if you wish to upgrade to our premium settlement plan of $5,000, we'll also throw in a one-month litigation immunity from our friends at the MPAA. Think of the savings!"
This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
"Students today need more courses in ethics."
If that's the case, go after the real stuff - stuff that philosophers discuss, not the stuff that's illegal only because of special interest lobbying.
This just confirms my suspicion that more than a quarter of all college students are stupid enough that they shouldn't be there but they "somehow" were admitted anyways.
They should reverse it and offer for $5000 a license that would permit you to trade all the music you want (which the RIAA can license of course) for a certain number of years.
I'd seriously consider buying such a license.
The thing I can't figure out is if you're talking about the RIAA or the pirates.
Today I was in a bar and a middle aged couple I know were asking me about their computer. She works for a local public school and needed to access her school email account. She thought since they were Apple and she had Dell she needed some sort of specialized Apple software to check ger mail (hang in there, this really is on topic). She uses Yahoo's web based mail at home. I explained that email was email and computer brand had nothing to do with it and she just needed an email client and suggested Thunderbird.
Then she asked about Kazaa. I suggested Morpheus because you can download your music into a folder other than her shared folder, and explained the RIAA lawsuits and how the music industry had the world's sleaziest people.
They had been bar owners and had had dealings with ASCAP, who wanted money from both them AND the kareoke people. They wanted money even after they got rid of the bar!
Amyway, it turns out that they were using iTunes at her school; she thought iTunes and Kazaa were the same! Most normal people (not you or me, obviously) have no clue about any of this shit.
They know all about how our government is for sale to the RIAA, though, having been bar owners before.
Don't these damned college kids vote? Look, if you don't vote, get off my lawn you damned kids!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You know something you are almost convicing, however, the most likely scenario is:
1. The people involved knew not to do it.
2. The stuff copied was recent release Top 40 type material that has no connection our common culture or public commons.
3. There are legal alternatives that cost a trivial amount of money to access.
4. Even if copyright was unchanged since the 1800's the activities involved would have still be infringing.
I detest the RIAA, but really, let's take it down a notch here. Out of everything the RIAA is involved with this is the least objectionable. When Napster was the rage the cry was "don't punish us that are following the law and shut dow nthe service, just go after the infringers". Well, that's what is going on here. Pretty much anyway you cut it that involves having a copyright these people are screwed.
We need a group of lawyers of our own who will take up as many of these defense cases as possible and to prevent people from settling with the RIAA. These people are successfully making a lot of money through this activity. We need the Anti-RIAA to shut these thugs down by whatever means possible. Getting the members disbarred would be best I think since, in my opinion/guessing, they are breaking all kinds of lawyer-rules in doing what they are doing.
Well, you should be able to cross one off that list. Are current defendants in a criminal court, or is this a civil concern?
"If you don't pay our well paid lawyers will destroy you" -- this sounds like a racket to me.
And actually the bad part is not (only) the organization who tries to extort the money this way I think the real problem is the judicial system that doesn't give poor people a fighting chance.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
You are breaking the law, Jimmy. It's a sad thing, when a man breaks the law: can't get a job, gets kicked out of school, hell, what if he has to go to jail? A man could go away for a long, long time, couldn't he? But maybe, if you work with us, we can make sure that you don't get convicted of breaking any law, eh Jimmy?
Create a situation in which the illegal alternative is preferable to the legal alternative. Sue those that break the law. Convince them to settle, using the rest as "examples," to get other people to fear you.
Why hasn't anyone used RICO and extortion laws against the RIAA? Am I the only one that sees this? Yeah, these guys are breaking a law: but the RIAA is running a racket here, and is exhtorting and blackmailing these kids. So send em to court, get the law changed to something sane, and sue the pants off the RIAA under RICO, or something similar.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
A bit OT but I actually rarely download any music except when I'm making a cd for my car and have no desire to rip the tracks, but I changed my mind a few days ago when I bought a pack of 50 cdr's for 7.99 at LodonDrugs. After the levy the final price was something like $21.99 ($10.50 went to those poor starving artists like Celine and Bryan) Since I always just bought 5-10 packs I didn't realize how much I and all other Canadians gets shafted when buying cdr's. Best part is I used the cd to burn backup of my clients sites and burn some distros to try.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It just means I bought music in bulk at a discounted price.
You're ignoring the real reason for all of these lawsuits. It's not "stealing" (which copyright infringement isn't) that caused this - it's the fact that (regardless of if people were getting music for free), people got so fed up with being overcharged for music that they started to stop buying music. Even if they didn't have the free music, the RIAA would still be out the money. That's what the lawsuits are really about - the fact that they think they deserve money, even if they aren't selling anything worthwhile.
But are they really guilty or are they just settling to minimize their legal fees?
What a choice - give us all yer money now, or we'll grind you into poverty for the next x years of your life.
Yeah - I'm sure I'd be ready to sell out quick for a few grand - beats the hell out of working for the RIAA for the next twenty years of my life!
As these CRIMINALS should - guilty - pay the piper or don't do the crime
This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. No crime has been committed. No one will be found 'guilty' of anything. If they refuse to settle they could be found 'liable' for copyright 'infringement' in court.
Try not to get too emotional about this. It's irrelevant what one thinks is wrong or right. The RIAA cannot go on indefinitely suing the whole world. And file-sharing is not going to go away any more than the Internet. It's likely that as more artists target their audiences directly, online, the less we'll have need for an organization like the RIAA. History and a new economic model will defeat them.
1. They knew it was against the law; but it is the law that is in question
2. There is a good chance of that. Would your opinion change if they were downloading Mozart?
3. Again, it is the laws themselves that are in question. If downloading a file is effectively free, then why should they pay for it?
4. If the laws were unchanged since the 1800s, it would be high time for a change. Copyright laws were written to prevent unauthorized commercial copying. Technology has made it possible for individuals to copy works for non-commercial purposes. The law should keep pace with technology.
Maybe I'm from a parallel universe where money doesn't grow on trees, but where the hell do these students get the cash to pay the settlement ? I remember when I was in college, I was a broke ass long-haired book bum. If someone had come at me back then with a lawsuit, I would have laughed my head off. So sue me, I got nothing to lose! What's the worst that can happen to a student ? Get sued, get a public defender (since you have nothing to "win" anyway), let the RIAA piss money away and if/when they win, you declare bankruptcy. And then you hire a real lawyer to build a harassment case against the RIAA for ruining your studies and your credit.
Or we could do it the old fashioned way with a brick to the head and pick-up truck ride to the landfill. We're already killing thousands of people we don't even know, in countries we can't even pronounce or spell. Why not clean our own backyard before doing our neighbors' ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I suspect he was speaking about RIAA potential crime of extortion...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
how much of that money? Probably zero.
I think I like the general tone. But I'll have to have a few drink before I'll be sure I can decipher that properly. (:
Quack, quack.
From the AC, good points:
1. They knew it was against the law; but it is the law that is in question
2. There is a good chance of that. Would your opinion change if they were downloading Mozart?
3. Again, it is the laws themselves that are in question. If downloading a file is effectively free, then why should they pay for it?
4. If the laws were unchanged since the 1800s, it would be high time for a change. Copyright laws were written to prevent unauthorized commercial copying. Technology has made it possible for individuals to copy works for non-commercial purposes. The law should keep pace with technology.
1. Fair enough. But if you violate a questionable law, don't be surprised when you get hauled (unliterally) to account.
2. Depends vastly. It was a modern performance or arrangement, performed recently, no. My opinion would not be changed. If, for example, it was a reproduction of an antinue performance, than yes, my opinion would be vastly different. If I play a Mozart piece and record it as my own arrangement than I should have control over my versions distribution. I would be an artistic leach, but still, it would my peroggative.
3. The main is reason is because your action is anti-American in the most true sense. The purpose of copyright is to promote the creative arts. That is in our national interest. Making it so that the creative artists are unable to make decisions about the use of their own work creates a disincentive to pursue the creative arts, which is damaging to the country long-term.
4. Your point #4 is factually incorrect. The purpose of copyright being built-into the constitution is that the promotion of the creative arts is in the national interest. Copyright promotes the creative arts. The technology to make non-commerical copies has been around for a lot longer than you think. Regardless, however, the entire purpose of copyright is to allow people pursuing the creative arts to maintain a lifestyle that allows them to continue this pursuit. Elimination of the ability to charge for "non-commerical" copies, or to depend on the good-will of customers puts artists back into the caste they used to be in - able to subsist only via the graces of the the elite and wealthy.
>The RIAA cannot go on indefinitely suing the whole world.
Yes they can, especially if they settle most cases for easy (if smaller) profit. It's a pretty modern business model, much the same as the one patent trolls have. You don't even need to sue only infringers, because most will settle anyway and those who fight back and win are just a cost of doing business.
Who better than Southern Michigan U?
Not to mention there are three states that start with an 'o.' I live in Oklahoma, and I guess the people looking for the Oklahoma State website are always out of luck, unless it ends in .org or something.
"Oh c'mon, I wumbo, you wumbo, he/she/me...wumbo, wumboed, womboing...wombology? The study of wumbo? It's first grade,
I agree, isn't it lucky these people didn't steal anything Gary?
As is the tactic of students blowing the RIAA lawyers' brains out.
By having copyright extensions so long the RIAA (and others) sought for society to equate 1 year old music as deserving of the same rights as 90 year old music. They succeeded. Only instead of giving people the rights they had with 1 year old music for 90 year old music, some of us now feel they deserve the rights they had with 90 year old music on 1 year old music.
Perhaps if they stopped abusing society by having such long copyright terms, we would be willing to respect their rights on their 1 year old music once more.
Yes they can ...
But how much longer? I'd like to bet gnutella alone does more trade in a few days than iTunes does in a year. Have you used eDonkey lately? This stuff is way of the control of the RIAA. A lot of it is international. Two things we're never going to stop, child porn and file-sharing.
Since when are people in America presumed guilty until proven innocent?
One day a RIAA employee asks his manager,
"Who is the most vulnerable and liable for pirating software, music, etc?"
The manager replies, "Well...college students of course."
And they both have a good laugh.
Truth be told it's not funny, it's real. Here is where the RIAA have separated themselves from the norm
of all those who are strongly opposed to the idea of Internet freedoms, most prevalently piracy. However this
is the worst mistake the RIAA has made, the reason is that college students are their number one customer. The
greed and capitalist values have consumed the RIAA past any rational thought process. Essentially the RIAA has
cut off the hand that feeds them. The sad part is that college students are at the mercy of it all. They can't
afford a lawyer let alone pay their rent. I think we fail to recognize who really are the pirates.
copyright infringement != stealing
Copyright infringement can be stealing. Just not always.
This is the problem I have with both sides of the debate:
MAFIAA line - copyright infringement = stealing
Demonstrably untrue. For example if I download a song I already own on CD there's clearly:
1. No reason I would ever buy it again therefore they're not losing revenue and
2. I'm merely using an alternative means to my legal right to make a backup/format shift the copy on the CD.
That's not even close to stealing
Files sharer's line - copyright infringement != stealing
Also untrue. If I copy a song or album I would otherwise have paid for and do not subsequently do so, the copyright holder is clearly losing revenue. So they've now suffered a material loss due to my actions and that's basically stealing. It's not the song that's been stolen - but it is the money I would otherwise have paid. File sharers often like to point out that there's a lot of music they copy that they otherwise wouldn't have bought. I tend to agree with that argument. The problem is that they conveniently overlook the stuff they would have paid for but haven't. Yes - the MAFIAA are asshats. Yes - they often rip off artists themselves with miserly contracts. That still doesn't make it right to copy stuff you would have bought without paying for it.
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
and get sued, then pay the settlement,...
Does that mean you then legally have rights to the music you pirated?
Someone hates these cans.
accused, not guilty. yes, this is extortion.
What choice do they have but to settle really?
75% decided not to settle. I'd say fighting is the overwhelming popular choice.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Here's the thing... Some of these people are stealing music from the millionaire crybabies, and since I am not making millions writing/performing music, I don't know for certain if I'd have such a rabid obsession for bring these folks to justice (in the words of G.W. Bush haha) but I am guessing not. What about the several cases we read about every month where the RIAA are taking people to court who don't even know how to use a computer, let alone download pirated music, and even after they're aware that the 90 year old granny, or the quadriplegic wasn't responsible, they make a mad grab for cash in court against them anyway? Where have their ethics gone? They should know better too.
Where do you draw the line between...
Even the last one is a threat of physical detainment; it deprives the victim from the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There should be no enforceability for a contract that requires someone to pay to get their basic human rights back.
You cannot legally enter into a contract to commit yourself into slavery or have yourself killed. Therefore, one could argue that it is illegal to enter into a contract to prevent yourself from entering into slavery or being killed. These are extreme examples, but I think upon ultimate appeal the court would have to agree that you cannot enter into a contract to prevent losing a right enumerated in the constitution. Otherwise, our basic rights would become a form of property that we have to pay to receive.
I dislike the RIAA as much as anyone, and think they are abusing the legal system and need to be reined in.
But ultimately, these people who are settling would not be having this problem if they weren't abusing copyright to start with. Even though this isn't a "crime" as such, the point of it still works...if you can't do the time (or pay the fine), don't do the crime.
The RIAA sucks and all that, but in the end, those on the receiving end of the threat letters have no one to blame but themselves. Maybe next time they'll buy the CD or download from iTunes and keep it all legal.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
The RIAA goes after those who they full well know cannot defend themselves and thus can't go to court. Then, by bulling the poor victim, they extort the thousands of dollars. I am totally surprised that this has been allowed to go on this long. I recently read on /. that the evidence that the RIAA has won't stand up in court anyway. This further affirms that the tactics of the RIAA are pure extortion.
The mafia at least has honor. The RIAA doesn't have any respect at all. It is no wonder they have been rated the worst business in America.
what exactly does the riaa wish to accomplish by suing students who will become future consumers?
The problem is that nobody knows how many innocent people the RIAA has extorted money from. What about those who don't own computers? What about the 10 year old girl they just attacked? What about the dead woman? ...
The only reason the college kids are paying up is because they can't afford to defend themselves. It is a lot like the protection racket used by organized crime and gangs today. Pay us or we'll really hurt you.
There was a deposition on Groklaw that pretty much sums up the fact that the RIAA identification techniques probably wouldn't stand a chance in court. There is a LOT of Doubt about the accuracy of the RIAA tactics. More than reasonable too.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
No. I think courses in ethics would be counter-productive. People with sound ethics
would have put a stop to a lot of morally sound things in this country.
I'm sure I'm losing you here but in a nutshell morals are what a society expects
to be proper and expedient. Executing murderers is an example. Ethics in turn are uy
believes what morals should be, in effect asking the question whether executing
murderers is the right and proper thing to do.
So let's not focus on the ethical issue here whether it is okay to bankrupt thousands of
young adults possibly even aborting their stay at college for petty theft. Instead let's
just focus on the moral issue that there has been theft and somebody must take a fall
for it.
Ethics suck and I think in the end they hamper our ability to do what is right.
That's fine. I still hate the tactics. But, IMO, the fines they are using is really high. They first have provided no evidence of the number of songs downloaded. If someone downloaded 50 songs, there's no way they lost $300. Even if it were 100-200 songs, go with the $1 per song. That's $200. Now multiply that by 5. Maybe.
what are the other 74.9% doing?
What's right. Extortionists should be jailed, not paid.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Perhaps if they stopped abusing society by having such long copyright terms, we would be willing to respect their rights on their 1 year old music once more. I suspect you know that this bullshit. The truth is that the length of copyright is not at issue here. This was not work that was 30 years old we are talking about. People who won't respect the wishes of artists from this year or last aren't doing so out of principle, which hey, I could at least respect to some degree. If these people were acting out of civil disobedience, well, hey, at least I could respect that. That's a respectable calling -- to be an activist/protestor against laws or policies you feel are repressive. But that is *not* the question. This is just a case of wanting to get something for free. And getting nailed for it. Finally, in the end, we get the government we deserve. Quite frankly it's not like this just happened. Copyright and IP laws have taken years to fall to this level of disrepair. If we can't elect people with a clue abotu the damage that restrictive IP is doing to our culture, our future generations, and our current levels of economic uncompetitiveness than we deserve the fate that is coming.
Think of the likelyhood of being sued multiply by the number of college students downloading,
maybe there is a market for insurance...say pay $10 a year , if you get one of those letters , the insurance would
pay the $3000 settlement cost. hmm...
It would be technically liability insurance to protect you from the expense of "accidentally" sharing copyrighted material.
Please understand the definition of the word "Crime" before posting such idiocy.
There is nothing "criminal" about copyright infringement. Someone can take you to court
and sue you, but there is nothing criminal about that. It certainly isn't considered
"theft" by the laws of this country: never was, never will be.
Secondly, how do you feel about being robbed? Because you were robbed. Something
was taken away from you that is worth an enormous amount of money and it was taken
away from you by the RIAA. When copyrights are extended indefinitely, instead of
entering the public domain as they were originally deemed by law -- what is actually
happening is that the RIAA is stealing from the public for their own interests.
Did you have a say in that? Did you agree to give up what was rightfully yours?
Or was it just taken away from you with the stroke of a pen? Because that, my friend
is theft. Plain and simple.
Copyright infringement is not theft. But taking public property for personal gain
is absolutely theft. Now who is the guiltier party?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Um.. Who stole anything? If something was stolen, there would be police, a criminal trial, and potential jailtime involved. So, yeah. Nothing was stolen. Distribution rights according to copyright were infringed upon.
Add'l: It's not infringement to download (recieve). It's infringement to upload (redistribute). Think about that.
Meanwhile, I would guess that the 3-5k settlements are due to not wanting to deal with it. Let the RIAA sue me, and there will be a court battle to be witnessed.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Funny, according to my ethics course, it's not exactly ethical to litigate against a party who can't defend themselves with next to no evidence.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
The law's line: Copyright Infringement != Stealing
This is demonstratably true, in that they occupy entirely different sections of the law. You can get philosophical as you care to about the parallels between the two, but the fact is if it were equivalent to stealing, it would carry jail time or a state-imposed fine.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Suppose I'm innocent. Suppose I never did what they claim I did. There's all kinds of reasons why they could improperly target me. Maybe the P2P program identified the wrong person as the source (Kazza was known to do that), maybe the ISP gave them the wrong IP to person information, maybe my computer was hacked, and so on. So let's say one of these is the case. What am I to do? Defending myself is hard because this is civil court, not criminal court. This means that I don't get a free lawyer, and that the burden for proof is much lower. It isn't beyond a reasonable doubt, only to a preponderance of the evidence.
So the problem is that I am stuck having to prove my innocence, and that I have to pay a lawyer far more than $5,000 to do it.
THAT is what is wrong with this. We don't know that these people ever broke the law. All we know is that a company who gets paid when they find someone, like BayTSP produced a screenshot from a program that claims ot be a list of files that are allegedly from some IP. I can poke a bunch of holes in the chain of evidence right there:
--How do we know the company isn't lying? They get paid to find these people, it'd be in their interest to make it up if they can't find someone.
--How do we know the information from the P2P program is accurate? These are not vetted, approved forensic tools and some of them are known to make mistakes.
--How do we know the songs in the list are what they claim to be? P2P networks are full of fake material, how do we know these are real?
--How do we know that this is the correct IP address? What if the P2P program or something else reported the wrong one?
--How do we know the ISP gave us the correct person behind it? What if a hacker hand altered the records to cover their tracks? What if an employee at the ISP did?
--How do we know that it was a computer owned by the owner of the connection that did it? What if someone hopped on their wireless network?
--How do we know that the computer that did it wasn't hacked? There are over a million botted computers out there, how do we know this wasn't one of them?
This kind of thing would likely not even make it past pretrial in a criminal case, but in a civil case, you have to pay to defend yourself.
Then, of course, there's also the issue of the whole 8th amendment thing, you know "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Specifically the "excessive fines" part. They ask for statutory amounts vastly exceeding any real harm caused. You can't tell me that downloading a single tracks causes tens of thousands of dollars of harm and yet that is the kind of amount they ask for, and they are allowed to because of a statute they pushed for. Seems damn unconstitutional to me.
So yes, it IS extortion. They don't care if you are innocent or guilty, they force you to pay because it is too costly to defend yourself, and you risk losing too much. It may be wrapped up in some legislation, it is still extortion.
"Title: Information Regarding Delivery of Mail for Alleged Copyright Violations Body: Some users of the Purdue University Internet network this week will begin receiving notices of threatened legal action from the Recording Industry Association of America. In a stepped-up effort to enforce music copyright, the association is harvesting Internet addresses of computers that allegedly offered music for others to download illegally. It then is sending emails to Internet service providers and asking that the emails be forwarded to these computer users. The notices offer the option of paying a settlement fee or facing legal action. Purdue University, as an Internet service provider, will forward these emails to the user of the specified address when the user can be accurately identified. While the university will do its best to deliver these notices to the proper individuals, it is not responsible for the accuracy of the identification or address to which such notices are sent. It will be up to each recipient to decide how to respond to these notices. All users of Purdue IT resources are ultimately responsible for their own conduct and for responding to any notification received from a copyright owner. Should an individual choose not to pay the settlement, the RIAA may ask Purdue for its logs for the purpose of pursuing legal action. The next step would be for RIAA to file a request to subpoena the name of the computer owner. The university will at all times honor valid subpoenas. Purdue does not generally monitor the content of Internet transmissions. The university, however, can match computers to the addresses they use when connecting to the Internet. Information on your legal obligations and methods to protect yourself can be found at: http://www.purdue.edu/securepurdue/copyright.cfm Individuals with questions regarding the settlement notice should contact legal counsel of their own choosing for advice. Sincerely, Gerry McCartney Interim Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer Purdue University Thomas B. Robinson Vice President for Student Services Purdue University" Reactions? Supposedly last week less than 2 dozen letters were forwarded to specific students, but more are expected...
Howver, the moment they believe a felony is involved, they _must_ stop threatening and report the crime to the police. If they continue to threaten (perhaps to advance a civil settlement), then they are committing the crime of "BLACKMAIL" and ought to be charged.
This might also be sufficient grounds to refuse interrogatories or other discovery. The 5th still applies in civil cases, but only wrt admissions of crime.
Profits!
Kid will look fondly back on his college days, when that cool lawyer from the RIAA bought him a double Jack Daniels, and they settled for $5000, payable on a plan. The kid's broke from the tuition anyway, what does he care about another debt?
Then for Nostalgia, he'll go pay $18.99 for a CD in Memoriam of Tower Records, and the Separate iTunes single because Steve Jobs is Da Man.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
All these juvenile delinquent pirates should be incarcerated in Alcatraz. What is the world coming to? I thought pirates are nesting in Madagascar, now they hide out in US universities? Bah, humbug...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Look up the "No Electronic Theft Act". Copyright infringement can be a criminal offense resulting in prison time.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
When Napster was the rage the cry was "don't punish us that are following the law and shut dow nthe service, just go after the infringers". Well, that's what is going on here. Pretty much anyway you cut it that involves having a copyright these people are screwed.
They did both. The RIAA went after the services, one-by-one, and now they're going after the infringers, one-by-one. And what happens? Just what we predicted would... for every service they destroy, a new one pops up; for every technological countermeasure they introduce, a counter-counter measure is born; for every person who settles, a ninety year-old, paraplegic mother of two autistic children is swept up in the net and retains council thus making the operation cost more than is obtained. Upshot... until the market gets music their way, on their terms, these mouldering yet still walking dinosaurs will continue to be thrashed in the pages of Slashdot and any other online location frequented by forward looking people.
People with big, fat, malicious mouths but no money rarely have enough influence to cause enough actual damage to warrant a slander suit.
You're probably right - even if you were innocent, it would probably be easier to fork over the cash. Though, given the pervasiveness of copyright-violating content sharing, you'd be hard pressed to find a suit launched against someone truly innocent.
I know that law. It applies to reproducing over $1000 of CDs and/or selling them. It doesn't apply to these students, unless they're making folder-loads of CDs for their friends.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
By the reports from the court proceedings of some of the few cases that have progressed this far, it certainly looks like RIAA has been proceeding without any kind of proof that will stand in court (for example see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200703020 73736822 another good site is http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ ).
Give them time to sue a few thousands more, and sooner or later some lawyers will realize the bloody fortune they will make by suing RIAA for what they've been doing. And when they start doing so... Well, not only those lawsuits will stop, but those execs will be the ones doing some paying up... and it's not going to be thousands but millions.
puts artists back into the caste they used to be in - able to subsist only via the graces of the the elite and wealthy
That's where they are NOW. What do you think a record company is if not a means for the elite and wealthy to select which artists get promoted?
There are very, very few artists who are able to make any money touring etc. without signing over their CD sales to a record company.
On the other hand, if signing over your CD sale revenue to a record company enables you to make a bunch of money touring, it's not really a bad deal for the artist. It's just a bad deal for the consumer who ends up paying for albums that they could get for free without affecting the artists revenues at all.
paintball
Back in the day, we used to copy cassettes and vinyls from friends collections onto blank tapes. The albums we really liked, we ended up buying anyways. It's not legal (unless you live in Canada), but it's no different to before.
>Did you have a say in that?
I voted for a Congressman who supported copyright extensions, so, yes as a matter of fact I did... and I accept full responsibility.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
You misunderstood my point. My post above is explaining (my theory) on WHY people think its okay to infringe on copyright. It isn't because of civil disobedience or protesting the law. Its because people think its okay to infringe on copyright. The question I'm answering though, is WHY do people think its okay to infringe on copyright?
One theory is that society as a whole has always thought it okay, but it hasn't become as widespread as today because it was more difficult.
Another theory is that society has become much more demanding and that we are no longer willing to wait.
My theory is that by extending the copyright limit our views on 90 year old content and 1 year old content became the same, a goal the RIAA (and others) had in the first place. However the opposite to what the RIAA wanted happened, and that people now think its okay to treat 1 year old content as they did 90 year old content.
Without any hard facts or statistics, its impossible to say which theory (if any of the above ones) is correct.
It's either settle, pay a comparatively little sum and suck it up or go to court and risk ending up practically bankrupt.
Think about it: if you're studying at a University it's because you don't want to be a trash hauler. If you don't settle and you're later forced to pay the full amount, you won't have any money left and will have to drop out.
So it's either pay up or give up your future. No wonder they are settling, the alternative is a career in burger flipping.
That's where they are NOW. What do you think a record company is if not a means for the elite and wealthy to select which artists get promoted? That's just plain falsehood, on many levels. 1. First, regardless of who your publisher is, this is ultimately a democratic process. People select what they wish to consume, and then pay for it through some mechanism. The wealthy are not paying artists to create music to give away to the public. 2. Second, regardless of who your publisher is, this is ultimately a large process. No matter how you measure it there are more people engaged today in the pursuit of the creative arts than ever before. The basis for most of this is the fact that you can make living doing things that are creative. Which has not always been the case. 3. Third, taking into the RIAA, and the slime ball heavy handed tactics, in the end, they represent the wishes of artists. Period. They are a membership organization. They serve the artists. When you slam the RIAA for suing someone, you are slamming a person who has created some that people deem artistically worthwhile to some degree. The RIAA is the face of the artists that pay them for representation. 4. Is the RIAA corrupt? Absolutely. Are they less corrupt than the former systems that promoted the arts? Absolutely without a doubt. There are very, very few artists who are able to make any money touring etc. without signing over their CD sales to a record company. That's not true. There are very few artists who will be *wealthy*. This isn't about making people wealthy. This is about promotion of the creative arts. That's the point of copyright. The RIAA is in business for money, which also so happens to promote the arts. But they are not the only ones in town. For every RIAA label artist there are many more who are touring, performing, writing, and living a life of the creative arts. Are they wealthy? No. Are they glamourous? No. Are they doing good for the country, for the people, and for themselves? Yes. And for every person creating music, there are many more creativing all sorts of other things. Stained glass. Software. Written words. Blogs. All of it.
Finally, you write:
It's just a bad deal for the consumer who ends up paying for albums that they could get for free without affecting the artists revenues at all.
Your claims are non-sensical. How in your view will an artist make money not signing with the RIAA and giving away CDs? Through touring? If that's the case, why does anyone sign with labels that make up the RIAA? Why don't they all just not do CDs (give the music away) and only tour?
The problem here is you equate Copyright = RIAA. And that's just false. The RIAA is small. Very small. It's just one part of the overall copyright picture. There is a whole range of copyright options that range from "none at all" to "being the RIAA". At end of the day, though, it comes down to this. You and everyone else here knows that if I violated copyright by taking a GPL'd project, closed it, forked it, and sold it as a commerical product that I would not be hurting the original authors at all. They have zero monetary damages. Likewise, if I take a GPL'd project, closed it, and redistribute it under another name for free I am still hurting the original authors and violating copyright. And we all know what a ruckus that would cause. Why? Because the authors elected to choose the GPL as a license, and I came along and disrespected that. There is no lost dollars, but still, it's an insult and it's wrong. The authors wishes deserve to be respected. Likewise for music. Even if you disagree with copyright under the RIAA regime know that the people making music under the RIAA agree with the RIAA (except in a few rare and public cases). When you buy an album or iTunes track from these labels they support the RIAA. And the artists wishes deserve to be respected. Because they are doing something to promote the creative arts. And that's a goal in itself that our founders recognized as worthwhile. Make your own decision, but I side with them on this one.
This is all excuse making.
If it were true that the disregard for copyright was based on the broken social contract, fine.
But that's not the reason. Except for the elite techno geeks who follow-it, no one knows shit about copyright, except that it's for someone else.
This is excuse making for the masses, to portray them as a victim of a corporate scam. These people who are settling know they got busted doing something they were not supposed to be doing. They all probably knew the alternatives were there. Busted social contract or not, they knew. And they ignored at their peril not because of a social contract gone bad but because it was easy and they thought know one was looking. I am all for copyright reform. Our IP regime is killing America's competitiveness. But the truth remains that the current problems are just as large reflection of the overall decline in ethics as any social dissastisfaction. Knowing copyright infringement is simply a digital and easy form of disrespecting someone who has done something useful for the country. It's really just a common and declasse form of laziness. Like litering or spitting in public.
People do not think it's okay to infringe copyright. That's just a joke! Everyone knows it's not okay to download music you didn't pay for, without permission, from p2p or some website. The truth is that no one thinks they are going to get caught. People still believe internet activity done late at night in their dorm room or living room is anonymous.
so in short, the RIAA have found a niche successful business model based on intimidating people into giving them money. Frankly, that's not going anywhere any time soon unless people actually start to do something about it. http://www.riaaradar.com/ might be a possible direction to start. There might be better ways...
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
It seems like the accussed is quick to settle, but has anyone fought the case and lost?
Maybe if one of these kids admitted to filesharing, a sensible judge would order damages of $0.50 * #_of_uploads (or w/e is a reasonable amount to gross per download - not $0.99).
This is what I don't understand about these cases, I know the RIAA is claiming absurdly high damages, but has anyone been forced to actually pay them?
I reckon if you want to castrate the RIAA you have to reform your legal system so none of these nuisance suits actually make it to trial.. Like in Canada. From what I understand that sort of thing is done by voting.
I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
I'm entitled to infringe copyright on music since music is culture and I have an inalienable right to culture. Any law that prevents access to culture is an evil law and thus I shouldn't be held liable for breaking that law: anyone who enforces that law is evil, by definition. Musicians who believe they have a right to their admittedly small contractual royalties on CD sales, regardless if royalties are their primary income, are tools since real art is performed for the sheer love of the art, not for profit. One other thing. The music companies have been wildly profitable. Because I believe there should be limits to the amount of money corporations can make, it should not be illegal to do anything that might diminish those profits. Obscene profits are not socially responsible so I don't have to observe legal niceties that protect the socially irresponsible. Did I get that right?
"He's using a quantum encryption scheme! That'll take hours to break!"
Just a pointer for those with mod points tonight. I think he missed hitting the Microsoft Vista articla by a click or two.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
First get a lawyer to get all the legal stuff down. Second create some 1/2 assed association and some media to make it legit. Third find active IP addresses on torrents. Fourth have the lawyer send settlement letters to the owners of the IP addresses theatening to sue if the don't settle for $1000. Fifth rake in easy money. (also you can replace lawyer with nigerian email scammer).
Think you're in the wrong room. You want the room two doors to the left. If you go right, you'll end up in an argument. One left will lead you to FUD and discontent.
not from CD sales. Support your favorite artists by attending their concerts.
The record labels make their money from CD sales.
Reduce the length of copyright and force artists to continue working to earn money. How does providing essentially a lifetime monopoly on their work encourage them to continue producing more works? Why isn't 20 years enough time for an artist to earn just compensation on his work? Perhaps their work should be placed into the public domain sooner so that others may improve upon it.
Power.
.... True? And they were under contract to a label when they preached to us.
Cow the masses into believing that the RIAA has the right to tax their entertainment. They become the priests of the next generation.
Think about it -- who have we turned to for our ethics and morals lessons over the last half century?
Bob Dylan, Arlo Guthrie, Ian Anderson, Janis Joplin, Yusuf Islam,
Connect the dots, man. Oil is peanuts.
Many people seem to think its alright for them to do it. And their friends. And lots of other people. I think the distinction you're making is fairly unimportant.
Disclaimer - IANAL but I have been threatened with legal action.
CONFIDENTIAL
Ref 001
Dear Lawyer
thank you for your letter of XXX in which it is alleged that I have "stolen" content.
Although I deny all allegations of wrongdoing, I do take the matter very seriously. To help me understand the allegation better, please send details of what has been stolen, from whom, when, and the damage that has arisen from the alleged theft.
Please provide this information within 14 days.
Sincerely etc
then wait for 14 days, if nothing comes:
CONFIDENTIAL
Ref 002
Dear Lawyer
On the XXX date I sent you a letter (Ref 001) asking for more information about your allegations of theft. I have to date not had a reply and am therefore unable to cooperate further with your investigations. To help me understand the allegation better, please send details of what has been stolen, from whom, when, and the damage that has arisen from the alleged theft.
I would appreciate it if you respond as a matter of urgency as I am very concerned about these allegations and wish to see a rapid resolution.
Sincerely etc.
then wait for 14 days, if nothing comes
CONFIDENTIAL
Ref 003
Dear Lawyer
On the XXX date and YYY date I sent you two letters (Ref 001, 002) asking for more information about your allegations of theft. I have to date not had a reply. Until you provide some evidence of what has been stolen I cannot possibly cooperate, much as I would like to, with your investigation.
Please provide...
and so on, ad infinitum.
They have to specific about what has been stolen, when, who from and who by.
It is not good enough simply to say you have a napster account.
If it goes on, you can remind the RIAA's lawyer that he has a professional requirement to do due diligence on the allegations such that the courts' time is not wasted on frivious or vexatious litigation. If it goes even further, you can remind the lawyer that private citizens are protected from harassment becasue, if they keep threatening you without providing proper evidence of what you have done then that's what it is. Then tell them you consider the exercise to be extortion, blackmail etc. Its all good, but leave it as a last resort. Maybe 10 or 12 letters in.
Finally get a sick note for "stress" over the case and inform them that you will be unable to cooperate further until the "stress" has gone away.
GET AN ATTORNEY TO GUIDE YOU. CLUB TOGETHER IF THERE ARE A FEW OF YOU AFFECTED.
The onus is on the RIAA to prove a certain level of evidence in order to go forward. That you have a kazaa account is probably not enough. The final hurdle for them is to show you have copyrighted material on your hard drive. Firstly, "fair use" dictates you can copy your own content (you already paid for it). The other is that they have to find it. Unless they got your hard drive ASAP after they think you infringed, removed it, sealed it, write-disabled it and mounted it on a phroensically controlled system they are screwed. If they didnt take these steps then they are negligent. If it goes to court you can counter-sue for negligence, harrassment etc. But you really dont want it to get to that if possible. I recommned "stress".
Are they fighting the accusation in a court of law or are they just ignoring it for the bs that it is? I'd like to see the former, but the latter seems more appropriate.
The RIAA isn't even the one doing the suing, either - and indeed, the record companies love this, because the perception is that the RIAA are the bad guys.
But let's look closely. The 7 year old girl being sued.
Question? Is it:
A. RIAA -v- Andersen
or:
B. Atlantic -v- Andersen
It's actually B. So why is the RIAA getting all the hatred, but not Atlantic Records? The RIAA is merely a smokescreen in this.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
These aren't criminal cases, they are civil cases. The standard of proof is a balance of probabilities. That means all the RIAA has to do is convince a judge that you are probably guilty. In any event, most of these cases never see a judge because they are settled out of court. This is very cheap for the RIAA unless someone fights the case. Then it becomes expensive. It becomes more expensive if they lose a case and the judge makes them pay the victim's costs as well.
You're right, it's a racket. We are getting lots of evidence that the evidence and experts they are using are very shaky. It's about time for judges to start sanctioning them and their lawyers for their behavior.
Copyright infringement is a crime under American federal law and you can do hard time.
Scream "Copyright infringement is not theft!" all the way to prison if you like, but it isn't going to change a damn thing. Man Arrested for Uploading Movie to Internet
The movie was a watermarked Academy screener easily traced to Nunez's sister - exposing family to professional sanctions and criminal prosecution does not have the look of a victimless crime.
The theft of intangible property is by no means an unknown concept in American statutory law. The Economic Espionage Act of 1996: The Theft of Trade Secrets is now a Federal Crime
Please understand that copyright infringement *can* be a criminal offense before posting such idiocy. I'm tired of hearing the same old argument: "Copyright infringement is a civil offense.", it isn't. Please read USC Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 506 "Criminal offenses". Of course, this is slashdot, so who gives a flying fsck about something as stupid as actual facts. Go ahead, mod me down, you'll still be wrong. At least try google before posting such bald faced assertions.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
Andrew
For the moment, let's just say that I went against my better judgement and morals and decided to download Led Zeppelin's entire CD catalogue and somehow got caught in the process... Then, for arguments sake, I decided to fight the RIAA. I mean, if I'm guilty, and if they hire an expert (as should be the case, if they're boldly calling me a thief and trying to prove my guilt) to prove this point on technical merits, I think that sets the stage for the entire show. If I am guilty and he's an expert, then he should have nothing to fear in the way of my questions. Besides, if I managed to get myself caught, either by stupidity or incompetence, I couldn't possess that much technical knowledge to begin with. That's like the rich kid on the block who has no ability to play paintball, whupping the rest of the kids on the block because he has a gun that costs in excess of most mortgages and fires 16 rounds per second.
Your full contact debate analogy is dead-on. Except I show up to debate and find that not only are they arm to the teeth, but they're also making the rules. The rules are that any weapons I have in my arsenal are not allowed. But, they'll kindly let me have a white flag to wave for a one time price of $5K. Which is truly ironic considering that I could have bought Led Zeppelin's entire CD catalog for something like half that (if you include DVDs, box sets, etc.).
I'm reminded of the words of Billy Shakespeare "First, we kill all the lawyers." No offense NewYorkCityLawyer, you're still cool.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
So for 3 grand, you can pirate all the music there is? Or are they still going after the "big traders" for 5+ figure money?
stuff |
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
506. Criminal offenses5
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
I bet that many of those cited easily meet the 180 day / $1000 threshold. And, all those who deal in P2P pass both the reproduction and distribution criteria.
Do yourself a favor. Go read a book on US Government, and don't post on anymore slashdot stories about the RIAA until you've finished the part that discusses criminal law vs civil law.
i nal_law_vs__civil_law.htm
Of course, you are probably too lazy to do that, so I'll make it easier for you:
http://www.co.klamath.or.us/DistrictAttorney/crim
It's true that it CAN be a criminal issue under specific circumstances, but what is being discussed here is a civil issue, not a criminal one. The key to figuring that out is to look at who is pursuing the legal action: private attorneys for the RIAA. Criminal cases are typically led by the district attorney's office (actually, I'm not even sure if it's legal to pursue a criminal case without the DA's support).
Because the RIAA have a history of bullying people, not even completing the judicial process, and even accusing them of not showing up in court, when they had. There's a lot of underhandedness in what the RIAA has done and continues to do. Here's a fairly decent breakdown of it, if you can be bothered to read it. Basically, more often than not, the RIAA will play every card in its hand to ensure that not only do you pay them, but also that they don't have to pay for your attorney in case of their loss. In the end, there's a good chance that you have to pay someone, and these lawsuits can be stalled for years by the RIAA (resulting in skyrocketing attorney fees), so many see it as simply easier to pay them off.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
The going rate appears to be $3600 at Drexel University. (Full disclosure: Soon to be an alum at Drexel)
Which means:
(1) Most domestic file sharers don't fall into this area, and
(2) How many people download more than $1,000 (ACTUAL) worth of copyrighted works in a 180-day period? (Better question: How many of the people involved in RIAA lawsuits have done so? Some have never even touched a computer before.) I've heard it said that the actual cost of each song is $0.70. In order to breech that, you'd need in excess of 1400 songs downloaded. Perhaps there are some people who go all-out, but I can't see someone casually dowloading 1400 songs in a 180-day period. I'm guessing the courts see it the same way.
(3) What the hell is a phonorecord?
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
So these are not criminal but civil lawsuits. I know you can't legally take an insurance to protect you from the consequences of your crimes, but what about civil lawsuits/settlements ?
No, not really - it is quite important. There is clear cognition that it is "wrong" in some sense - illegal, unethical, or otherwise, to infringe on copyrights. There is also a clear decision making process to do it regardless of knowing this.
These people who are settling know they got busted doing something they were not supposed to be doing.
And the ones who actually are innocent? Even if it's just a handful out of thousands? What is their recourse? Right now it's pay up $3K-$5K or risk ten to a hundred times that amount just to prove that you never did anything wrong. And after two or more years of legal wrangling the case might get dropped without prejudice and you're out many times the initial settlement. I'm not here to defend the guilty, I'm here to ask what the hell about the innocent caught in this dragnet? It's not a hypothetical either, there have been numerous examples of people wrongly charged in this campaign.
There needs to be a reform to this process that ensures that there are viable leagal options that don't involve choosing to pay extortionary fines or be bankrupted by lawyers out to prove a point, right or wrong. That can come in many forms, limiting damages, requiring a higher standard of evidence, precedent for winning lawyers' fees if found not to be infringing, etc. The RIAA has all the advantages right now, anyone guilty or innocent has such an unlevel playing field that it's laughable to call it a justice system in any sense. The courts need to close some cases with precedent, stop giving the RIAA the benefit of the doubt at every turn, and start demanding strong evidence for the RIAA to even initiate a suit. The whole fling shit and see what sticks, leaving the incidental innocent victims in financial ruin, has got to be stopped. THAT's the problem, not that the guilty are having a tough go of it, but that anyone actually innocent is basically trapped by the current tactics with no option but to pay up or go broke.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
What would happen if a city posted the following...
"We are aware that several citizens have been speeding and running red lights. We are preparing to issue citations based on our evidence. We will not be disclosing what this evidence is, but if you wish to pre-pay for your infractions you can do so at a reduced rate by going to www.givethecityyourmoney.gov and choosing the 'pre-settlement' option."
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Copyright infringement -- usually tort, sometimes crime
Extortion -- always crime
If the story was that the the RIAA was winning 75% of their alleged cases in a courtroom this would be news. That they are settling 25% for $3000 on average is exactly the sort of scare campaign they are wanting.
The RIAA doesn't want you to go to court, they want you to realize you can settle for $3000 instead of what would surely be multiple times that in legal fees.
"Secondly, how do you feel about being robbed? Because you were robbed. Something
was taken away from you that is worth an enormous amount of money and it was taken
away from you by the RIAA. When copyrights are extended indefinitely, instead of
entering the public domain as they were originally deemed by law -- what is actually
happening is that the RIAA is stealing from the public for their own interests."
That tears it - I want some justificiation of this bullshit, and it is bullshit. You wouldn't know the definition of theft if it came up and bit you.
I've got news for you - creative artists have this tendency of trying to keep their work in the public eye. When something is in copyright, it not only tends to be available to the public, but copyright law specifically allows for a lot of derivative works to be created. You CANNOT copyright an idea, only the exact implementation of one.
So, what theft is there? I want to know. In fact, I want some justification of that statement. Explain to me how a work with a copyright notice that is available to the public is theft. Explain to me how acting to take control of that publicly available work away from its creator isn't theft. There is such a thing as tyranny of the masses you know. You may want to look that up.
I am an author, I will keep my copyrights until the day I day, and you just called me a thief for that. You have some serious explaining to do.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
It's gonna be really funny, in a sad sort of way, when some young politician pops up in 10 years or so and headlines read:
"Senatorial hopeful accused of Piracy."
His response:
"I did not upload!"
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Suing young music fans is a hugely groteque violation of public trust. I absolutely refuse to purchase any music until they stop this. This harkens to the song with the immortal words "The day the music died". RIAA killed it for me.
The chance to "make it big." I won't go into how making money/fame the primary motivation affects music.
(IANAL)
"When copyrights are extended indefinitely, instead of
entering the public domain as they were originally deemed by law -- what is actually
happening is that the RIAA is stealing from the public for their own interests."
I thought copyright extensions were so Disney could keep Mickey Mouse out of public domain.
Unless they have a list of every single person's address and are simply picking random name+address combos off of it and sending the letters, they're probably spending $3,000 and $5,000 per case. Most likely they're LOSING money by doing this, because they're trying to use scare tactics (which has zero chance of working).
Does anyone know where the money the RIAA is collecting is going? (I read one of TFAs and no mention.) If the RIAA is doing its job, then 50% to 80% of it should be going to the actual artists whose files were fileshared (with the remaining 20% to 50% being kept by the RIAA for their effort in collecting it).
Note, I'm not a fan of the RIAA at all. The whole music mafia scene makes me pretty sick, but there are much worse things in the world and so... the RIAA's shenanigans get little attention. However, it strikes me that the RIAA may also be cheating their own members instead of the public at large by not actually distribting the money they're collecting through these antics to the people who were actually harmed by the filesharing... the musicians. Now... if that were true and if that were to make the news... that may garner some attention.
Has anyone ever thought to boycott all of the companies the RIAA works for/with?
In limited circumstances, although it's more the exception than the rule.
Scream "Copyright infringement is not theft!" all the way to prison if you like, but it isn't going to change a damn thing. Man Arrested for Uploading Movie to Internet
You may notice that both the 9th Circuit & the Supreme Court have distinguished infringement from theft (although Congress has been quite dense on that matter, particularly in how it names things like the NET Act). To wit:
(From Wikipedia's article on copyright infringement; I can't find the Supreme Court citation offhand.)
The movie was a watermarked Academy screener easily traced to Nunez's sister - exposing family to professional sanctions and criminal prosecution does not have the look of a victimless crime.
True, I don't like how they made an example out of the victim, Nunez, here.
The theft of intangible property is by no means an unknown concept in American statutory law. The Economic Espionage Act of 1996: The Theft of Trade Secrets is now a Federal Crime
Just as the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act criminalized some copyright infringement. That doesn't make it right, though it does make it law. I wish the former lined up more perfectly with the latter, but alas.
That said, I really hope you like the thought of indentured servitude, 'cuz you can't file bankruptcy against the *AA when they take you to court and their battery of lawyers manages a victory against the lawyer who has himself for a client! With longer life expectancies, you might manage to repay over half of what the *AA will win if their highly-paid and highly-trained legal team can beat you, college boy!
Your claims are non-sensical. How in your view will an artist make money not signing with the RIAA and giving away CDs?
I realize you intend the question to be rhetorical, as in there isn't an answer, but you're way wrong.
The answer is obvious. The artist makes money by distributing their music directly to the consumer, and by having consumers distribute music to other consumers. This wasn't an option in 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, or 1990, but now it's 2007, and it definitely is.
The RIAA has no interest in promoting the creative arts. The RIAA's sole interest is in promoting profitable music distribution. They are paid by, and represent, RECORD COMPANIES, not artists. And if they have a choice between doing something that will promote the creative arts, and doing something that will increase profits for record companies, then they will do what is best for the record companies.
The problem here is that you seem to think record companies create music. They don't. The move music around. But we can do that pretty much for free now - so there's no reason to keep paying them to do it, except that they own a lot of copyrights and are using those copyrights NOT to promote music being made, and NOT to compensate ARTISTS, but to prevent others from DISTRIBUTING music for free.
If we made record companies illegal tomorrow, it would not affect the money made by ARTISTS one bit. It would definitely impact the money made by record companies, and advertising agencies, and those guys who get paid to pay radio stations to play certain songs, but none of those people ever wrote a song.
paintball
Say I default, can they garnish my wages? Set a debt collector after me? I know first hand how hard it is to collect from small claims court, is it the same for big civil cases?
Anyone "know" (not think)?
I came accross this
http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v07/n307/a02.html
thought it was funny
Meanwhile, this was only round 1. It had a deadline of March 20th.
116 settlements is nothing.
Let's see what happens after the initial shock reaction dies down, and students start talking to each other, to their student legal services offices, to lawyers, etc. After they start reading and seeing what their legal rights are. After their ISP's and colleges get to think through what is going on here.
Round 2's letters have just gone out, to 405 students at 23 universities just added to the RIAA hit list.
I'm betting that more people in this group, having had a time to do some research, are getting their act together to resist.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
p2pnet.net
Ars Technica
The Inquirer
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
foregone
:P
Anyone who settled deserves to have DRM implemented into their aural canals, so they can only listen to pre-chewed RIAA music.
You argue, "Yeah, I hate the RIAA too, but my situation is different and it's better for me to settle because so and so." Well, fuck you, thanks for being part of the problem, go back to sleep like you always have and always will until the day you die, never having understood what it means to stand up for yourself.
Now one of you registered fuckheads go ahead and mock me for posting as AC and talking about standing up for yourself, I know you can't resist.
In responce to the RIAA's tactings vs college students, the Digital Freedom Campaign has launched an initiative called Digital Freedom University. DFU will work to give college students the resources they need to make their voices heard during a time when laws are being written that directly affect innovation and the future of the digital world. Only by working together and through dialogue can every one benefit from digital technology. These tactics will only make things worse for the RIAA in the long run.
I know exactly why these students are settling. Back in the days where hacking satellite tv was the craze and the lawsuits came out I was ending college and purchased a smart card reader from what ended up being a flagged website and received one of their settlement notices. Well when you are a college student trying to get out in the workforce, you don't want a background check to uncover that you are in a lawsuit. After a couple of months trying to explain that I'm an IT guy and was tinkering with the smart card technologies as something to learn, I got fed up with the run around and settled. Biggest mistake I made. If I could go back I would because they didn't have a case, but just because I was job hunting out of college and didn't want anything questionable on my record I gave in and paid up. And yes, I did attempt to get free channels, but never was successful.