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?
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.
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.
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!
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!"
"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.
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 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.
"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.
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.
I have downloaded > $3000 worth of music, then I win!
You haven't seen the settlement agreement.. You don't get to keep the music. You also don't get to say anything truthfully in your opinion regarding the RIAA. I saw a link to a settlement agreement.
I do wonder if it caries any weight. There is some thing about contracts signed under duress.. Anybody have any information on this? From what I have seen and the size of the pendiing litigation, this is a contract that fully qualifies as signed under duress.
http://www.denvica.com/contracts.html
"If one of the parties can prove that the contract was signed under duress, that is the party's signature was extracted by physical or mental coercion, then the contract is null and void.
Duress is defined as coercion of a party to execute a contract against the free will of that party."
The truth shall set you free!
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
how much of that money? Probably zero.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 : )
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
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.
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
Huh, here's what my Business Law by Mann & Roberts book says:
DuressA person should not be held to an agreement he has not entered voluntarily. Accordingly, the law will not enforce any contract induced by duress, which in general is any wrongful or unlawful act or threat that overcomes the free will of the party.
Physical compulsion
Duress is of two basic types. The first type, physical duress, occurs when one party compels another to manifest assent to a contract through actual physical force, such as pointing a gun at a person or taking a person's hand and compelling him to sign a written contract. This type of duress, while extremely rare, renders the agreement void.
Improper Threats
The second and more common type of duress involves the use of improper threats or acts, including economic and social coercion, to compel a person into a contract. Though the threat may be explicit or may be inferred from words r conduct, in either case it must leave the victim with no reasonable alternative. This type of duress makes the contract voidable at the option of the coerced party....
The fact that the act or threat would not affect a person of average strength and intelligence is not important if it places fear in the person actually affected and induces her to act against her will. The test is subjective, and the question is this: Did the threat actually induce assent on the party of the person claiming to be the victim of duress?
Ordinarily, the acts or threats constituting duress are themselves crimes or torts. But this is not true in all cases. The acts need to be criminal or tortious in order to be wrongful; they merely need to be contrary to public policy or morally reprehensible. For example, if the threat involves a breach of contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing, it is improper.
Moreover, it generally has been held that contracts induced by threats of criminal prosecution are voidable, regardless of whether the coerced party had committed an unlawful act. Similarly, threatening the criminal prosecution of a close relative is also duress. To be distinguished from such threats of prosecution are threats that resort to ordinary civil remedies to recover a debt due from another. It is not wrong to threaten a civil suit against an individual to recover a debt. What is prohibited is threatening to bring a civil suit when bringing such a suit would be abuse of process.
Basically, because what the RIAA is not physical duress, it is considered voidable, not null and void. It is at the discretion of the party that was coerced to decide whether the contract exists or not. Also note that many of the stories brought up regarding the RIAA (Going after a person's surviving family, going after grandma & grandpa, etc) are clearly against any morally reprehensible.
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
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
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
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!