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 :) ?
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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 : )
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.