Why the RIAA Doesn't Want Defendants Exonerated

RageAgainsttheBears writes "The RIAA is beginning to find itself in an awkward position. A few of its many, many lawsuits don't manage to end in success for the organization. Typically, when they decide a case isn't worth pursuing (due to targeting the wrong person or not having sufficient evidence), they simply move to drop the case. Counterclaims are usually dropped in turn, and everyone goes separate ways. But recently, judges have been deciding to allow the RIAA to drop the case, but still allowing the defendant's counterclaim through. According to the Ars Technica article: 'If Judge Miles-LaGrange issues a ruling exonerating Tallie Stubbs of infringement, it would be a worrisome trend for the RIAA. The music industry has become accustomed to having its way with those it accuses of file-sharing, quietly dropping cases it believes it can't win. It looks as though the courts may be ready to stop the record labels from just walking away from litigation when it doesn't like the direction it is taking and give defendants justice by fully exonerating them of any wrongdoing.'"

Comments

RIAA SUCKS MY FUCKING COCK

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking extortionists

Re:RIAA SUCKS MY FUCKING COCK

[Alioth]

The RIAA aren't issuing any lawsuits.

Question - the lawsuit against the 7 year old girl, is it:

A. RIAA -v- Andersen
or
B. Atlantic Records -v- Andersen

I think you'll find the latter. The record companies themselves are doing the suing. If you want to hate someone for spamming the courts with lawsuits, hate the record companies themselves. They love it that the RIAA is catching all the shit (because the RIAA doesn't sell to the public so it doesn't matter if the RIAA has a horrible reputation amongst the public). However, if people understand that the record companies are the ones spamming the courts, maybe the right people will be the object of vilification.

About time

[GiovanniZero]

Our court system should punish frivolous lawsuits for how much it is costing the government.

Re:About time

[AusIV]

Our court system should punish frivolous lawsuits for how much it is costing the government.

Not just for how much it's costing the government, but for how much it's costing innocent defendants. I think any time the RIAA loses a case or drops a case they should have to pay legal fees for the defendants. I think you'd see a sharp drop in frivolous suits. They may still take a few cases to court, but they'll spend more time making sure the accused are actually guilty.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not costing the government anything. The government gets all of its funding from the taxpayers. They're (we're) the ones paying.

So they (we) should obviously boycott industry associations that resort to this sort of legal chicanery. I hear there are some great bands playing live down at the local pub...

Re:About time

[geekoid]

"... making sure the accused are actually guilty."

I hope you mean:
making sure the accused can't defend their innocence against the charges."

Nobody is actually guilt of anything until the courts say so. A fine, yet critical line.

Re:About time

[jovetoo]

Exactly. I believe one of the other cases mentioned a number on the attorney fees, something around US$6800. That would require two out of three accused to settle (at US$3750) just to cover the cost of loosing one. This does not cover their own costs.
I wonder how many of the accused would still choose to settle... even if they are guilty.

Re:About time

[geekoid]

Assuming you can tell the difference between 'frivolous' and just 'wrong'.

Lets say I believe you have done me harm, and sue you.
It turns out that, in fact, it wasn't you.
Then I wouldn't call that frivolous.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not costing us anything. We get all of our funding from our employers. They're (they're) the ones paying.

Some of us (us) work for the RIAA and affiliated companies. We (them)(us) are being paid (our funding) by those (the RIAA) who are costing us money (our funding). It follows that the RIAA is the ultimate victim of the RIAA. Thus, we (they)(the RIAA) should boycott the real criminals (us)(the RIAA).

Re:About time

[honkycat]

Ideally, the accuser would make sure the accused was actually guilty before accusing. Nobody is legally guilty until the courts say so, but actual guilt has nothing to do with legal guilt (except, perhaps, that it's easier to find someone legally guilty if they're actually guilty).

Re:About time

[monkey_dongle]

Actually, this has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. These are civil lawsuits, not criminal, and as such the only thing to be determined is liability.

Re:About time

[svvampy]

I would call it frivolous if the reasons I had for believing you have done me harm are obviously flimsy and constitute a gross lack of due diligence.

Re:About time

[nugneant]

Your logic leads me to believe you are either Chico Marx or John Dvorak. I don't know whether to therefore mod you up or down.

Re:About time

[AK Marc]

You do not understand the words. If I kill someone, I am guilty of homicide. If I am linked to the act, I am charged or indicted. The outcome of the trial is that I am found guilty or not guilty. Being found guilty does not mean I killed someone. It means that I have been found guilty of the crime by a jury of my peers. If I am found not guilty, that does not mean I did not commit the crime. I could be guilty and be found not guilty because of the inability to produce credible evidence. And "innocent" has no legal meaning, though it is often used in place of "not guilty." Innocent means one did not do what they are accused of. That is a state of being that is irrelevant to the finding of the court.

There are common usages of the words and legal definitions of the words. If you are going to complain about someone's usage, you should at least differentiate between them.

Re:About time

[heroofhyr]

ok, you Lisp nerds are hereby officially banned from posting any more comments to Slashdot.

Cross your fingers.

[AlphaLop]

Lets hope that the trend continues. I think the RIAA publicized their lawsuits so much (in an effort to scare "Pirates") that even the judges are aware of their shady tactics, and resent the RIAA for attempting to turn the court system into their own private extortionists.

Re:Cross your fingers.

[solevita]

even the judges

Even the judges? Are you suggesting that the good people of Slashdot know the inner workings of court better than the judges that preside over them? Seems unlikely to me.

I'd be more inclined to believe that judges have long known that the RIAA are a bunch of bastards and are now acting in a manner that respects the general population's regard of the RIAA as a bunch of bastards.

Class Action

[jmkaza]

IANAL, but it seems that if the court rules in favor of any one of the defendants, it would set a precedent that would pave the route for all previous defendants to come together and file a class action lawsuit for wrongful accusations.

Re:Class Action

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, the defendant is innocent. There's no "precedent" here that's going to help 99.99% of the rest of the defendants, which is why they're mostly pursuing novel legal strategies like "You can't sue me, I'm a single mother!"

This is not a stable state of affairs

[91degrees]

After a while it will become sufficiently clear that the record industry is not willing to take anyone to court, that eventually enough people will end up challenging as to make this a prohibitively costly excercise. If they drop enough cases, there will probabyl be a few lawyers who will take virtually any case on, on the assumption that they will be able to claim their fees. Either the RIAA will stop doing this, or they will actually start to see a case through. At the moment though, getting a lawyer and challenging the evidence (which is pretty weak, consisting of an IP address, and a list of files that may or may not be what they claim) seems to be a pretty safe option.

Missing The Point

[asphaltjesus]

The RIAA doesn't care if a few individuals keep them in court for whatever liability they open themselves up to.

Individuals won't have enough money to diminish the environment of fear the RIAA is trying to establish.

The goal is to establish an environment of fear, such that most users are afraid to anything other than what the media conglomerates say is okay. Better still, what's okay today can be wrong tomorrow.

The RIAA end game is good. Stories like this just help it along.

Re:Missing The Point

[AusIV]

The RIAA end game is good. Stories like this just help it along.

Not really. The RIAA would certainly like to create an environment of fear, however if they lose cases and have to pay the defendants legal fees, more people will be willing to go to court. They can only maintain their environment of fear if they're winning their cases or getting settlements.

Re:Missing The Point

[MathFox]

Not really. The RIAA would certainly like to create an environment of fear, however if they lose cases and have to pay the defendants legal fees, more people will be willing to go to court. They can only maintain their environment of fear if they're winning their cases or getting settlements.

Don't forget that a lawsuit costs the RIAA money (in lawyers fees). They can only recoup the costs when they win their cases. Every dropped lawsuit is a loss for the RIAA; double the loss if they have to pay the defendent's lawyer too.

Slashdot and Groklaw analyses of RIAA "evidence" showed significant holes. It is unclear how much relevance the MediaSentry logs have, there are issues with time-stamping and dynamic IP addresses, shared (WiFi) networking, decoy mp3 files and last but not least no proof that the subscriber to the IP package was the one operating the sharing computer. The RIAA seems to ignore the possibility of remote control of a system. With so many holes in the evidence even the guilty can get out.

Re:Missing The Point

[gillbates]

The goal is to establish an environment of fear, such that most users are afraid to anything other than what the media conglomerates say is okay.

And that, I believe, is the problem. I can no longer buy RIAA-parent-company DVDs and CDs in good conscience, because I know a portion of the proceeds will be used for suing women and children. And I think the impressions being formed are overwhelmingly negative. Where are the college students protesting, "Save the RIAA!"? Teenagers and college students are starting to believe that buying CDs will only fund lawsuits against the defenseless and poor.

I understand their position regarding copyright infringement. But it is infringement, not theft, and certainly not murder on the high seas. Their strong-arm tactics make the entire industry look bad, and call into question the legitimacy of their cause. When such an entity chooses to pursue lawsuits on such frivolous evidence, one can only conclude that the real goal is not justice but merely the acquisition of additional wealth. First, they steal from the artist through oppressive and one-sided contracts, and now they are trying to extort money from those whom they believe will not have the resources to resist. When was the last time the RIAA filed a lawsuit against a millionaire?

It just makes me sick. And the artists, of all people, stand to lose the most. Instead of buying from big labels, I've begun looking at the smaller, independent artists precisely because of the RIAA tactics.

I wonder if they even considered the fact that dropping CD sales might be related to people unhappy with the fact that they are suing their customers. Unhappy customers tend not to be repeat buyers.

Legal Persons (More Equal Than Actual Persons)

[Steve B]

This is an example of how corporate legal personhood is selectively interpreted to grant the positive benefits of being a person under the law while evading the negative consequences.

For example, if an actual person filed frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit, eventually a judge would tell them that they have to quit wasting the court system's time with any more nonsense. If the RIAA were a real person, rather than a legal "person", this would have happened to it long ago.

Re:Legal Persons (More Equal Than Actual Persons)

[Steve B]

What makes the lawsuits frivolous isn't that the offense (copyright infringement) does not exist or is not serious, but the lack of basic minimal efforts to determine that the targets of the lawsuit are in fact copyright infringers.

For example, dumping toxic waste in somebody's yard does happen sometimes and is genuinely dangerous when it does. However, that doesn't make somebody who files lawsuit after lawsuit with baseless allegations that his neigbor is dumping toxic waste in his yard any less guilty of wasting the courts' time with frivolous lawsuits.

Why should the defendant suffer?

[RidiculousPie]

Surely in these cases the RIAA has admitted that they do not believe that they can secure a verdict against the defendant, so why should they be allowed to cease litigation while leaving the matter unsettled and the defendant out of pocket for legal and other expenses?

I hope this ensures that the RIAA ensures that in future cases they have valid and sufficient evidence to proceed rather than filing such frivolous suits that waste time and money for all concerned.

How to stop frivolous law suits

[Anonymous Coward]

If a frivolous lawsuit is filed, the filing attorney and any other attorneys who willfully worked on the case, get disbarred. Some permanently others for a few weeks (as a 6 month suspension is functionally equivalent to disbarment as it make s you unemployable and kills your practice).
There needs to be a sliding scale, as I don't want the 1st year associate who's boss told him "do this work" to have his career ruined. The 1st year (and mostly no one below partner) has no power in the firm, and has the only option of doing the work or quiting.

Whether or not this is a frivolous lawsuit is a question of fact; therefore the jury decides. Not the judge (unless they are acting as the trier of fact in that instance.)

You start threatening attorneys livelihood, especially when that livelihood is such a huge investment, you will see these cases go away.

Re:How to stop frivolous law suits

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, a great number of politicians are lawyers. It's doubtful that they will willingly compromise their own profession's ability to make easy money. Keep in mind that after their term in office is up, or if they fail to get reelected, many get back into practicing law.

Second of all, such a system may make it quite difficult for smaller parties to participate in lawsuits. In the case of lawsuits that may not necessarily be frivolous, but that are near enough to that border line, lawyers may demand that the client cover any expenses if those lawyers are suspended or disbarred. This is something that a client without vast financial resources would likely not be able to afford. So soon enough the only people who will have the resources to sue are corporations or industry associations. We end up with the problem we have now, but without normal people having the ability to fight back.

Re:How to stop frivolous law suits

[psxndc]

Wow. So you should die for filing a lawsuit. That sounds fair. Or you should be charged with perjury. riiiiiight.

OK, /.'ers, since 99% of you AREN'T lawyers and don't know the first thing about law suits - while you have to do some due diligence before filing a lawsuit, you usually don't know the real facts until you are already partway into the case in a phase called "discovery," which is usually the most expensive part of the suit.

Under your torch-weilding system, I would have to root through your firewall logs BEFORE I filed a lawsuit, even though I may actually have a legitimate claim against you.

Yeah, that makes sense. /sarcasm. -p-

Re:How to stop frivolous law suits

[NIckGorton]

While I have a natural aversion to lawyers as a physician... this kind of suggestion is about as useful as the idea of revoking the license of physicians who lose a malpractice lawsuit. It might seem like a way to prevent errors, but its not going to work out the way you think.

Doing so in either case will have a lot of consequences that we would all not like:

1) Other clients/patients of the guy who loses his licensure will suffer the loss of the relationship and professional services they get. You might think that no one would want to see a lawyer or doctor who had lost a malpractice case, but if that was the case the majority of physicians in the US would not be practicing today.

2) Every professional by virtue of being a human being will make honest mistakes. Punishing single mistakes by completely destroying that professional's ability to practice will lead to a shortage of people willing to enter that field as well as a shortage of people willing to take the difficult cases in that field. (I can tell you I would never have entered Emergency Medicine where I cannot choose who I will and won't see had this been the case.)

3) If you are defending your own ability to practice (and perhaps your children's livelihood) you are going to go to extremes in order to protect it. If I was under this kind of pressure the amount of defensive medicine I (and every other physician) practice would go through the roof meaning increased costs, unnecessary tests, unnecessary antibiotics, etc. I suspect the same would be the case for lawyers if you pressed them to that extreme.

So while it may seem like it would help to levy draconian punishments for medical or legal malpractice, if you have that sort of system, you won't be happy with the results.

That doesn't mean that you should not use those kind of extreme punishments against professionals who are habitual douchebags. It also doesn't mean you should not levy punishments for errors. But it does mean that you shouldn't punish people innocent of any wrongdoing (the lawyer's other clients) and you should not extract unreasonable punishments for common mistakes.

Nick

Re:How to stop frivolous law suits

[zCyl]

Even though it's now a sad joke, there is a law to protect me from that. And failure by those in authority to enforce it should also be an imprisonable* offense. I don't care if it's a civil suit. If it's handled and authorized by a judge in a public courtroom then the government is involved and the law of the land should apply.

The fourth amendment has clearly not been applied in this way, historically speaking, but as of five minutes ago I think I'm a fan of this proposal. I am not a lawyer, but you seem quite right to me that a literal reading of this amendment should apply to civil cases. This would profoundly change the level of evidence required for lawsuits to be filed, which is sensible since the financial burden for legal expenses is similar, and the huge financial penalties can often exceed the fines from criminal cases.

I wonder what it would take to actually get this applied to civil cases. Could a single Supreme Court ruling do it?

Re:How to stop frivolous law suits

[fucksl4shd0t]

No, making it harder to start a lawsuit is definitely worse than alternative solutions. You've got your heart in the right place, no doubt, but all you're going to get is less lawsuits, period. Not just less frivolous lawsuits, less lawsuits, which means more people suffering who could have sued but didn't, because of the price just to start.

I'd rather have the plaintiff pay all legal expenses if he loses. NOt the defendant, just the plaintiff. The defendant has to respond or he gets summary judgement against him. Then, people who really want to fight can theoretically find a lawyer willing to take the case (assuming they have a case to begin with).

It's not as good as the goal you want, but if there's anything I've learned programming, it's that incremental change is the path to success, not sweeping change. Make little changes and test them.

Re:How to stop frivolous law suits

[NIckGorton]

Then use a "three strikes" law. If it's good enough for punishing criminals, it's good enough for punishing lawyers.

Who said three strikes laws are good? Um, putting people in jail for the rest of their lives for passing a bad check is idiotic (not to mention a wast of tax-dollars). Just because we have one fucked up law, that doesn't mean that we should make all of our laws equally fucked up.

And if you used a three strikes law for malpractice claims you can just add the words 'practicing for 10 years' to my previous statement about physicians. The average OB/Gyn has over a dozen suits in their practice lifetime (which starts at age 30 if you go straight through hs to college to med school to residency. Which means that is a suit every few years.) So if you actually want a doctor to deliver your baby, you might want to reconsider that statement.

Except we're talking about the specific act of initiating a frivolous lawsuit. If the cost of initiating lawsuits goes up as a result of the lawyer being forced to be extremely careful, then good! It'll mean that the lawsuits that do get initiated will have much more solid footing. Just like they should.

No, it means that we will have less lawsuits period. If the cost of entering the game is higher then fewer people will play. However, who plays is largely determined by who has enough money to enter rather than who has s legitimate claim.

Nick

Re:How to stop frivolous law suits

[Foochee]

OK, /.'ers, since 99% of you AREN'T lawyers and don't know the first thing about law suits

Wow, 99%? Obviously you AREN'T a pollster or statistician and don't know first thing about statistics. I suggest to stick to the lucrative field of phrenology.

Re:How to stop frivolous law suits

[Anonymous Coward]

Waoh, Woah Woah

You are confusing "malpractice" with "frivolous lawsuits" Not the same thing at all!

I repeat ... You are confusing "malpractice" with "frivolous lawsuits" Not the same thing at all!

An attorney can get sued for malpractice (i.e. negligence). However, a frivolous lawsuit is not negligence, it is willful. We already have laws against this type of things when dealing with SLAPP suits (frivolous suits by corp's against people who protest the corp).

You miss a bar date, file the wrong form, etc. ... malpractice. Under this scheme no disbarment (well legal malpractice always includes a bar complaint, but ...)
You do everything "right" but you have brought a suit with no merit and wasted the court's, the defendant's the juries time, you have brought a frivolous lawsuit and you get suspended (disbarred if it is really overkill). To bring a frivolous suit you have to engae not in negligent conduct but willful conduct.

The analogy of demanding that your patient have a surgery which you fully know is grossly unneeded and expensive is the correct analogy. We aren't talking about forgetting a sponge inside the patient. We are talking about performing hysterectomies (sp?) because you get a hell of a lot of money for them, even though the patient is fine (I picked a surgery at random there).

SO to answer your points.
#1) We are not disbarring the firm, only the supervising attorney. Your work (especially as a corp) was spread out among all the associates of the firm. Maybe you don't go out to lunch with Jack (Now Jill manages your account) but the firm still represents you.
As a doctor you have a 1-to-1 relationship with the patient. As a firm you have a 1-to-many-many relationship. Taking 1 guy out doesn't end that.

#2) Once again, your point is directed to malpractice. This isn't negligence it is an intention "tort"

#3) The frivolous only comes into play when you file the law suit. You don't have to win, just not file the suit for harassment purposes (yes if I was writing the law I'd have a full blown definition to "frivolous" but I am not not going to corner-case the definition for a blog forum)
So, I am not asking the attorney's to constantly worry about disbarment (more than the already do F'ing bar association). The only increased costs is a better evaluation of your case before you file. And maybe you don't just ask for $1 trillion dollars (which just looks bogus).
The $1 trillion brings up the needed reform of PUNITIVE (not COMPENSATORY) damages. Short-answer tax them at a very high rate. So, it punishes the wrongdoer but is no longer an incentive to file law suits. You should be made whole from your loss (viz. the reason you sued) not rich.

Re:How to stop frivolous law suits

[NIckGorton]

The big issue is a slippery slope of indications. Its not totally unneeded surgery that is the issue, but 'not quite so needed' surgery. And that's something you can't really regulate (or even detect) easily. The decision to get a procedure is a risk/benefit calculation and its dependent on where the balance of the scale is. Some guy who is really doing flat out non-indicated procedures is an easy mark, but those are pretty rare compared with the ones who shift the balance just slightly.

But then part of that very problem is the malpractice system in the first place. Why do you think so many women get C-sections? Because no one ever sues you for the C-section you do. But if you are more conservative, the one time the baby does badly and you don't do a section, you are fucked. Same thing with a cardiologist: say you have a patient with chest pain that has really weak indications for doing an angiogram. If you do one and its clean that's great. The patient incurs a slight risk from the cath, and it costs several thousand dollars, but you wont be faulted for being 'careful'. However if you don't do one, eventually you are going to send someone away and they will have a heart attack the next week, at which point you are again, fucked. The system is set up for people to me more aggressive, send too many tests, do too many procedures, and prescribe too many antibiotics. In the US we are set up to not reward the avoidance of false positives but we severely punish getting a single false negative. So its no wonder cardiologists are loose with the caths and gynecologists with the sections.

You want an easier target that is both readily regulated and will seriously decrease unnecessary treatments? Outlaw physician drug detailing and advertisement for drugs in the popular media. More people are harmed with unnecessary drugs than with unnecessary surgery. Yet we allow some of the most dangerous drugs (those most recently approved) to be advertised like they are Taco Bell or an iPod.

Nick

Eternal Justice

[Doc Ruby]

It's probably safe to presume that these new cases finding counterclaims allowed are of the same merit (or lack) as the ones that just totally dropped, and even found the defendants liable.

What has changed? The laws are the same. The actions are the same.

Maybe the judges are a little smarter now. Maybe the lawyers are a little smarter. But if I didn't get the same results as a defendant in the same circumstances a year or more ago, I'd want a new trial. It's not supposed to be my problem if the administrators of justice are too stupid to leave me alone with laws they don't understand.

That's the new development I want to see: a retrial on the basis that maybe the courts aren't as stupid as they were when they decided against me.

Re:Eternal Justice

[Todd Knarr]

It isn't a matter of a difference in court rulings. In most of the previous cases the defendants settled with the RIAA to avoid a court fight. The difference with these recent cases is that in them the defendants refused to settle and actually filed counterclaims and presented evidence and basically went forward with the actual court part of things. And as it turns out, the RIAA had as little case as we believed they had, and the defendants started to win. The people who decided to avoid the risk and settle have no legal grounds for complaint when people who were willing to take the risk are now winning. "But we could've won too!" is answered by "Yes, if you'd fought. But you didn't, did you?".

Put Up, or Else

[Nom du Keyboard]

To be told to Put-Up, or Shut-Up and Pay-Up, should have been said long ago. The idea that a well-funded adversary can bankrupt their opponent for daring to oppose them while the case never even makes it to trial is the worst part of the American system of justice.

And while the defendants are at it, how long until someone calls the RIAA on their illegal joinder of John Doe defendants in the beginnings of these suits. Two years ago a judge told the RIAA to stop that, they they can't simply join unrelated defendants to save on their litigation costs, and the RIAA has blithely ignored that ruling and continued on their merry ways.

And did anyone see The Bay City Rollers (60's/70's band) lawsuit against Sony for not paying royalties today? Sony's excuse: We lost your contract and didn't know how much to pay you, so we've given you nothing! Puts to lie the claim that filesharers are ripping off the artists. The record companies appear to be doing that just fine on their own.

The RIAA is a business

[ZoOnI]

As a business that represents other companies it's in their best interest to create a profit and stop Internet piracy. They are trying a few greasy tricks to make money.

1. Try and get standard settlements that more than recoup court costs, like the ridiculous $750 per song fines.
2. Attack those who don't have the time and money to defend them selves like students.
3. Yet another tactic is to try and blanket charge a whole lot of folks hoping some will cough up the money with no court date.
4. Attack folks with little or no evidence hoping for an out of court settlement then back out if the defendant gets a lawyer.

This is business at its worst. Someone should go after these guys with a class action suit or set up a fake file sharing site to lure them into a case they will lose.

RIAA Lawyers Confused

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The RIAA lawyers seem to be confused. Last week they were adamantly fighting for their withdrawal of the case to be "without prejudice" -- i.e. so that they could pursue it again. This week they're willing to "covenant not to sue". It seems to me that they are just flaking out.

The RIAA is a front

[KwKSilver]

RIAA is just a fictional front for the recording industry. It is acting as the legal agent of the recording companies. If the RIAA gets caught with its pants down in some of these cases, it makes sense that the victims should be able not only countersue the RIAA, but also Columbia, SONY--or whoever, as well. The person who hires an agent may be responsible for the agent's actions: if I hire you as a bodyguard, and then tell you to kill my ex-wife, I can and will be held just as responsible as you. The RIAA's pockets may not be that deep but SONY's et al. are. If the RIAA's puppet-masters get burned badly enough and frequently enough, they will drop this phony bullcrap. The recording indistry sales aren't falling because of piracy, they are falling because they dish up nothing but worthless shit. I haven't bought a CD in years, BUT I have never downloaded a single song--because I wouldn't pollute my hard-drive with that crap. The sooner the recording industry dies, the sooner real music will have a chance.

Why do they even bother?

[sunspot42]

The RIAA is doomed. Why are they wasting any money on these idiotic lawsuits? Kids are now trading 60, 120, 160 and even 500GB drives full of mp3 or aac files, or even FLAC or Apple Lossless files. They don't even trade the files online anymore. They just pass whole drives around their circle of friends. They buy CDs used, rip 'em and then sell 'em back.

Within a year or so 500GB drives will be selling for around $100. Even at 256kbps, that'll hold an immense music library. The RIAA's biggest customers - high school and college kids - will have easy access to terabytes of free music.

It's over. Stick a fork in the record companies. They're done.

The MPAA is next.