Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Accused of Extortion & Conspiracy
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The defendant in a Tampa, Florida, case, UMG v. Del Cid, has filed counterclaims accusing the RIAA record labels of conspiracy and extortion. The counterclaims (pdf) are for Trespass, Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 USC 1030), Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. 501.201), Civil Extortion (CA Penal Code 519 & 523), and Civil Conspiracy involving (a) use of private investigators without license in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 (a)(2)(C); (c) extortion in violation of Ca. Penal Code 519 and 523; and (d) knowingly collecting an unlawful consumer debt, and using abus[ive] means to do so, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a et seq. and Fla. Stat. 559.72 et seq."
Did somebody say irony?
You are reading a sig. Cancel or allow?
You know, its about time this happened - I've been wandering how the RIAA's actions up to this point were any different from Mafia tactics. Pay us "protection money" or we'll sue. Good on 'em.
Cemil.
Extortion? No, not the RIAA, they'd never do that!
Sarcasm aside, who didn't see this coming?
My sig can beat up your sig.
I wonder if this is referring to the people who get your ip address off of their file sharing programs?
I do think that this should at least make the RIAA use legal and more robust techniques to win cases.
dont cheer yet, filing counterclaims is not the same as winning the case agaisnt the RIAA- if and when the RIAA loses THEN you can cheer.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
If you look at Section 72 paragraph 14, subsection 8 sentence 2 (3f33.v2.7) of the Florida code (version 23.4.2a) you will clearly see that it is superceded by Federal code 4323F.2b4#*R, page 492 subsection B, paragraph 12, sentences 3-7.
I look forward to hearing about how this case goes... hopefully at least some of those claims stick to the wall!
Most of the victims just roll over because they can't afford to pay a lawyer. The RIAA doesn't go after people who can defend themselves. On the other hand, if this case and a couple of others are won in court then the RIAA won't be able to use its cheap tactics any more.
Their supposed expert (actually he is an expert, just not on what he is testifying to) and their investigators only sound good until they are properly challenged. In other words they're only good enough to fool most of the victims and maybe a credulous judge.
Subject says it all.
Its about time someone counter-sued like this but will it work?
Good luck!!!
all the more reason to buy independent music
...welcome our counterclaim filing peers!
when I think "FUCK YEAH, STICK IT TO THEM". Man I should have fits like that a little more often, it's liberating.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
That's because AFAIK he/she is a lawyer and has been involved in one of these RIAA cases (to what extent I'm unsure). Just look at the prior article submissions! Here and here being obvious examples.
please please please let the RIAA lose the case...but its unlikely.
I don't really get it.
The RIAA waves a piece of paper and says "Look, at 11:28 on March 23rd 2007 Zaphod was making 'Stairway to Heaven' available for downloading on the Bittorrent network".
Zaphod: "Err, no, I wasn't."
RIAA: "Yes you did, we have a piece of paper!"
Zaphod: "Give me ten seconds and I can show you a piece of paper saying anything you like."
RIAA: "We have database logs and screenshots!"
Zaphod: "Give me five minutes with a computer and I'll show you database logs and screenshots of anything you like."
RIAA: "We have bizarrely detailed logs from your ISP showing that we downloaded a file from your computer at 11:29 on March 23rd 2007!."
Zaphod: "Yes, it was a picture of me buggering your mother."
RIAA: "..."
Really, I don't understand why the *AA's 'evidence' in these matters is relevant, let alone compelling. Do they have some sort of infallible tool for proving exactly what files Zaphod had on his computer?
the RIAArdvark came across a Black Widow... who ate it for lunch. Gulp!
Media Sentry claims they run KaZaA like anyone else would, and therefore find files like anyone else would.
If so, the Media Sentry computer performing this investigation is an ad-ware/spyware/crap-ware ridden piece of junk that you can't trust for a moment.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think these charges, should they have merit might just stop the RIAA in its tracks. At the very least, experts would be far less willing to work on their behalf for fear of a damaged reputation and/or potential jail time. I know that in PA, acting as Private Detective without any kind of bond and licensure is a FELONY. I can't imagine doing so in Florida wouldn't be a crime either. We shall see about the outcome. My guess is that these charges will be whittled down and not much will become of this. I would really like to see this fought to the bitter end.
Sorry Jimbo, but we can't help you if you're too stupid to understand that NewYorkCountryLawyer informed us succinctly, accurately, and plainly. He even leaves it as an exercise to the reader to reference the exact statutes referenced by the counterclaims. How much more straightforward can you get?
"Oral exam on the penal code!"
So because the odds of me getting struck by a stray bullet while you fire at targets in your back yard, is so low im more likely to get killed in a freak zebra crossing, it should be legal to fire at targets in your back yard in a poplulated area?
Just because its rare, doesn't make it right. Murder, as it turns out, is pretty damn rare. Does that make murder right? If its right, it would become more common and suddenly, its wrong! Where does such logic lead?
Just for fun I decided to test this theory when someone like you said this to me four years ago. I videotaped some fratboys playing drunk soccer, and then copied and pasted the clip repeatedly until I had an hour and a half long video. I then called the video "Shaolin Soccer.avi", put it in a Gnutella share directory on my computer that I connected to the university network (there were no other files in the share directory) and within three days the university had forwarded me a letter from the MPAA stating that I was sharing the movie "Shaolin Soccer." I had a good laugh with the residential networking guys about it. Together we told the MPAA to go fuck off. I haven't been struck by lightning yet.
Good on 'em.
May I ask where you are from? I would use the phrase "Good for 'em", and I'm just wondering if this is a regional saying? I'm from the U.S., by the way.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
You compared an event the probabilistically won't happen to an event that has happened.
Stop it, they don't apply to each other.
"...it should be legal to fire at targets in your back yard in a populated area?"
if the odds are that low to hit ANYBODY, then there would be nothing wrong with firing a gun in your backyard. Of course you would be paying for any property damage.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Good on 'em.
May I ask where you are from? I would use the phrase "Good for 'em", and I'm just wondering if this is a regional saying? I'm from the U.S., by the way.
I don't know about the parent's location, but we use "Good on 'em" here in Australia a fair bit.
You've got to admit it sounds great to the ears
Um that's why people share files. Most of the RIAA music doesn't sound good for the ears, and we're sick of paying for a whole CD to get the one good track on it that they never release as a single!
I drink to make other people interesting!
If its right, it would become more common and suddenly, its wrong! Where does such logic lead?
To the War on Drugs.
...that there is still news in this world that is good news for the small people.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Ya, we Skips tend to say all sorts of strange things.
Like 'Crikey!' Thanks, Steve. Sleep well.
I dunno where that little prepositional slip came from, it's just something that the Australian idiom has produced. Just a style-note, the emphasis in the phrase "good on 'em" usually falls on the "on" for some reason. So it's "Good on 'em." Or, if you're a wit/wanker, you put the emphasis at the end: "Good on them."
There you go. More information about the Australian patois than anyone could ever want. Ever.
THUD~*
Sadly, I know that you have been reading (and have posted in) the last few dozen stories and are just being an asshole, but I'll try to recap some of the main points here. Ray can (and has) done it many times and better than I can. He's also a lawyer, whereas IANAL. Be that as it may...
> How in the hell is legally protecting your rights by suing infringers who are distributing your copyrighted materials, and offering them a settlement to avoid court cases, an example of "Mafia tactics" or "protection money?"
They abuse court processes by:
* Doing things ex parte whenever possible, making sure that the other side never has a chance to be heard in court.
* Improper joinder of unrelated cases, for which they have been sanctioned in Texas. In spite of having been enjoined by the court, they have routinely ignored that ruling and simply avoided litigating in Texas.
* Unfair settlements. Although they have acknowledged in the press that they "occasionally" find innocent defendants, they pursue even their weakest cases in court until it's obvious they're going to lose. Then they try to get a dismissal without prejudice to avoid having to pay your legal fees. This means that you can either: a) Pay a ~$3,500 settlement or b) Pay a lawyer even more than that to represent you in court. If you're innocent, you end up paying no matter what. Yes, after a long and hard court battle, Debbie Foster *finally* won reasonable attorney's fees, but she's pretty much the only one so far. Usually, they cut & run and you're just out of luck and out of money.
In short, they do precious little to make sure that the people they sue are guilty, they torment anyone they sue in court (even going after your family if you prove to be innocent), and they twist every court rule they can get away with (hint: getting sanctioned & ignoring court orders is NOT something a reputable lawyer does).
So no, I'm not going to condone this "Won't someone please think of the poor RIAA!" crap when the RIAA come preaching this hypocritical holier than thou bit with respect to copyright law, only to turn around and ignore any laws or court orders that stand in their way.
Now please crawl back under whatever bridge you came out from under.
IH speaks! "Can't stop what Napster started."
a merica/riaa-wins-worst-company-in-america-2007-245 235.php
Ya, a copyright infringement website defends copyright infringement. Who'd've thought. also, this lesson has been learned before.
Besides, I AM an artist. If I were signed with a label/distribution company/other organ, I would make >10 per unit sold. I much prefer that people burn or download my album, then buy me a beer. I get more out of it that way.
Also, 15,010 angry nerds can't be wrong. http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-
[/rebuttal] Okay, fair point, the RIAA are just doing their job. We'll disregard for the moment it's a job that doesn't need to be done. In this case, the only thing the RIAA are guilty of is boundless enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the low-income single mothers on the receiving end of the lawsuits don't see it that way.
Okay, I've lost the thread of my argument, so I'm just going to say what I originally intended to say.
Clearchannel.
Money talks. Independent labels can't afford to get music on the radio in America, because they don't have the resource to buy the airtime or lobby the execs. The internet is their only hope. The RIAA, as far as I can work out, is accidentally crushing independent artists while they're going after the roaches. So, sure. Blame the RIAA-haters for depriving artists who already have record labels, have a valid form of income. I'll keep blaming the RIAA for keeping the little guy down with its' clumsy antics.
THUD~*
Heh... the RIAA are a bad sig.
I always hated those sigs that trumpeted my IP. Not because it did me any harm, but because they were always ugly.
THUD~*
Predictable. Why did they finally crack down on crime in New York City? Too many VIPs got robbed of killed... probably a judge or a politician, or one of their friends and family...
Someone a couple of RIAA articles back was asking when they'd get bitten back, its good to see the comunity banding together in OSS fashion for a very quick time to market with such a response! ;)
Seriously though, it would be good to see the RIAA taken to the wall with this. To see them loose 10 or 20 times the amount they've gained from every ligitation they've performed would seem like justice to me, and perhaps it would make them think about whether all the litigation and drm technology is worth it..
More then likely it result in two things (should they loose), 1) deciding a set of laws they can use to prosecute people without exposing themselve. 2) buying more govt types to change the law to help 1) (are govt types an off-the-shelf item in the USA or something? the way they seem purchasable certainly makes them sound very commodity-based)
All I have to do is ping computers at random, find one that's on, and claim to have gotten any random file from it at that particular time. Sure, the ISP could produce documents for whoever owned that internet account, but it wouldn't mean that the ISP had any actual evidence that that computer was infringing. Let alone who was actually *operating* the computer at that time (Spyware? The neighbors?).
The ONLY evidence the RIAA & co. get from the ISP is that John Doe owned the account to which IP x.x.x.x was assigned at some particular time. The rest is trivial to fake or even just screw up, especially when all I have to do is take screenshots of a secret program I wrote myself to catch infringers. And no, you can't have a copy to defend yourself. I'll let you depose someone who doesn't know anything about it, or about much of anything else, instead. That's fair, right?
Ooh, would you look at that! Fake Evidence Generator 1.0b just detected child pornography and terrorist training manuals coming from RIAA.com and MPAA.com. Where do I send the screenshots?
EULA, anyone?
THUD~*
The sky is blue, more at 11.
Sky is blue, RIAA is big bad, litigious fools with more time than sense are killing the world. In other news, I supplant my copyright infringement guilt by sponsoring children, and recycling.
Related stories: RIAA vow to start persecuting shoplifters.
THUD~*
I say, why doesnt Grocklaw cover the RIAA cases ? Or even better ! Have an RIAA version of Grocklaw ! I mean, it worked against SCO , Im sure it would work against the RIAA !
I may not understand all of whats going on here, but..
I truly hope that someone sticks it back to the RIAA in some way shape or form,..
I just have one thing to say. SACRIFICE THEM! to the GODS, whatever it takes.
I could use this whole document and add one more charge. Violation of the DMCA!!! On my home network, every machine is protected by a unique password. The other two machines on the network have been taught the passwords of each machine, but anyone coming in from the outside would be reverse engineering my copy protection, and violating DMCA.
And while I have a P2P program, it was used to download 4 indie films. Each was burned off to DVD and they are not on my machine anymore!
I am all for seeing a criminal trial against the RIAA, but as others have stated its a bit of a "pipe dream" to actually get it.
my main concern is the RIAA/MPAA getting new laws passed that would be similar to a criminal version of the DMCA. Here in the US it seems you can buy -almost- any law you want, even if it will get overturned by a court later and tore down by organizations like the EFF. It will still be in effect long enough to do quite a bit of damage.
see: Gonzales proposes new crime: 'Attempted' copyright infringement May 15, 2007 - stuff like this, even a lot lesser version of it is what bothers me.
s/©//g
I mentioned to my music instructor that I planned to get a "real" iPod (the iPhone) in a few weeks. He was pleased because he wanted to give me "thousands of dollars" worth of music. I told him that it was only an 8GB iPod and he said "we'll have to do it a chunk at a time" but that's okay because I'm "smart enough to get it back off the iPod".
Please note that this is a professional musician, and that he wants me to have this music for both my enjoyment and for study.
I think that this illustrates that the future of professional music is in performance, not in fire-and-forget recording. (He just had a big gig doing an off-Broadway play that was in town.)
-So-and-So
Not to be negative, but in situations like this (read: underdog) its "when and if" and not the other way around.
Isn't that exactly what happens? If i live in a rural area, the odds of me hitting anyone on my 100 acre farm are very low so it's perfectly legal for me to shoot a gun on my property. If I live in a city area where my back yard is 10,000 sqft if I'm lucky, the odds of hurting someone go way up. I do the same thing in both cases, but in one case I have a much lower chance of actually hurting anyone so it's legal.
don
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
Done safely and without impairing reasonable enjoyment of the ajoining properties I think shooting in your yard is fine.
Did you take reasonable care in your back yard firing range?
Did you point at the ground?
Did you build a bullet resistant structure to shoot within?
eg wall, berm or hole?
Did you use ammunition that will not travel off your property?
Did you take steps to reduce the sound and impact on neighbors?
> Wow really? For the first time, I feel slightly proud to be in Texas.
:-)
It's a big state. Not everyone in it can be a jerk
Anyhow, ironically, the court was mad at them because they were defrauding the state of the proper filing fees by trying to get a "30 cases for the price of 1" type deal. I don't know the actual number of unrelated cases slapped together, but that at least gives you the idea.
I wonder if any lawyers challenging the John Doe cases have used that argument? Of course, the whole point of using the quickly dropped John Doe cases is to get discovery without anyone having a chance to respond, so damn few of them *have* been challenged in any meaningful way...
Can he win?
I doubt that it is accidental, at least not completely. But otherwise your point stands.
I'm just tired of ripping cds just to keep up with my music.
For sure within 2 months I will loose, break, or scratch the cd.
I'm from Washington State (the real Washington with trees and mountains, not the one to the east, AKA "Mordor"). Anyway, I've heard that phrase from time to time.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"The defendent...has filed counterclaims accusing the RIAA record labels of conspiracy and extortion." +1
Used in English a lot too.
:)
We could've picked it up from 'Neighbours' (and it's ilk) though, so who knows it's origin
Max.
It can't say "intentionally left blank" if it were really blank, now could it?
It really should say something like "This Space Intentionally Left Almost Blank".
As a Canadian I am always amazed at the abuse of Justice by litigants in the US. It would seem that if you have deep pockets you can defeat justice in the US (OJ). I have long thought that the US Justice system is hugely flawed and the RIAA and their various suits have reinforced my belief.
This article is a breath of fresh air. It is about time that the small guy takes it to the man.
The RIAA is a justice bully that is using the flawed system to protect their supposed turf, and has picked on the wrong person yet again.
The US Supreme court needs to step in and finally smack those bastards to their knees. The RIAA is not protecting the artists or the consumers -- they are a bloated association with ulterior motives that protect nothing other than their own interests and need to be given a severe reality check.
As a Canadian with different rights -- I will watch in amusement -- the US electorate needs to make this an issue, for fear of having the rest of the US Justice system undermined. The RIAA is way too big for its own britches. I hope they get cut down to the level they should be at (which is merely an association that represents the artists that make the money for the industry). Even the artists that they supposedly represent complain about them.
So what is wrong with this picture? Come on you Americans -- lobby your congress person on behalf of the artists -- the RIAA is a bully. We don't allow bullying in our schools or our workplaces. Why allow it in your marketplace?
He's likes all that alphabet soup too!
RIAA: "All your MP3 are belong to us" User: "ORLY" RIAA" "YA RLY" USER: "NO WAI"
I'm glad someone has the courage and the pockets to stand up.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Just so you know, the submitter's name is Ray Beckerman. He is a New York lawyer who has represented his share of RIAA victims and he has posted many articles updating us on the progress of these cases, including the one where he asked us to respond to the RIAA's "expert" witness who had basically admitted in a deposition to having essentially no scientific basis for his findings.
:(
Because his clients are generally not wealthy and cannot afford thousands of dollars on experts and legal fees, he's turned to those of us in the technical community who are sick of the RIAA's bullying legal tactics, and I believe he found an Ask Slashdot helpful for once, in spite of the trolls (surely that must be a first...).
If you want to know about the cases he's involved in, he posts about those (and others) over on his blog. Or just talk to him when he shows up on Slashdot. He's a nice guy, he reads (and responds to) pretty much all replies to his posts, save maybe the trolls. And if he seems a bit curt at times, it's because the RIAA is also watching him. That's right, they've taken note of his blog and possibly other things and tried to twist the things he says and does to use against him in court. I can't see how it's even relevant (it probably isn't), but the RIAA lawyers aren't known for playing nice (or even by the rules, if you look at all the stuff they try and pull ex parte; one Texas judge got mad at them for trying to "defraud" the state of filing fees).
In other words, he's a good lawyer, and one of our few allies in the fight against the RIAA. Very, very few people can afford to represent themselves in court, even if they're innocent, and the RIAA is taking every advantage of that fact
I, for one, intend to do pretty much anything in my power to help him out.
(and no, before you ask, New York City is not a country)
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I, as well, was introduced to this phrase by a college buddy who grew up in Walla Walla. Then again, if Aussies are using it, and with the state penitentiary in close proximity, it could just be prison slang.
Thing of beauty. One of the few legal documents I can actually read.
It appears few stones have been left unturned in the counter complaint. It clearly alleges that the RIAA have been using scare tactics to maintain their control on music distribution. The interesting thing is that they have to now prove they didn't. Given that they the big RIAA members have been convicted of collusion in the past, I can't help but see this one becoming a really big nasty mess for them.
Given the U.S. Justice system runs slower than treacle, don't expect the RIAA to be pulled through the coals for a while.
Money talks. Independent labels can't afford to get music on the radio in America, because they don't have the resource to buy the airtime or lobby the execs.
You're wrong here, they just DO NOT spend the money to burn a few cd's and send them to radio stations. Stations PAY money so play songs on the air, they don't GET money for it. Licensing fees to play music are also pretty hefty.
Radio stations make money on advertising, not by getting paid to play music.
Neighbours? You poor bastard. Sorry about that. Wish we could make it stop.
> Neighbours? You poor bastard. Sorry about that. Wish we could make it stop.
Yeah. Thanks for the sympathies. I'm doing fairly well now. I was, along with most of the nation, hooked for much of the '80/'90s. I left the UK in late '97 for a life in 'sunny' California (can you spell El Nino?), so have managed to detox fairly well.
Max.
So how do we know about that good track, if it was never released as a single?
Usually to me it was the other way around. Heard a great single, and figured anyone who could do something that nice could probably have lightening strike twice. The older I got, the less it happened.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Go into any law practice and ask for a show of hands about how many of them hate their state assemblies. You'd be surprised.
Lawmakers get all red-pen happy when issues pop up because whiny constituents demand that SOMEONE do SOMETHING to keep little Timmy from hearing "shit" on TV, or possibly, after specifically looking up how to accomplish it, have an encounter with a prostitute in a video game. It's not fair to blame legislatures, though, because they are acting in direct response to the public. They want them to write laws. People want callous, superficial, entertaining campaigns. People don't want to deal with real issues, and certainly don't want to take responsibility for themselves. A democracy reflects the people in it; the United States is getting exactly what it wants. But that's a subject for another thread.
Lawyers hate the absurdity of many laws as written, and hell, even many lawmakers get annoyed at the process. Writing rules by committee is like doing anything else by committee: if there was a creative vision, a coherent drive, or a sense of logic in the beginning, it's gone by the end. This is an inevitable consequence of letting too many people express too many opinions. Dictatorships have the cleanest, clearest laws. They have other downsides.
In a civil case you cannot be convicted of anything. More to the point, pretend this was a criminal case, who you going to arrest? The collective RIAA? Even if you could point your finger at one schmoe who made the call to play dirty and lock him up for fifty years, that will hardly put a dent in the RIAA. The RIAA is a collection of coporations, and they are intangible sociopathic entities. One of the reasons that coporations can behave in such abberant ways is because of their legal status, which makes it difficult to hold them accountable. The RIAA's behavior is simple a symptom of larger problem.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201433&cid =16491799
Unlike some of the people here, I actually have friends and they play music when I visit them. Internet radio often plays random selections, and ignores what is the current "popular". You do hear good music when you're out and about, even though it was never released as a single.
To top all that off, people often go to music stores where they play... whole albums on the PA. Quite often I'll hear a track I like on a $40 current album and then go and ask to have a listen to the rest of it. It's usually that the album is crap bar one or 2 songs and they are the one or 2 songs that would never be popular with the kids so they'll never get released as singles.
So, it's not a matter of being able to hear the music rather than being able to selectively obtain the parts you want to hear again without getting all of the garbage that the MAFIAA wants you to pay for alongside it.
I drink to make other people interesting!
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Oh yeah, you're that guy...who completely refuses to believe that artists will get paid even without your stupid law....bonch, right? Drone on, brother. Gotta keep that gravy train a runnin'. Gotta cash in quick before the facade melts away and people see what greedy bastards the IP hoarders are. But hey, you're just flamin'...you no fool me.
I would more accurately say you have accidentally stumbled across precisely what this is all about.
Like what I said? You might like my music
I thought these claims just imply a RICO claim as well. - fraud/extortion committed by an organised entity?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Seriously, their bluff needs to be called here.
D ER%);
#include <pesky_zero_day_exploit_worm>
#include <gnutella_server>
if (this.location.usstate == TX) {
for(int i = 1; i=100; i++) {
download(AmericanTop100[i]).save(%HIDDENSHAREDFOL
}
}
(Actually, a large scale outbreak of a worm such as this would have to alter this legal terrain somewhat, wouldn't it?)
If you honestly believe that the RIAA/MPAA didn't know this was coming and hasn't already planned accordingly or already paid off the appropriate people then I kinda feel sorry for you. They'll win this case, set precedent, and their all our rights go down the drain.
As much as I _hate_ these organizations, their tactics are genius. They operate in a manner that prevents them from having liability and cuts their costs. How many cases have been fought and they have lost? How many of those cases have had the defendant's legal fees paid?
I really hope this is done right so these bastards learn that we won't put up with their extortion tactics any more.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
I say it. Picked it up in SE Michigan.
Yes, but (1) it's far more time-consuming to download a movie and (2) if you wait six months and it will be on sale at Wal-Mart.
Hell, I've seen the entire trilogy of LotR at CVS for $6.99 per movie.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Ironicly, our NFL team here in Tampa Bay is the Buccaneers...
http://www.buccaneers.com/
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
The sky was accused of being blue and the sun of being hot.
Umm... Radio?
You'd be surprised how many of those tracks that sound nice never "make" it to a single, instead they're crammed into fillers and printed on a CD, sold for 20ish bucks.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The RIAA sues or threatens to sue ==> the guy fights back (unexpected outcome of events, the incongruity [quality of disagreeing; being unsuitable and inappropriate] of this??)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Oh, there's more than the usual "Al Quaida could gain significant support in geek circles by throwing the next plane at the RIAA building" to this.
There's a difference between defending your rights and legal bullying. Defending my rights means that I have to find out that someone infringes, collect evidence, drag him to court. That I sue when I'm fairly confident that the opposite party is guilty of breaking a law to my disadvantage.
Legal bullying means I take whoever I deem guilty, based on hazy, if any, evidence, drag him to court and hope that he crumbles and "confesses" before I have to present my (nonexistant) evidence. I can do that if I have a lot of dough at my hands and my opponent doesn't. When you're practicing legal bullying, you don't hope to win the case, you hope your opponent doesn't want to risk his lifetime savings in a court case and folds before the case actually hits the court.
This is not limited to the RIAA, many other organisations practice this. Some to silence dissenters (a certain sci-fi religion comes to mind), some to squash competition or at least "improve" your position in "negotiations" (usually in patenttrolling cases), and in this case the maybe most nefarious motivation: To instill FUD.
The copyright laws are so hazy, obscure and convoluted that it is even for lawyers often not easy to determine whether or not you have broken the law by doing X. It's harder in other cases to start legal bullying, e.g. if you try to sue me for trespassing and I know for a fact that I've never been there, I can calmly look forwards to the trial, knowing that I can't lose. But when you "use" content, can you be sure with the ever changing copyright law that you've "used" it legally? That something that had been common practice for decades hasn't suddenly become illegal?
Often innocent people fear that, not knowing and understanding copyright laws, they may actually be guilty for some reason. Even more after so many trials by the RIAA (that's where the FUD pays off for the RIAA), which they all "won" by default (because the defendent folded and admitted guilt).
And that's why it works.
So I'd say few people would complain about a "simple" defense of legal property. What people complain about is the indiscriminating legal bullying that goes on, where people are dragged to court on hazy and sometimes outright forged "evidence", based on laws that are by no standards impartial, fair or at least easily understandable.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In order to win against the RIAA/MPAA, the majority of consumers would need to stop purchasing music and movies made under the auspices of these two organizations and focus solely on independent versions. This too would never really happen, but like saving the environment, I do my own little part.
Any way to hear and buy your music online?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Here is the case they should bring the big guns to bear on. Make sure this person has the financial and legal backing to push this to conclusion... ...or of course drop it without prejudice the minute it looks like they might lose.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
trippeh,
It's clear you don't like the RIAA, but your points are not clear. Since you state that you *are* an artist, I think it is particularly interesting to see what you are trying to do to make music, get paid, and enrich the culture of those around you.
Do you play shows on the weekend? Do you have music that I could download? Would you consider posting your work with a Creative Commons license at a site like ccmixter.org? Do you have the resources to make videos to post on YouTube or GoogleVideo and to make announcements on "yourbandname.com"? I would ask about your MySpace... but I think of NewsCorp's Online Community as a cesspool that should be avoided by respectable geeks.
My feelings are that playing shows is the way to go for any artist to earn their keep. Play a show, get a hundred people to come and charge them $5-10, while selling some merch that has your logo, and go home with $200-300. If you are good, the audiences will grow. If not, it was never meant to be.
I've never felt that the RIAA member orgs actually add much to the bands they sign these days, except the troubles of distribution (which the internet can do) and promotion (which is better accomplished through word of mouth).... The only thing I see the RIAA Companies doing is milking artists for the fruits of their labors.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Not all who wander are lost.
However, those who wonder if they should be actually "wondering" when they're "wandering" apparently lost their dictionary.
Actually, NO. Radio stations not only DO NOT pay royalties to the RIAA, they DON'T PAY for the music either. They get the CDs shipped to them for free by the record companies.
It's not infrequent that there will also be some money sent to pay them to put it on the air, but this has to be hidden, since it's illegal. But it DOES happen.
They do pay ASCAP, but that's not a recording royalty, that's a composer royalty.
Sure, from most people's point of view these claims are obviously true. Of course from most people's point of view OJ was guilty, and he manged to get off.
Groklaw you uncultured heathen! And the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a pretty decent website Here that covers many aspects of the RIAA cases. It's not *quite* as well organized and coherent as Groklaw is, but it's a darn good place to start. Honestly precious few are going to have PJ's kind of dedication to a cause *and* sufficient legal background to research and make sense of court filings for the layman.
why somebody hasn't pulled RICO on the RIAA escapes me. this is what the law was written for, slamming extortionists' fingers in a car door.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
OT, but Dave, you've got a broken link in your sig
Redundancy is good And also good.
No, I know for a fact (work at a radio station) that radio stations (at least the independantly operated ones) pay for a subscription to the cd service that delivers compositions of new music to them. So, YES many radio stations DO pay for the music, but not directly to the RIAA.
Ok, it might not fight the precise legal definition of extortion but I think it fulfills the spirit of it. You do have a choice of taking a settlement or going to court yes but how much of a choice is it really? Take the settlement, give them the $3k they want and know the RIAA is looking out for you, protecting you from them viscious pirates. Or... take them to court and try to prove you are innocent and run up $50k in legal fees. They have hundreds of millions of dollars and packs of lawyers with lasers on their heads, the average person they are suing is probably making less than 50k a year. It's protection money plain and simple. Give us $3k to look out for you or 'those guys' will financially destroy. Let's remember, here in The Land of the Free (TM), you are responsible for your legal fees unless you sucessfully counter-sue to make the plantiff cover them.
Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I hope I fixed it. (I'm posting this to see :) )
Like what I said? You might like my music
As far as I know from all the *IAA suites posted - this is the first time someone has actually claimed on this. The US federal anti-racketeering laws require that cases like this happen before those can be examined.
Again, IANAL - but if this claim goes through, this will not be the end of it for the *AA groups. Even the filing of such a counterclaim may be good news.
I could of course be completely wrong. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a US citizen, let alone a citizen of the state of Florida.
Can I please be on the jury?
Even further OT, but when you change your sig, it changes it for posts you've already made too.
Four years ago, I was trying to download "Shaolin Soccer" and all I got was 1.5 hours of drunken frat boys playing soccer.
paintball
I can. And it sounds beautiful.
Heh, yes it is, but it's easiest to check the result by making a new post. :)
Like what I said? You might like my music
How can one send over some money to be helping this case?
Do any of you have the name and address of the person
> Believe it or not, the architect and manager of the RIAA's terror campaign called me up several weeks ago to give me his personal assurance that the RIAA doesn't use trolls. (Ha, ha, ha).
:] Assuming it's not privileged or something.
Man, I'd love to know what prompted that conversation?
And I'm glad to know that Slashdot is useful to you. BTW, I think there's also a post way up near the top of this story, buried in low-karma comments asking if there's anything that can be done for RIAA victims you might wish to respond to, too, if you have any ideas. Might be nice to have that on a permanent web page people can be pointed to if you've got any good ideas. I keep feeling like I'd like to do more, but I feel like I can't do much more than offer words of support or give my opinion on technical matters. Of course, that's why I'm so glad to see you organizing useful information on the RIAA's legal strategies to help anyone else who gets caught in the drift net.
almost every browser on the face of the earth has a cache. Caches exist only to copy copyrighted info... lets sue Microsoft too... same with Xerox for their copiers and Kodak for their scanners... and every camera maker on the face of the earth and video camera maker too...
Nice to see it made front page news at the Tampa Tribune
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
IANAL but I do play one in a MMORPG. Anyway I just wanted to say that bad people are doing some bad stuff. This bad stuff is making the whole world very angry. Some good people need to talk to the bad people and help them. BTW IANAL.
Found a URL that might be of use to you. Or not, I'm not sure:
h tml
- 11120.html
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2005/Jan/0085.
Possibly this one, too:
http://forums.phoenixlabs.org/archive/index.php?t
Although this does appear to be somewhat old, it may or may not be worth investigating at some point. Good luck in getting the MediaSentry information into the public record. The more I think about how secretively they treat the arrangements they have with them, the more convinced I am that there's a skeleton or two in that closet. Otherwise, couldn't they put together some production once and then just hand it over in all future cases where it became an issue? I could be over-analyzing it, but I somehow doubt that.
Maybe the RIAA can set up a system of Song Download Karmic Offset Credits. For every song that Edgar Bronfman Jr.'s kids download illegally, the RIAA can withdraw a frivolous and unproveable accusation of copyright violation.
Thanks for the info.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Apparently the RIAA is very sensitive about this counterclaim issue, and has issued threats against a blog author who referred to and and linked to Download Squad's article on the subject.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful