IFPI Threatens UK Academic For Linking To Article

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Apparently the RIAA is getting sensitive about counterclaims. When a British blog author linked to a recent article about a defendant's counterclaims for extortion and conspiracy by the RIAA in a Florida case, UMG v. Del Cid, a record company executive who sits on the board of the RIAA's UK counterpart, the IFPI, threatened the author if he did not take his link down."

Comments

Their strategy

[saibot834]

Their strategy is not to win those cases in front of court. They just want to scare you by suing innocent people. They want you to think "if that innocent guy got sued, maybe I am next". It's a bit like terrorism.

Re:Their strategy

[vivaoporto]

It's a bit like terrorism.

No, it is not anything near terrorism. Extortion, racketeering, blackmailing, maybe. But terrorism is a completely different thing. It is because this kind of mislabeling, claiming anything that aims to scare people to be "terrorism", that is so easy for governments all over the world to take away everyone's rights with the excuse of combating it. RIAA blackmailing people is not like terrorism. People discussing ways to blow things up is not terrorism. Disguised people shooting at soldiers in the battlefield is not terrorism.

I'm as much against RIAA tactics as everyone else. Also, I'm against terrorism and every kind of organized violence. But let's call a spade a spade, all right? Everytime someone misuse the word "terrorism", god kills a kitten and the terrorists win.

Re:Their strategy

[WrongSizeGlass]

"Maybe" /. is next. They won't care about /. for one very important reason ... few people on /. RTFA. ;-)

Re:Their strategy

[sepluv]

They didn't say it was "terrorism" just that it is like it. It is you who seems unclear about the definition as you say "People discussing ways to blow things up is not terrorism" but then refer to terrorism as meaning "organised violence".

Clue: At least in its original sense, terrorism doesn't refer to violent behaviour or killing people (that's murder) but threatening to use violence or suggesting that others will cause violence against someone unless that someone does what you want (e.g.: relinquishes their liberty). So, the Bin Laden video tapes are terrorism (incidentally, whether or not they were really by Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda) and the "war on terror" statements of George W. Bush are mostly terrorism, but someone who kills people without issuing a statement before hand is not a terrorist. In fact, for terrorism to be effective, actual killing is best kept to a minimum (although an occasional bit probably helps).

It can also refer to other things as well as violence (so I'd say that the post you criticize wasn't far off the mark). Basically terrorism roughly means an argumentum ad baculum argumentum in terrorem (more commonly known on /. as FUD).

Re:Their strategy

[Opportunist]

Damn, god's a terrorist.

Hmm... let's see... giving out vague threats that bad things happen to you if you don't comply with his requests, conducts a worldwide network of followers who would religiously do whatever he requests or allegedly requests, kills people (or makes his followers thinks he wants them to kill people) who he deems enemies, promises eternal bliss to those that die in his name and for his cause...

Yup, I'd say you're right.

Re:Their strategy

[jabuzz]

Since when was being sued by a multi million pound corporation for a huge sum of money that would potentially bankrupt yourself as a private individual for something you did not do *not* terrifying?

Given that the RIAA are doing this systematically and a large number of people would classify it as terrifying then by your definition it is terrorism.

The problem is that you are equating being terrified with physical violence.

Re:Their strategy

[Gordonjcp]

Of course, the United Kingdom's definition is also quite useful in arguments, since subsection (1)(b) states

We've had a lot more terrorism to deal with than the US. We've had decades more experience...

Really?

[Evets]

I'm all for hating the RIAA, but this article is terrible. Looks like slashdot is getting gamed.

In only a few months the Net has gone from being a place of freedom were anybody, anywhere regardless of race or creed, colour, sexual persuasion, physical ability or disability, or anything else, had a home.

1. Gone from to ?
2. were? or where?
3. Sexual persuasion? WTF does that have to do with this topic?

are subject to hate mail as a consequence of hubcap

hubcaps are causing hate mail?

How does an article this incomprehensible make the front page?

I don't get it...

[Opportunist]

1. Complain about a blog that makes you look bad and make it known to more readers than it would ever have had.
2. ???
3. Profit.

Now, I don't really claim I understand every move of the mafiaa. More often than not, I do not. But I somehow don't get just how this is in any way beneficial for them. If anything, this information will get spread now. Did you know about that blog before it hit /.? I didn't.

Now it's on /., probably on digg and probably on even more pages. Listed, and most likely soon copied and spread too. If anything, the takedown notice served as free publicity for the blogger, and even if he should take it down, that story will circulate for months to come.

It's just like every time. Trying to hush something up is the surefire way to spread it on the 'net. Because nothing is interesting before it's supposedly "forbidden" to know it. Because then, you have to learn it NOW before it vanishes.

The concept of "goverment funding"

[gilgongo]

Is anyone else flabbergasted by the BPI chief's statement that "allowing indiscriminate criticism of the RIAA is inappropriate for a Government funded institution"?

Surely in terms of editorial integrity at least, it should be case that it would be wholly appropriate - if not actually desirable - to criticise a private company if you are being funded by the government?

Paul Birch of Revolver Records is probably not alone in seeing the government as being simply a tool of corporate influence. This just shows how bad things have got - that people like him now need to make no secret of the fact that they expect governments to work exclusively for commercial interests. I mean, we know that the military industrial complex is now one and the same as democratically elected government in the West, but to flaunt is like this is just staggering I think.