Slashdot Mirror
Class Action Initiated Against RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Ever since the RIAA's litigation campaign began in 2003, many people have been suggesting a class action against the RIAA. Tanya Andersen, in Oregon, has taken them up on it. The RIAA's case against this disabled single mother, Atlantic v. Andersen, has received attention in the past, for her counterclaims against the RIAA including claims under Oregon's RICO statute, the RIAA's hounding of her young daughter for a face-to-face deposition, the RIAA's eventual dropping of the case 'with prejudice,' and her lawsuit against the RIAA for malicious prosecution, captioned Andersen v. Atlantic. Now she's turned that lawsuit into a class action. The amended complaint seeking class action status (PDF) sues for negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy."
Now is the time for all those who complained about RIAA to join in and take this to a good conclusion.
What are your estimates of this case's success?
I'd rather hear it from the expert than Slashdot's myriad self-described ones.
Abuse of legal system for personal profiteering shouldnt be allowed. I wish this class action lawsuit to go as big as paypal one and this time teach MAFIAA bastards and their hound dog of a lawyers some lesson.
Read radical news here
Can you add sheer stupidity and pigheadedness to that?
Oh, and while you're at it, tell them that we plain old don't like them.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Would this be just by people they hve harassed, or against any potential target? This leaves the door very open to wild interpretation untill we get clarification.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Too.. many... links... confused... where do I click.... :-S
:(
*closes browser*
Boy, was that scary!
RIAA: Yes, we do.
The Schwartz space ain't from Spaceballs.
How can we contribute?
Deleted
Yes, I have been illegally downloading music for years, I want to be a part of this class action suit.
Oh, wait... Umm... nevermind.
what's become of us, that we allow these corporate tyrants to corrupt the system and betray the public trust
oh, and let's not even try to measure the damage they've done to artists and audiences
How do I get in this class? do I purchase music? do I pose as someone downloading music? can I turn myself into the riaa in the hopes that they can include me in the pay out?
These folks chasing after a 10 year old is one thing, but I seem to recall they went after a dead man as well, can't wait to see how this plays out.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Dear RIAA,
Turnabout is fair play, you
rich smokers-of-cocks.
Love, Haiku 4 U
P.S. I look forward to
great music sans you.
....after reading this glorious news it may be the first time I have wanted to leave my cubicle and head out into the streets to shout at the top of my overworked underpaid lungs...
"FLAVOR FLAAAAAAV!"
then I will promptly head back inside and continue to use our company's massive internet bandwidth to keep downloading pirated music.
The RIAA will be sentenced to giving all members of the class $12.67 in music downloads from the Kenny Rogers store (with DRM).
she names a number of other defendants including:
d =20249893
Atlantic Recording Corp.
Priority Records
Capitol Records
UMG Recordings
BMG
And lets not forget that RIAA is just a front organization for a host of others listed here --> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=271437&ci
The Association has no product per se, the alleged racketeering is therefore being funded by it's members.
I wish her luck as well a success.
Hope is the currency of fools
I believe the tag you are looking for is: 'haha' with a possible side-serving of: 'arseholes' for good measure. :)
This seems a bit overhyped to me. Yes, I want the RIAA to go away, I want the RIAA to stop using brutal tactics, however, they do have the legal right to prosecute people illegally distributing their IP.
Please note that this is specifically for those wrongfully accused. The best we can see from this is getting the RIAA to calm down (a good end no doubt).
For those who are wondering, this will not be the death knell for DRM and the RIAA.
-1 flamebait +1 UnfortunatelyTrue
"Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time." Danny Vinyard -American History X
Oh. My. God. Finally!
Seriously, isn't our country 'By the people for the people'. If the VAST MAJORITY have issues with a law or set or laws or the behavior of a corporate entity in relation to the laws...maybe it's time to rethink those laws or the interpretation of them. Eh?
I hope this goes well, and I hope everyone that was terrorized and blackmailed but the MAFIAA gets a sweet judgement.
Someone wrote in a different forum that the MAFIAA needs to change their business model with cope with the times. Someone replied and asked the first person to suggest a business model and implied that the MAFIAA deserve to be in business and have a 'right' to preserve their business model. Hopefully the people here are smart enough to understand that there is nothing that guarantees you or your corporation the right to a sucessful commercial venture. Hell, maybe I should sue every resident of manhatten because my street meat cart didn't make money and i went out of business, right? Or maybe i should sue NYC to force people to eat at vendor cards once weekly? LOL...
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
... don't know whether Confucius said it or not ... but ...
... one, who keeps politicians and justice system in pocket, will always have the last laugh ...
Tor like oatmeals!
Poll: Joke or shill?
I am very proud of the RIAA. They have proven that some people still actually care about protecting intellectual property (copyrights in this case). I have written many articles supporting the RIAA and encouraging students to purchase music. None of the high school students or college students think critically about their downloading of music illegally. These same students fail to understand why grammar and strong arithmetic skills are important. It seems being a scofflaw goes wih lack of academic excellence. Maybe people who fail to understand the ethical implications of their copyright violations have poor critical thinking skills. Unauthorized copying (downloading) of music really does hurt the record labels and the artists. Most of them don't have any talent, except for Madonna. Even unauthorized copying of the other artists is as bad as stealing from a thrift store. It is trash, but it is still wrong. It is not as tangible as theft of physical items, but it is still illegal and ethically wrong. The RIAA has always worked to advance the quality of music. For example, the RIAA helped establish standards for record cutting so that everyone could enjoy the music. The RIAA knows that unauthorized copying of music is significantly affecting the revenues of the record labels it represents. Unfortunately, it is going to be very hard to stop the mass unauthorized copying with lawsuits and digital rights management due to the nature of computers and people who are ethically challanged. Hardware solutions will likely reduce the amount of unauthorized copying, but it is difficult to secure anything from someone with physical access to the computer. It is really sad to see society so blatantly breaking the law without any care about the ramifications.
prosecution against Lies, Incorporated*
* the title of a Philip K. Dick novel.
Constitutionally As Always,
Kilgore Trout, M.D.
"sues for negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy."
Every time they sue a student who had someone jack his wireless connection in the dorms - I'll be there.
Every time they sue a university for students downloading songs they properly were researching for a thesis paper - I'll be there.
Every time they pretend to be agents of the FBI to get in your door without a warrant - I'll be there.
Every time they act as if 90 percent of the wireless access points on my street can't be used by everyone at the two coffee shops and three bars at the end of my street - I'll be there.
Because, let's face it, RIAA is just a plot by the middlemen who are upset that most consumers now buy their music DIRECT from the musicians and cut them out of the loop - so that the band gets $5 of the $10 that I pay them for their CD instead of $0.01 of the $12 that they would get if I bought the CD at anything other than any independent music store (the latter give them about $1 to $2).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I would love to see a class action to get back money for DVDs that didnt work in my player because of their protection i have to assume. I just bought the 300 and it wouldnt work on an older DVD player. im sure less legal copies would have no problem. On another note, i would love to see a class action challenging some of the fair use rights we lost with DMCA. I am of the view that i shouldn't be penalized because someone is copying illicitly. i believe the aclu was pursuing this. did anything become of it?
The RIAA better take a look at amnesty now, before it costs them too much!
These are some of the things molecules do...... given 4 billion years -Carl Sagan
"Class Action...RIAA." YES, YES, YES, OH GOD... I will never wash these pants again.
... you know the rest. All I can do is quote from POTC3: "Finally!"
1. And you thought CDs were expensive before...
2. The only music to be produced will be the kind no one wants to pirate... Think 90's boy bands.
3. ????
4. Profit!
Sorry, that last one just slipped in there.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Like Judge Kimball; someone who's just as intelligent - and unwilling to buy into bullshit - to over see this case.
I'm not a lawyer so I really have no idea, but don't you need to be sued by the RIAA in order to join this class action lawsuit?
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
"Downloading is theft!"
/.? Because you know your browser downloads the pgae, right?
SO you commit theft when you came to
Or perhaps you really mean Downloading a product whose copyright doesn't allow it is theft?
of course, that's just plain wrong to. That's why there is a different rules and laws for it.
DO you mean "Copying copywrited material without permission is a crime"?
That Can be true, but there are even exceptions to that.
Now do you see why it's different?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
the witch king of angmar is defeated by a woman
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Neither. Just plain old troll, nothing noteworthy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why the hell does it matter if she is a "disabled single mother"? I dislike like the RIAA's practices as much as anyone else, but enough of this silly appeal to emotion. I'd like to see a RIAA lawsuit article against an "average, happily married, abled mother" but I doubt that would spark as much outcry.
OUCH!
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
Don't class actiion suits essentially make the company immune to any further claims from individuals? Presumably because everyones claims are already represented.
I've been sent a notification that I was part of a "winning" class action suit. I was supposed to get like 10 dollars and then I could no longer sue Ford for some problem with the air bag or seatbelts or something like that.
Now, I wasn't actualy injured by the problem, so I wasn't planning on sueing them. But the idea of having to give up my rights to sue them later really turned me off about class actions in general.
Anyone know the process better?
Is this going to let RIAA off cheaply, and make it easy for them to dismiss later suits (by arguing that if they were valid they should have been part of the class action)?
Overhyped, eh? So, instead of whining about it, why don't you propose a better alternative?
I doubt you will, but please prove me wrong.
Certainly the same shoddy, and likely illegal, MediaSentry investigative methods were used against all defendants. And the Settlement Support Center refused to dismiss anyone from a lawsuit who didn't pay them the extortion tax regardless of the evidence -- or lack of it. And even innocent defendants had large legal bills if they fought. Plus all had their computers, privacy, and reputations besmirched by the RIAA publicity steamroller regardless of the outcome of the suit -- with no apologies offered afterwards.
But is this enough in common to qualify as a class? While I hope so, the legal system doesn't operate with the same kinds of logic I employ in ordinary, everyday life.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Where can I sign up?
Yes, we understand these tags always apply: fud, dupe, typo, slashdotted, topic name
The fact that I was modded down proves Slashdot is full of close minded cowards. These cowards will bury my insightful comment but are too cowardly to reply.
As much as I want to sock-it-to-'em, I think this lady is asking a wee bit too much, and this will do more harm than good in the long run.
Remember folks, many, if not most, of the *IAAs victims are technically guilty. True, the RIAA and friends are coming down on them unnecessarily hard, but it's not like they are truly innocent. It's the innocent ones that, thankfully, get the nice press.
The fact that many or most of the defendants are actually guilty will greatly weaken any class-action suit.
A much better solution is to make judges nationwide aware that just because the RIAA/MPAA say someone is violating the law doesn't make it so. Many judges are already waking up to this fact and stopping the mafIAA from taking the "easy road to victory," ending ex-parte motions and other dirty tricks.
If the RIAA think my IP address is stealing, then get a court to order my ISP to order me to contact the court and, after hearing from both sides, let the court decide if the RIAA is entitled to my contact information. Allow my lawyers to subpoena records from the ISP before the RIAA gets my personal information. If the judge denies the RIAA's request, or if they eventually lose at trial, make them pay all my reasonable and actual expenses. If the suit was done with malice, with reckless disregard for the facts, or as a fishing expedition, have the court fine the RIAA for wasting everyone's time.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
In my opinion, the great threat of the RIAA and the age of digital music is not just downloaders, but also their legal, pay-per-track alternatives...
/. has reported on many occasions about the "falling profit gaps of the recording industry," and how "legal downloads are not filling this gap," as if there was ever any chance of this happening.. This is a question of economics, not piracy...
Why have the record companies fought Apple for higher prices? Why have some companies refuted the potential profits of a deal with iTunes?
It is the a la carte concept of iTunes, allofmp3, kazaa, napster, etc... you name it that's the real issue at hand here...
I think the big motivating factor for downloading music is NOT based on an unwillingness to pay a small fee for the songs you want, it's based on an unwillingness to pay $20 for at most 3 songs that you want...
Since the glory days of the music industry, they've primarily sold albums as it was the most convenient and economical form of distribution. This method suited the consumer well as he didn't have to rush out to the store everytime a new song came out, it suited the musician well as it allowed to him to make a good hour or so of music, then go on tour and wow the crowds, and it suited the industry well because even if only 1 or 2 of the songs on the album became hits, people would still shell out the full price of the album for those songs they wanted.
Fast track to the present, and the internet has tipped the economic balance in favor of the consumer. Although the album system is still convenient in the ways listed above and many not-listed...(for instance "branding"), consumers appear no-longer willing to buy full albums for the most part.
So, I find it funny that
People are not rushing out to the cd store anymore. Hell, I haven't stepped foot in one in over a year. People are downloading the SONGS they want, and that's it...or they're waiting for their friends to get it and send it to them. In my opinion though, these people are not thieves, just opportunists, responding to a large imbalance in price between the traditional cd, and the legal or not-so legal per-track alternatives.
Why else has it taken so long for legal download services such as iTunes to come about. How many years after Napster's destruction did it take? Why didn't the RIAA look at the story of napster (after they sued the piss out of it) and build their own legal alternative? Because they know what it means...it means they can no-longer fleece the consumer with the album like they've been doing for a loooong time.
So, although the album will likely remain a convenient unit for musicians and for "branding" purposes, I see the concept of consumers purchasing full albums a fast-fading one.
The album....is dead
They forgot to include in the lawsuit, kicking puppies and kidnapping first born children.
"Downloading is theft!"
So how do you justify all the times you've committed theft?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
They have the right to protect their IP. However, they have the responsibility to make sure they are targeting the right people. They have kept several cases going after getting evidence that they sued the wrong people.
This guy makes it sound like Kazaa does what it does without any way of knowing it is there doing what it is doing. Has Kazaa changed into this type of program?
Shill? Do you even know what shill means? Because accusing the parent troll of being a shill is downright retarded. The question is Joke or Troll.
Unless of course you think the RIAA is paying him to insult disabled people for no reason..
Wait! Where's the CowboyNeal option?
About damned time...I hope the judge isn't an unofficial RIAA employee..
Good question. And maybe I'm on crack or something, but I thought Bush and Asscroft/Gonzo pushed some policy through that changed the requirements of class action lawsuits to require not just people of the same class, but that some number of people had to be from the same state. (intermission) Yeah, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_Action_Fairness _Act_of_2005
So she will likely have the case bumped up to federal court, where it will promptly be dismissed.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
...let's hit them where it *REALLY* hurts. Stop buying their overpriced, outdated, low quality, (and in some cases.. Sony) dangerous products. Contrary to popular belief, everything the RIAA ever collected a royalty on could vanish from planet earth with little or no consequence. Lets face it, most commercial music products just aren't very good anyway.
All I could do while reading this was stand up in my cube o' wisdom and scream "YEAH!" to the heavenly ceiling tiles. Awesome!
Now she's turned that lawsuit into a class action. The amended complaint seeking class action status (PDF) sues for negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy.
What is interesting that each and every individual amendment will need to be addressed to be thrown out. The legal proceedings will not be able to 'carte-blanche' throw out the case on a single motion, it needs to address 'malicious prosecution' and 'trespass' and every other complaint, similar to someone convicted of multiple felons. It's quite an all-encompassing CAS - RIAA will have a very very hard time trying to survive it because I'm sure she's not willing to settle out of court. She's pretty PO'ed and will want the whole gambit in court. But I'm making that assumption...
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
I do not believe in stealing music at all. However, it's clear beyond any doubt that the record companies have failed consumers and hurt the marketplace. They've clearly broken numerous laws. They need regulated and reeled in - and a substantial legal judgment against them would help everyone involved: us, the musicians and the companies. Until they realize the crack-like selling days are over and cds have to cost $5 - then it won't work. I don't want 3 million dollar videos, I want a $5 cd by a real artist that's recorded well. Hollywood delivers the goods on movies, why can't the music industry get their shizz together?
Yes you too can be part of this class action suit and receive your payout of $5. The lawyers get all the millions left over.
I know this is extremely off topic. But seriously, is the RIAA needed anymore by the record companies. I realize that they lobby for the music industry, but what else do they do? If the RIAA closed up shop wouldn't that lower the price of CDs? No RIAA memberships to pay = lower priced products which in turn could lead to better CD sales and less piracy?
I'm just thinking out loud here.
Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I wonder if those who have paid off the RIAA to go away when they received their settlement letters can join this suit. Seems to me they'd be the perfect candidates.
IANAL, but if RIAA's practices are found to be illegal, can the artists sue to regain their rights?
If I have some intellectual property, sell the copyrights to someone else, and that person then uses those rights to break the law, do I have any way of rectifying that? Or, at the very least, can I sue for damages against the copyright holder?
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I'd rather hear it from the expert than Slashdot's myriad self-described ones.
Why do these self-described experts go on about their habits concerning their tuchus? Always going around yelling "IANAL"!
That really is, as my wife would say, "Too Much Information".
It is all very simple - you (or rather we being non-corporate peons) are guilty until proven innocent.
The New Constitution
i) You have no rights
ii) Corporations have a right to make a profit
iii) Anything hindering corporations making a profit is a terrorist act
iv) Terrorist can be disappeared, tortured, etc at will by the Decider
... yet.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
For some reason the song "The Final Countdown" popped into my head. The worst part is, now I have to go buy a whole album so I can get it out.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
...you are "approached" by the RIAA. Under RICO, they should be nailed for industry collusion and price fixing. See any real differences in music pricing from the major labels and members of the RIAA? See any attempts to stifle your fair use? Are they still engaging in bribery and payola, even though the were first busted for it decades ago? Are you aware that if you even own a computer and access the internet with it they might target you, using questionalble tactics? And so on, there's a big list. And you, as joe civvie, can now use RICO, it isn't just for DAs anymore. If you are a music consumer, or an internet user, and read the news and think you might be affected by what these people are doing, then you might want to think about it and possibly join the case.
Me, I just boycott all those assholes until such a time as the actual "artists" stop using them as a front piece. It's up to the musicians now from my perspective. Stop signing with those labels, stop the massive price gouging of consumers, else no money from me, fullstop. The music industry in general went years ago from me dumping serious folding cash a year into their wallets to zero money, because they are collectively lamers. I don't support the mafia *or* the MAFIAA. I'll go to some friends house and listen to live music on some old beat up guitar before I spend another penny with anyone on those labels represented by the RIAA, either prerecorded or live concert.
...like a woman scorned.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Want to really hit RIAA members hard?
Stop buying their crap. They will either adjust to the market AND acknowledge and provide for Fair Use and also embrace viral marketing, or they will die. It really is that simple. What I _do_ buy, I buy used now, and there are really only a few acts I buy any more. Spend your money elsewhere.
I went from buying a CD or two every other day during the height of Napster to buying _maybe_ one every other year. In the last six years, I've bought maybe two brand-new CDs: David Gilmour's On An Island, and Pink Floyd's Is There Anyone Out There (the wall live album). Oh wait, there was another one: a Tijuana Brass album. I do want to buy Weird Al's latest album, and I want to buy Roger Waters' Ca Ira, but I'll wait until I can find a pristine pre-owned(used) copy. There is lots of other stuff I'd love to buy, but I'm pretty much standing on my principles and giving the RIAA the finger.
Now, instead of listening to hard rock and pop stations, I'm listening to talk (NPR, christian radio, or other talk stations) and sometimes oldies, classical, or classic rock stations (I have almost all the classic rock I want on CDs, and I've ripped most of them to SD cards so I can bring my collection with me when I travel). I avoid exposure to new material the best I can, lest I be tempted to buy it, or be tempted to download it and contribute to viral marketing. Sorry, I'm just not interested in promoting the continued existence of the music cartel as it exists today.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The reason is very simple. In my experience, most things that make into popular consumption aren't the best work of an artist. This is true with music just as any other art form. If the album is dead, well, then the artist doesn't get a full showcase of their work. I can't tell you how many times I bought an album for the one hit song they may have had on the radio, only to find a treasure trove of really interesting music that they claim won't fly in Peoria.
As good as it can be put, although thats a lot of wishful thinking im afraid.
//TODO: Insert catchy phrase
That's it, just delightful!
expandfairuse.org
When someone steals your bicyle, now you have no bicycle.
When someone copies your song, now you both have it.
That's a pretty important difference!
http://questioncopyright.org/
http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel
"The amended complaint seeking class action status (PDF) sues for negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy."
But, but, but..., there's no underlying crime!
Talk about throwing the kitchen sink at them.
Last year I found out a friend was being sued by a record company. She told me that they were using the same evidence as the first time. It was then that I found out about the first lawsuit.
Per her lawyers instructions she settled the first case. The second case she did not even show up for the court date. Is she able to join in on this class action?
I am not up to par on class action lawsuits, and I will be away from my comp for awhile, so I ask now, and hope for an answer when I get back online.
The "facts" as I have been told. She was accused of distributing songs using Kazaa. According to her they showed screenshots of songs on her computer. She stated that many of the songs in the screenshot were songs that she did not recognize and had never heard before. Some by artists that she had never listened to. Her lawyer said they could not win and so she settled. She ended up declaring bankruptcy before the end of that year (2005).
Last year, she received the second lawsuit. Different record companies but using the same screenshots. At this time she accused her then husband of being the one using Kazaa and felt that he should be paying for this not her. The internet account was in her name. They divorced shortly before the second lawsuit.
I informed her that she should have let me know of the first lawsuit and I informed her that she needed a better attorney. But of course this was way after the fact. Disclaimer of my opinion: Did she download songs, probably. Did he download songs, definitely.
Can she join the class action suit? I hope to read up on all of this later. Thank you for your time.
Hate to tell ya, but a class action suit won't necessarily work - because if you have 1000 people as a class suiing, and the RIAA can show that just 1 of them was guilty, it sorta fucks it up for the other 999 people.
/.ers are against the RIAA, most of them gleefully leeching music, movies, and TV shows without a care, and either don't care about it, or are too stupid to realize, what they are doing is illegal.
And I hate to tell ya, but out of those 1000 people, there are a lot more than just 1 who have illegally downloaded music.
Why don't you fucktards realize that if people quit pirating, then the RIAA (and it's ilk) wouldn't exist?
I love how so many
YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE CREATED TO UNLESS THEY GIVE YOU PERMISSION you retards
The mere fact that the RIAA has threatened and sued enough people to constitute a class is truly sad and telling.
As for the charges themselves, some are clearer cut than others, but I don't see any that aren't justifiable.
Remember that the RIAA gets a maximum recovery per suit of ~$3000 and a mean recovery per suit of far less than that. Their mean legal costs per suit probably outstrip the recoveries.
So why do it? Answer: to keep the norod in line.
How much does the RIAA have to lose in these countersuits to stop them suing people? Answer: more than the profits gained by selling music to the masses.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Why would you think I was implying anything other than that?
"Many if not most" means a sizable number, possibly in excess of 50%+1 but possibly well under that number.
I think many if not most of those sued by the mafIAA are guilty.
I also think many if not most of them are innocent.
In other words, I think it's probably not a case of "there are only a few guilty people, with the vast majority being innocent" or vice-versa.
download songs but never listen to them am I still violating their copyright?
"In this case so much good could be done for artists and their music when the RIAA would have its way."
Not bloody likely. The only people who would enjoy the RIAA having its way would be the record executives, who get to make $700,000-$1,000,000 per successful album while sending the artists in question into debt... forcing them to make more records and repeat the cycle. In fact, THIS is the very reason the RIAA hate downloading so much!
Almost! I use that quote because I love the teletype sound effect they use for the LED tickertape display in the movie. It's so incongruous!
(CHA-CHA-CHA-CHA-CHA-CHA-CHUNK!) **WARNING**
(CHA-CHA-CHA-CHA-CHA-CHA-CHUNK!) THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM!
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday