FSF Reaches Out to RIAA Victims

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In what has been termed the ''RIAA's worst nightmare', the Free Software Foundation has announced that it is coming to the aid of the victims of RIAA lawsuits, by establishing an Expert Witness Defense Fund to assist defendants in RIAA cases. The purpose of the fund is 'to help provide computer expert witnesses to combat RIAA's ongoing lawsuits, and to defend against the RIAA's attempt to redefine copyright law.' The funds will be used to pay fees and/or expenses of technical expert witnesses, forensic examiners, and other technical consultants assisting individuals named as defendants in non-commercial, peer-to-peer file sharing cases brought by the RIAA, EMI, SONY BMG, Vivendi Universal, and Warner Bros. Records, and their affiliated companies, such as Interscope, Arista, UMG, Fonovisa, Motown, Atlantic, Priority, and others."

Comments

Too late

[cthulu_mt]

I like the FSF but where were they with this a few months ago.

Re:Too late

[PhxBlue]

I'll bet they were waiting for enough money from contributors to make this happen.

And what about?

[jackharrer]

Lawyers. Who's going to pay for them? Cost of technical examiners is nothing comparing to what they charge.
Do it as in Europe - losing side pays for everything, and they will stop pretty quick.

Re:And what about?

[swb311]

The losing parties liability for court costs is one idea we could definitely learn from here in the US.

Re:And what about?

[ricebowl]

Hmm, that sounds great in theory. The problem comes when the better-represented party, rather than the party in the right, wins. Not that I disagree that an organisation pursuing frivolous lawsuits should foot the cost of those lawsuits when they're found wanting for whatever reason, but neither system is perfect.

On the other hand the only trial of multinational-vs-regular folks I could think of, outside the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI etc sphere, was the 'McLibel' case. In which the defendants won. Despite the litigious might of McDonalds. So I might've shot myself in the foot...oops.

Re:And what about?

[hedwards]

I agree with the sentiment, but what happens in Europe when the losing side was the side that was correct? Does it actually cut down on bad law suits, or does it encourage a larger spending in the hopes of winning the case anyway?

How would one of those being sued in this case come up with the money if they lost? Being innocent of the charges isn't always enough to ensure that one wins the case. All that would do in these cases would be to encourage the RIAA to pay more and represent a larger incentive to settle out of court.

When it comes to the cost of lawyers, often times people with a strong case can gain an attorney on a contingency basis, meaning that they lawyer takes a larger slice of the award in exchange for potentially working for free if they lose the case.

Other times an attorney will do the work pro bono publico, although the practice can at times be shady, as sometimes the attorney will seek an award in addition to what the complainant is asking for anyways.

What I would like to see is for the court expenses be limited to what the less wealthy side can afford, and if the wealthier side wants to spend more, require them to cover the difference whether they win or lose. With the Judge in the case ruling whether the sums of money involved are reasonable.

Re:And what about?

[Splab]

Frivolous lawsuits are not happening here. There was a brief time where we had (in Denmark) something like RIAA trying to extort people, but quickly people decided to fight back and I haven't heard of any new tries at this (one case made it all the way to court and the defendant won that afair).

Re:And what about?

[garett_spencley]

What I would like to see is for the court expenses be limited to what the less wealthy side can afford, and if the wealthier side wants to spend more, require them to cover the difference whether they win or lose.

So when a single mother of 4 who works double shifts at walmart and can barely make ends meet gets sued by the RIAA the court costs become $0 ?

Sounds like a great way to screw the lawyers (and the RIAA).

Where do I sign up ?

Re:And what about?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DNS don't fit you must acquit!

Re:And what about?

[Shakrai]

The losing parties liability for court costs is one idea we could definitely learn from here in the US.

Yes, because when Grandma needs to seek justice against some large corporation that wronged her, she should definitely have to worry about paying their legal fees if she loses.

Re:And what about?

[Shakrai]

Sounds like a great way to screw the lawyers

Ya know, my karma will probably get beat all to hell for this, but not all lawyers are bad.

Get charged with a crime you didn't commit and then tell me how you feel about defense attorneys. Get injured by someone whose insurance company refuses to pay for your treatment and tell me how you feel about them.

Do you have a negative opinion of the lawyers working for the FSF? How about the ACLU lawyers fighting for your civil liberties? How about this guy or this guy, both of whom were lawyers.

Lawyers represent their clients. You'd be doing better to direct your anger at the RIAA for the lawsuits and not their lawyers.

Re:And what about?

[TheRaven64]

Easy to fix. The loser pays the winner the loser's legal fees. If you only spend a small amount then your risk is small. If Grandma sues MegaCorp with a single lawyer and looses then it only costs her twice whatever her lawyer charges. If MegaCorp loses then Grandma gets all of her fees paid as well as whatever damages are awarded.

Re:And what about?

[Toonol]

That's pretty much what I've been advocating. "Loser Pays", with the variant that the loser must pay the winner's legal fees up to the amount equal to the minimum of the two side's spending.

Rich corp spends $50,000 suing poor single mom, who spends $1,000 defending herself. They win, she pays $1,000 of their expenses. They lose, they pay $1,000 of the mom's expenses.

Two Rich cops sue each other: They each spend $1,000,000. Loser pays full amount.

I think this would have the effect of making penalties fairer, and provide incentive to both sides to keep legal costs in check. I like loser pays, but if unchecked, it could serve as a tool of intimidation for wealthy companies and individuals.

Re:And what about?

[evanbd]

That's done to an extent already. Legal fee awards in cases are normally capped to "reasonable" levels. When trying to determine what is reasonable, the opposing side's legal fees are considered directly relevant. If I'm asking for 50k in legal fees, you're going to have trouble complaining that my legal fees are unreasonable when you spent 100k on the same case. This was the direct cause of the interesting legal wrangling over whether or not the RIAA's legal billings would be revealed as part of the Foster case -- she was seeking legal fees, and the RIAA was contesting her fees as too high.

I'd much prefer to see it codified in a loser-pays system as you and the GP are suggesting, though.

Re:And what about?

[Shakrai]

If Grandma sues MegaCorp with a single lawyer and looses then it only costs her twice whatever her lawyer charges.

Which is still more then many people can afford. I'm somewhat leery of doing anything that makes it harder to use the legal system. And how would your idea account for people whose lawyers take the cases on contingecy?

Perhaps what we need is some sort of public defender type system for people without the resources to defend themselves in civil court. Your idea of 'loser pays' does nothing to help the person facing the RIAA lawsuit if they don't already have the money they need to defend themselves.

Re:And what about?

[ZachPruckowski]

Per your own link, the judge ruled that the pair had libeled McDonalds, and they were ordered to pay a non-trivial sum. In a loser-pays system, they would be responsible for paying for legal fees.

Re:And what about?

[lar3ry]

I mean, the vast majority of people are flat out guilty and the settlement is giving them an out relatively cheaply.

Please cite the studies that show that this is indeed the case. I could look at the people that settled and make an assertion that is equally valid that the settlements were simply extortion fees paid by people that didn't have the money to pursue a legal case, and not necessarily an admission of guilt.

I have seen claims made by the RIAA in reports of cases that they have made that were simply untenable—that an IP address uniquely identifies an individual, that a person that sent a laptop to be repaired and had the hard drive replaced was intentionally destroying evidence, and that a computer screenshot that shows an IP address is conclusive proof that a person was sharing files (I can construct a screenshot that shows any IP address and make any claim I want by those rules of evidence).

What I have NOT seen is any evidence offered that sharing files in any way hurts the RIAA, its member companies, or even the artists, performers, or composers. How much do radio stations pay to play a single recording and make it available to millions of potential listeners? And how much per song is the RIAA demanding for people that they claim are sharing files? How long will the courts allow the RIAA and its companies to claim damages anywhere near the amounts they are currently claiming? If the damages they claim are intentionally misleading, then isn't this perjury?

The RIAA can make up any "facts" it wants to support their cases and then pull damage amounts from their asses and present them to the courts with a straight face. This is simply ridiculous, and it is my earnest hope that they finally get called on it and be made to pay the piper.

Re:And what about?

[aproposofwhat]

I think you're wrong about the 'flat out guilty', for two reasons.

Firstly, it's a civil case, so 'guilty' should really be replaced with 'liable'.

Secondly, if the recent ruling in the George Washington University case that the RIAA have to show probable cause has any merit, then it is debatable whether any real copyright infringement has actually taken place. (read the motion submitted by John Doe #3 in that case for details.)

Yeah, possibly people have been sharing for free what the RIAA members believe they have a right to be remunerated for, but whether such sharing is actually illegal is a moot point at this time.

Not good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF needs to remain focused on developing free as in libre software. There's no reason
for them to get involved in intellectual property disputes of this nature (I specify because
I could see reason to become involved in software patent IP issues). The last thing the free
software community needs is to be identified with people downloading illegally from the pirate's
bay, *nova, etc.

Re:Not good.

[morgan_greywolf]

There's no reason for them to get involved in intellectual property disputes of this nature (I specify because
I could see reason to become involved in software patent IP issues). If the RIAA succeeds in redefining copyright law, there might not be any free as in libre software.

Re:Not good.

[sm62704]

You assume P2P's only use is "illegal downloads"*. BitTorrent is the perfect way to distribute free software, but its very existance is threatened by the record companies' war againsg ANY file sharing. Share a perfectly legal song that its writer/performer WANTS shared (and there are likely more legal than illegal) with the same name as an RIAA song, and you risk a lawsuit. Even naming your software "master of puppets" or "Penny Lane" may get you sued. So the FSF is indeed in the middle of this already.

-mcgrew

*Why do they keep talking about "illegal downloads" when it's UPLOADING that is illegal?

Re:Not good.

[TheRaven64]

The FSF doesn't develop any software. The Free Software Foundation develops the GNU operating system. Anyone who contributes to these project (including myself) signs a copyright assignment form granting the FSF the rights to their code and occasionally the Foundation employs people to work on some of the important parts that no one is doing voluntarily.

Re:Not good.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There is no legal terminology "making available". That is something the RIAA lawyers made up. They can cite no part of the Copyright Act that refers to it, and they have themselves stopped using it in their complaints, realizing it was indefensible.

Re:Not good.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There is in fact no law against 'downloading' or 'uploading'. There is a law against making copies without authorization. And there is a law against distributing copies to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by license, lease, or lending without authorization. The RIAA is trying to rewrite the copyright law. Don't help them.

Can you imagine...

[morgan_greywolf]

Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of NewYorkCountryLawyers?

Re:Can you imagine...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of NewYorkCountryLawyers? At the risk of getting modded down.....

:)

Bad idea

[BlowHole666]

Will people now associate free software with illegal activities or supporting illegal activities? I know that is not what they are doing they are helping innocent (sometimes) people from getting corn holed by the RIAA. But could the RIAA, Microsoft or other non free software people put a spin on this and say this foundation supports law breaking and if you support this foundation you also support breaking the law? I just say this because sometimes people do not get the full story before making up their mind about software, an organization, business etc.

Re:Bad idea

[jedidiah]

The FSF has ALWAYS been the software equivalent of the ACLU. This is nothing
new. This is nothing that companies like Microsoft haven't already created
FUD about. This is pretty much business as normal.

Who "supports the FSF" anyways?

Companies buy support contracts from Novell or Redhat.

They may not even be aware of the whole "GNU/Linux" thing.

Re:Bad idea

[Virgil Tibbs]

I support the fsf

Re:Bad idea

[autophile]

The FSF has ALWAYS been the software equivalent of the ACLU.

I thought the EFF was the software equivalent of the ACLU?

--Rob

Copyright

[geggam]

I am still waiting for someone to point out that everything digital is really nothing but a 0 or a 1.

Everyone is copying everything.

Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

While I believe the RIAA is doing the right thing defending their IP, I must say I applaud the FSF for helping keep the judicial process fair and even. It's high time for this kind of intervention. I respect that the RIAA can't exactly fight full, drawn out battles against everyone, but this kind of abuse of the court system simply isn't justified. Sorry.

Re:Go FSF!

[mrchaotica]

How exactly doesn't intellectual property resemble "real" property?

• If I steal your piece of real property, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" your so-called "IP," you still have it.
• If you give me your real property, the total value remains constant (because you don't have it anymore). If you give me your "IP," total value doubles because we both have it, and are thus twice as likely to create derivative works. Sharing is synergistic.
• Real property is owned in perpetuity. Most types of "IP" expire, or in other words, revert back to their true "owner:" the Public Domain.
• "IP" really is "imaginary." Legally speaking, there is no such thing. There are copyrights and patents and trademarks, but they are not similar enough to be spoken about under one umbrella term with any semblence of accuracy!

Any other questions?

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If I steal your piece of real property, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" your so-called "IP," you still have it.

Yes, but it's devalued. You have it for free, I worked hard to create it. You can also steal from my bank account. I still have my bank account, it's just been devalued.

If you give me your "IP," total value doubles because we both have it, and are thus twice as likely to create derivative works. Sharing is synergistic.

No, the value is shared. Look it up. In economics, you simply can't create value. It has to come from some resource. The IP's value comes from the hard work that someone put into creating it. If everyone could make an alternative, then it would normally be worthless. Without copyright, that's exactly what would happen. In that case, the value would be shared overwhelmingly in favour of the pirated copies, because charging for the original would always be the inferior option for the consumer.

Real property is owned in perpetuity. Most types of "IP" expire, or in other words, revert back to their true "owner:" the Public Domain.

Public domain lends artists the building blocks to create artworks, and the artists eventually have to pay the public domain back so it can profit from it. Sure the public domain are the owners of what helps create artworks, but they don't have any ownership rights over it until the artist has had his share.

"IP" really is "imaginary." Legally speaking, there is no such thing. There are copyrights and patents and trademarks, but they are not similar enough to be spoken about under one umbrella term with any semblence of accuracy!

It's never been a legal term, but more a category or a concept. The main members of the category are all legally sanctioned. Just because it's not legally defined, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Any other ridiculous assertions to make?

Re:Go FSF!

[mr_matticus]

Well now, "IP infringement" is not theft. But that is simply because theft is not the same as stealing, something that someone spent all of their mod points burying last time I brought it up. Slashdot wants to make the semantic argument that "the owner is not deprived of anything" (which is not true, but more importantly, totally beside the point), but they don't ever want to hear people actually apply the science of semantics to those statements.

Infringement is not theft (just like it's not larceny, robbery, or [usually] conversion). It is, however, stealing (which is not by itself a crime, misdemeanor, or even a tort and moreover is not even universally a moral wrong).

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I pay people to do things that I can't do on my own, or don't want to do. If you ask me to pay you for something that I can easily do myself, you're basically asking for charity.

Precisely. So if you can create music more cheaply than an artist sells it, then you are invited to do so. You would be legitimately competing against the artist, and providing a similar contribution to our culture. If, however, you mean to say you don't need the artist to make a copy for you, then that's false. You still need the artist to make the original for you. No amount of copying will provide you with that. Your copied version is not a fair competitor to the artist's version, since he happens to be your supplier. All piracy does is make sure the art industry collapses under itself.

Those people, however, need to grow the balls to request payment for what they actually do, instead of playing coy by asking to get reimbursed for making copies.

So it's your contention that the artist should ask for a lump sum payment up front for the original work? Who exactly do you expect to pay for that? I am under the impression that making copies is a fine way of "requesting payment for what they actually do", since it means that almost everyone can afford to reap the benefits of what would otherwise be a costly affair.

That is: you want to get paid for creating a song? Fine, tell me (or a few thousand other people like me) what your idea is like and how much it's going to cost us. Collect the money, record the song, and then the transaction is over. Once you've been paid for making that song, it's no longer any of your business where we listen to it, how many copies we make, or who we share those copies with.

Ah, so I see. It's a fine business model, probably not as efficient as the current one, since people know that they'll be able to get the art for free (and legally) once everyone else pays. It also wouldn't always truly reflect demand, since larger sums would be much harder to orchestrate, so artists would be forced to either take a lower entry price and get money immediately, or try for market price, and have to wait a long time, or possibly have it fail.

Tell you what. If you create some art, feel free to sell it like that. Other artists who feel that the other method is better will sell it their way. We'll let the two business models compete it out on the free market, and we'll see who gets more out of it. Since you can't reasonably expect a copyrighted work to be created without copyright, your art will be sold exactly as if there were no copyright at all. I guess we'll see who's business model is superior.

But again, the value isn't "stolen", because the work doesn't become any less valuable as more people obtain copies of it.

Look, let me break it down. Many artists just want to be paid as much as they can for creating their work. Creating unlimited copies discourages people from paying the artist. Lack of payment discourages the artist from creating art. Lack of art is not good. If everyone copies artists' works instead of paying for them, then sooner or later, the pool of available artists will dry up, and there will be nothing new to copy. The works that are currently under copyright will eventually expire (if a little later than they should), and you will have all the rights you could want to whatever work you have your eyes on. By allowing the premature raiding of the cultural piggy bank, you exchange very temporary gains for long-term cultural wealth.

They are the same, and thinking about one song as two "products" is a mistake. It's the same song either way.

The difference is that one song is paid for, the other isn't. It is a difference. One supports our culture, the other drains it. Think about what you're neglecting to pay for when you next illegally download a copyrighted work.

But once a song has been recorded, they can c

Re:Go FSF!

[Curunir_wolf]

Look, let me break it down. Many artists just want to be paid as much as they can for creating their work. Creating unlimited copies discourages people from paying the artist. Lack of payment discourages the artist from creating art. Lack of art is not good. If everyone copies artists' works instead of paying for them, then sooner or later, the pool of available artists will dry up, and there will be nothing new to copy.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, here, but it's not art. Maybe it's widgets. Widgets are not art - they are products designed to sell to some perceived or existing market.

Artists don't have to be paid to produce art, they produce it because the want to. Indeed, often because they have to. They have done it since the first cave man chiseled a bear on a cave wall, and they will continue to do it forever.

There have for a long time been people that valued art enough to ensure that the artist were paid for their work, and thus had more time for art instead of having to also perform other work to make a living. This is a good thing. Recently there have been whole corporations that hired artists to produce art works, then made money selling copies. Often huge amounts of money. Many artists got very rich.

Unfortunately, that kind of system also attracts the widget makers. Teams of widget makers often get together and produce something they call "art" (it's not) and make huge sums of money selling copies.

And what's the point in making them? Pretty much no point at all if you want money for them.

Good. If all you're doing it for is money, it's probably not very good anyway. Without all those widgety things crowding the ether, the truly insightful and inspiring art will flourish, enriching us and encouraging other would-be artists.

One supports our culture, the other drains it.

I'd say it's more like "one supports our culture, the other corrupts it."

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

That is absolutely false, and I'm fairly sure you know it. Or do you actually believe that nobody has ever, or will ever again, create any form of art unless they're compensated monetarily for it?

Naturally not. Not everyone expects to be paid for their art. There will always be people who produce art for free. Just don't expect the same volume, the same time put in, the same attention to detail, the same instruments to be used, the same collaboration opportunities, the same talent pool, the same variety of different genres, the same widespread market penetration, etc, etc. Pouring money in and letting consumers decide is the best way in this capitalist society to improve any potential industry.

it seems likely a lot of people will try to create popular art for the sole purpose of achieving recognition (fame).

Which will skew the art produced. It will skew heavily against subtle, non-vocalised music, or against unbranded software, or behind-the-camera documentary making. Certainly it'll skew against anything that costs any significant amount of money.

This may be a nett gain or loss, but we won't suddenly end up deprived of any form of art and culture if we stop paying people to make copies of it.

Oh yes we will. As an experiment, why don't you see if you can get funding for a big blockbuster movie, with the stipulation that it'll be released into the public domain? Or perhaps a blockbuster game for the PS3, making good use of its raw power? Or even just music album that isn't one of those sells-for-sure pop albums (i.e. anything with any degree of financial risk)? It's not possible. It's not really because the publishing companies (who are necessary for tying the who project together) are greedy so much as they literally can't afford it. And even excluding those, there will be a significant drop in music production. How would you feel if there were only two or so movies/albums produced per year that were worth watching, and even then they are amateurishly produced, and suffer from picture/sound quality issues? That may well be the future without copyright that we're looking at.

Mr2001 is right on a fundamental level

People like Mr2001 are always right on the fundamental level, but abstract principles give way to the interests of the people, and as far as I can tell, the people want a healthy culture.

Change is inevitable, and almost always unpleasant. At least for a while. Eventually a new stable model will emerge.

So you're meaning to tell me that you think we should ditch copyright and hope a new business model will materialise soon after, and that we shouldn't wait, find a new business model, try against the current business model, and decide which is superior, because it's unpleasant but inevitable? WTF?

Mr2001 suggests a possible model.

The beauty of copyright is that Mr2001 is free to release his art under his suggested model. Better still, if it works, it may well become the model-of-choice for everyone! Mr2001, however, has no right to force his model on everyone else, as abolishing copyrights would do.

Here's another one: if art is so important to us as a society, why not just use tax money to pay artists to create new art?

I, for one, actually like that suggestion. Art, ideally, belongs to the people, and if the government pays for it, then indeed the artist would get reimbursed, and the people get his art. This has been often implemented partially through government grants, so we have some idea that it works. However, the downside is that everyone will end up paying for a copy of every artwork. If you thought it was a drain paying for a few albums, a few movies, and a few pieces of software, imagine having to pay for thousands through taxes! It would also lower the number artworks produced, decrease the amount of money paid to the artist per artwo

Re:Go FSF!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The current system doesn't skew the way art is produced?

Only in terms of popularity. Thus the more demanded art will be produced more. But that isn't really a problem since there is plenty of art production for all art forms, just some will be produced more than others, but still enough to satisfy anyone. Not so with no copyright. With an anaemic, underfunded culture, expensive artwork production will be slim to non-existent.
Besides, with copyright, artists have a choice of distribution method. There's nothing stopping the people who'd produce in a copyright-free society from producing their art. Without copyright, the artists have absolutely no choice. You are unavoidably cutting down options by taking down copyright.

You speak of blockbuster movies, but is that really the particular expression of film-making artistry which is most beneficial to society? Blockbuster movies are by definition popular, but do they really enrich our culture, or are they largely the same ideas recycled over and over? Would we as a society be better off without such things, in the long term?

What are you, a member of some kind of cultural elite? On one hand, we have people like you, telling others what's good and bad art. Your authority is that you really, really like certain artworks, and not others. Then we have the entire population, voting with their wallets. Their authority is the fact that they are everyone who will enjoy the art. I would have to say the most popular art, if anything, would trump your suggestions. I'm not really for having a cultural dictatorship, especially one that seems so divorced from the wants of the people.

The real profits here belong to those who can distribute the material, and maximising profits requires giving the artists creating the material as little as possible. If you consider the music industry at the moment, artists are effectively competing against each other to offer the labels the best possible deal.

So now we're back on topic. The art industry happens to be very profitable, and also happens to satisfy a lot of people. They help lower the barrier of entry for artists even lower, thus encouraging art production even more. They DON'T just produce "lowest common denominator" art. They produce many varieties of art, with differing popularities. There are only two reasons why they would avoid a market is either no-one wants it, or the market is already being dominated by an independent publisher (i.e. the market's needs are already satisfied). Think about it. If there is solid demand, why wouldn't they explore the market? Either way, it's not a blemish against copyright.

The distributor itself -- the one who gains most of the profits from selling copies of art -- is actively encouraged to devalue the work of the artist.

And those mean consumers! They are actively encouraged to devalue the work of whom they're buying from! It's the nature of any free market exchange. If you don't want to be screwed over, don't devalue yourself! Next you'll be guilt-tripping me because I sometimes shop at a discount store, one that could be charging market prices. I wonder how I live with myself?

Ooh, scary. It may just as well not be the case.

Ooh, reassuring. I suppose we shouldn't worry about firing off nuclear weaponry against Iraq, because we might not cause nuclear holocaust.

Production technologies are better and more affordable than ever; there's no shortage of people interesting in the creation and production of film and music and other forms of modern art.

But obviously not affordable enough, based on the number of artists who need to sign with publishers. I still haven't seen a viable alternative for financing those blockbusters that so many other people like.

It's interesting that you use a "music album that isn't one of those sells-for-sure pop albums (

I wonder

[markov_chain]

if Stallman has been reading xkcd lately ;)

I can see the connection

[kcornia]

While on the surface it may seem odd for FSF to come to the aid of P2P defendants, I think what they're really trying to guard against are future frivolous claims that could be made against open source software and the like.

If the RIAA is able to effectively take advantage of non-tech savvy courts, it's not too much of a stretch for other IP related companies to start filing claims, infringement suits, etc. against open source applications that compete with theirs.

Maybe I'm off base, but that's a possible reason for the FSF to be taking this course. It's more of a message to the business community at large that you're not going to have it that easy strong arming the technology world.

What do I know though, I was a history major..

HARK!

[mpgalvin]

Stallman!

Hardly a nightmare...

[nweaver]

The problem is, by the standards of a civil suit (preponderence of the evidence), the RIAA is able to kick butt on the forensics.

Its sloppy, its crappy, but when you have "Identify user's ip, user name, and the same username used on a bunch of legitimate sites", it becomes hard to contest the evidence sufficiently to establish nonresponsibility.

Re:Hardly a nightmare...

[kcornia]

You mean without equivalent experts on your side to appropriately and properly point out, to a non-technical jury, the giant holes in their evidence.

That's the way I interpret FSF's involvement. They're not arguing innocence or guilt, they're just making sure both sides have appropriate technical representation vs. the ridiculously one-sided "Grandma Jones and her AOL account vs. RIAA's team of electrical engineering PhDs".

The problem isn't so much copyright law

[physicsboy500]

Yes, the RIAA is trying to modify copyright law a bit to squeeze more money out of music they "own" at the expense of the creator of the music, and while that is a problem, most of the time it is not the issue that comes to the front when individuals are confronted with copyright infringement lawsuits.

The big issue that has come into play is the RIAA's tactics in gathering evidence. Many times an IP address was proxied and the wrong person ends up on trial. The RIAA's biggest misstep comes into play when they search/seize without proof that the questionable internet activity came from the household they are searching.

There have been many trials which have gone very poorly for the individual even though the RIAA gathered evidence at an incorrect location and *happened* to stumble upon something questionable.

Don't get me wrong, it's still great that an individual has more resources when fighting an RIAA lawsuit, but many problems come up not because of the RIAA's loose definition of copyright, but because the individual defending them self doesn't know their rights.

Re:The problem isn't so much copyright law

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There have been many trials which have gone very poorly for the individual... this is simply not so. There has been only one trial.

Why?

[moderators_are_w*nke]

In all honesty, why? Admittedly, the FSF is more of a political organisation than a technical one, but why are they interested in defending file sharers? They should be promoting free software development with that money, not attempting to get people off (the admittedly ridiculous) fines imposed by the US courts the got because they were too lazy and / or tight to go down the record store and pay money for the (admittedly overpriced) music.

I quote "The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs.". Thats computer programs, not MP3z. FFS, people donate money to the FSF for their work, if I had and found out they were spending it on this I'm be pretty miffed.

Right, tin hat on...

Re:Why?

[Chandon Seldon]

I'm a card carrying FSF member, and I fully support this sort of behavior on their part. The issue of file sharing is already threatening software freedom - if they can help to make it clear that the RIAA are just jerks trying to abuse the legal system, the RIAA will have less power to try to outlaw software. That's what this is really about - whether software that allows people to share arbitrary data with each other should be considered to be evidence of criminal activity.

Re:Why?

[Tom]

Because the FSF is first and foremost about Freedom, and very much against any kind of DRM-like crap.

The RIAA, on the other hand, is one of the primary promoters of DRM.

Their lawsuit circus is mostly for show. One, they use it to create ammo for their lobbyists ("look how many evil people are out there, we're suing in the thousands but we simply can't get them all, we need new laws, give us new laws, btw. how's the wife? how about a nice holiday with her to fix things up again? or a nice willing young lady if it doesn't work?") and two they use it as intimidation towards Joe Public in order to stall the inevitable.

I think the FSF is pretty much in the right battle here, because if the RIAA gets their way, we won't end up with DRM'ed music, we will end up with DRM everywhere (if you really want to "protect" music from being copied, you need to have total control of every part of the soft- and hardware).

Re:Why?

[compro01]

yes but the RIAA trials are creating interesting/dangerous precidents/opinions on IP law, which the FSF does rely upon, as copyright is nessesary to use copyleft. suitable changes/interpretations could render the creation of Free software extremely difficult, if not impossible.

it is very much in their interest to get involved with this before it starts to have direct effect on them, as by then it has gathered inertia and will be that much harder to reverse.

Re:Why?

[gillbates]

Because they are promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs, that's why. They see the connection between the shoddy evidence gathering of the RIAA and the possibility that merely possessing certain software programs will be considered as evidence of infringement.

The FSF has a policy against using proprietary software; it's not as if they are defending the illegal downloading of copyrighted material. Rather, it seems they are concerned, and rightly so, that a judicial precedent may establish the mere possession of file sharing programs as a de facto evidence of guilt, regardless of whether or not any infringement actually occurred.

Think about that for a moment. The whole Web is just one large, distributed, filesharing program. Imagine the consequences if everything was outlawed because of what it could be used for, rather than outlawing the specific act it might be used for. Even though the RIAA cases deal with copyright, it is more of a war on technology than anything else, and it has far-reaching implications for even those who do not infringe copyright. The real problem that the RIAA is fighting is filesharing itself - it could completely supplant them as the arbiter of music; their very survival depends on keeping individuals from sharing music - copyrighted or not - amongst themselves. The RIAA knows very well that once musicians discover publishing via filesharing, their stranglehold on the industry is over.

So what does the RIAA want? That's right - to control your computer, and dictate which software you are allowed to run. That's the only way to protect their content monopoly, and you can bet their going to try any means possible to accomplish it, consumer rights notwithstanding.

Good to see

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm sure the RIAA and friends will try to spin this as the FSF supporting piracy, that is just not the case. This is providing knowledge to the cases. This way someone with a hacked/cracked machine, wireless router or one of the other brazillion different ways that something can happen and gets unfairly brought up on charges can fight back.

Donate

[rice_burners_suck]

Donate!

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[evanbd]

I would think the best way to help the average Joe is to give his average lawyer a set of clearly-defined, well-argued precedents and examples to base the defense on. Having the precedents and example arguments be stronger will help more people in the long run than trying to help everyone at once.

There's no way the fund can help everyone directly; I imagine it will help more people in the long run by carefully choosing its battles and winning them well than by diluting its resources and helping lots of people who, while individually deserving, won't have the same multiplicative effect on the resources spent.

20 years from now

[pwnies]

our children won't be watching cartoons like Captain Planet, which reflects the hippy nature of the 70's. Rather they'll be watching something subtly using themes of the goodness of sharing, and the evils of the RIAA. "Linus Torvalds with the power of Open Source!" *cut scene to Linus and a team of ninja penguins stopping a kid from cracking a program and giving him an open source alternative* "Mark Shuttleworth with the power of Benevolence!" *cut to Mark in a space shuttle signing a contract to pour money into a new open source development* "Bram Cohen with the power of File Sharing Protocols!" *Just show him solving one of his many rubiks cubes. It's awesome enough.* FSF with the power of Legal Aid! *Show a personified version of FSF smacking down a court order against an innocent mother* By their powers combined, they form internet's greatest hero! Captain 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0! Kickass.

Re:20 years from now

[5c11]

Don't forget Negroponte - "with the power of Heart!"

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[Anonymous Coward]

who appointed Ray Beckerman the primary RIAA gestapo? As far as I know, Ray Beckerman volunteered to help the cause. And it is indeed volunteering: he goes well beyond the normal call of duty for his pay/occupation. He pursues his cases with a diligence and excellence that is remarkable.

What about having a disinterested party as the fund adviser? I understand the need for transparency, but if Ray is willing to undertake the task (and it will no doubt involve some tedious paperwork and such), then that's great. He is in a position to make informed choices, and to use this money to greatest effect.

Moreover it's not like he is a rogue agent here. The FSF will of course have a say in what happens. So, to the extent you trust the FSF and Ray, this is a good choice. Since both of them have proven track records of protecting individual rights, I'd say that donating to this cause is a good idea. (And, in the unlikely event that either does something to undermine their reputation, we can all donate our money elsewhere.)

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[kwandar]

"What about having a disinterested party as the fund adviser?

I frankly don't understand your point (or why anyone modded you up), and if you RTFA you'd see that Ray Beckerman is not the "sole" advisor. "The Fund will be advised by Ray Beckerman, the author of Recording Industry vs. The People, along with a group of selected attorneys acting as advisors"

I also want a VERY interested party to decide where funds should go, and why wouldn't it go wherever it hits the RIAA the hardest? You do realize it is a common law system right? Court decisions are relied on by other courts, meaning that if you hit the RIAA hard, you might knock them out for all future lawsuits.

If the objective is to kill these RIAA lawsuits in the most efficient and effective manner, then why the hell wouldn't I want Ray Beckerman managing it?! Hell - I'm donating BECAUSE Ray is managing it, and being in Canada I don't even get a tax dedcution!

It's easy to complain

[Weaselmancer]

But hard to do anything about it. You have a complaint - do you have a solution? Who would you suggest if not Mr. Beckerman?

He's passionate about the topic, a lawyer, and has (IMHO) the correct views on the problem.

this money wont go to help the average Joe fighting the RIAA, it will go to whichever Ray thinks will hit the RIAA the hardest

That's called preventative medicine, and is further proof that his heart is in the right place on the issue. If all he wanted was to get paid, he could endlessly represent vanilla RIAA cases until retirement. He's actually trying to solve the problem.

Disclaimer: Not associated with Mr. Beckerman, just a fan. Go Ray!

Place your bets

[NaCh0]

Which will happen first?

The end of digital restrictions or the dominance of GNU HURD?

The right answer - starve them

[jays8088]

The right answer is to starve the beast. As much as I love music, I will not buy another CD as long as the music industry persists in these law suites. I will only buy music when I can buy it directly from the artist, without a music company in the middle and then only from artists that do not support suing their fans. Nor, will I go out and p2p music, I will simply go without. If artists with contracts with the record labels want to make money from me, they will have to do it the old fashion way. Come out and perform. I know it's a lot more work that spending time in a studio and expecting to royalty checks to roll it but I'll buy a ticket if your music is good. I will no longer purchase products from any record label that is a member of the RIAA until they change their ways. Let's stop complaining about the RIAA and do something by doing nothing. The loudest sound we can make is the sound of our wallets and pocket books snapping shut.

Re:Punitive damages

[Dachannien]

I agree. Punishment should be done in the interest of society as a whole, not in the interest of one person who was wronged. Correcting the ills that befall the victim is what actual damages are for. Why should a person (or their lawyers) get a windfall because they ran afoul of misfortune or malice?

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Interesting to me that this post comes from a new member who has never commented before. Methinks I detect an RIAA troll. Any post that starts off "I hate the RIAA as much as the rest of you, but..." is usually highly suspect.

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I would think the best way to help the average Joe is to give his average lawyer a set of clearly-defined, well-argued precedents and examples to base the defense on. Having the precedents and example arguments be stronger will help more people in the long run than trying to help everyone at once. There's no way the fund can help everyone directly; I imagine it will help more people in the long run by carefully choosing its battles and winning them well than by diluting its resources and helping lots of people who, while individually deserving, won't have the same multiplicative effect on the resources spent. Well spoken, evanbd. Couldn't have said it better.

But what about...

[ClayJar]

Rich corp sues single mom. She spends $100k defending herself through a long, pitched legal battle. She finally wins.

Meanwhile, the corp has only spent $50k on the baseless accusations, as they get a bulk rate on their worthless experts and they used staff lawyers paid far less than partners (or some associates). After all, they didn't really care if they won *every* case, just some of them.

Anyway, the single mom is exonerated, but she is only paid $50k of her legal fees. The other $50k is her expense. That's only fair, eh?

The problem with "loser pays up to what loser spent" is that there exist entities that can afford to "file in bulk" and who don't really care to win, just to harass enough to force a settlement. The individual defendants don't get the benefit of the economies of scale, and as the defendants can't afford to lose, they have to pay for "higher quality" representation (or at least, they have to pay for a lawyer to handle their case, as opposed to paying a law firm to stamp out 500 cases with little intent to follow through on them all).

Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

"What about having a disinterested party as the fund adviser? I frankly don't understand your point (or why anyone modded you up), and if you RTFA you'd see that Ray Beckerman is not the "sole" advisor. "The Fund will be advised by Ray Beckerman, the author of Recording Industry vs. The People, along with a group of selected attorneys acting as advisors" I also want a VERY interested party to decide where funds should go, and why wouldn't it go wherever it hits the RIAA the hardest? You do realize it is a common law system right? Court decisions are relied on by other courts, meaning that if you hit the RIAA hard, you might knock them out for all future lawsuits. If the objective is to kill these RIAA lawsuits in the most efficient and effective manner, then why the hell wouldn't I want Ray Beckerman managing it?! Hell - I'm donating BECAUSE Ray is managing it, and being in Canada I don't even get a tax dedcution! Thank you very much, kwandar.

I know most of my fellow Slashdotters don't like it when I say this, but I'm sure the guy who posted the parent post is an RIAA troll. He just joined, this was his first comment, he started out "I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy" (which is always a dead giveaway), and his profile is silent. Plus he made an asinine suggestion which would play right into his employer's -- I mean the RIAA's -- hands.

Lunch with Ray Beckerman

[viking80]

I would like to suggest that this fund auction off "Lunch with Ray Beckerman" once a month. Maybe other celebrities will donate their lunches to the fund as well. That could generate both revenue and keep the fund in the news.

How about it Ray?

Re:What about defense attorneys?

[Shakrai]

and they are making false representations to the Court about the evidence.

If they are actually doing that (and I don't doubt you that they are) then it's obviously a different matter and they deserve to be punished harshly by the Court and the relevant Bar Associations.

Has anybody looked into this and sought sanctions against them?