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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

[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.

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!

[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."

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!

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.

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?

[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.

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?

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.