Lawsuit Against RIAA Tries To Stop Them All

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Tanya Anderson has filed an amended complaint against the RIAA. One of the more interesting provisions in it is in the 18th claim, which seeks to stop the RIAA from 'continuing to engage in criminal investigation of private American citizens', no doubt referring to the unlicensed MediaSentry investigations. If granted, that could shut down the RIAA lawsuits entirely. Naturally, the RIAA doesn't like this at all. First, they got the judge to agree that the original complaint was too light on the details, so it was amended. Now the RIAA complains that it's too long, because it's 108 pages filled with the RIAA's dirty laundry. You may remember this as the countersuit to the lawsuit where RIAA lawyers tried to grill a 10-year-old girl, only later to drop their case for lack of evidence and have the mother sue them for malicious prosecution."

Comments

Tubes

[jlebrech]

Honestly the RIAA should just stop all this and invest in the Tubes and maybe charge in this way. Artist would then distribute through some RIAA developer method which would not take a cut. Then the RIAA could then just charge for the bandwidth.

Re:Tubes

[suso]

But but. That would require change. And we can't have that.

Re:Tubes

[Bubbahyde]

What they should do is reinvest the 'funds' and get some acceptable talent going so music would be worth buying again. The crap they try to pawn off as music nowadays...

Re:Tubes

[CastrTroy]

The thing is, is that the RIAA is just about business. And therefore all they are interested in is making money. They've found the best way to make money is to produce the minimum amount of music that will result in the maximum amount of sales. That's how they maximize their profits. The best way to do that is to promote a small number of artists that most people will buy, because they don't find it terrible.

Re:Tubes

[peragrin]

This years articles are hidden and hiding in weird locations.

I have come across several of them so far.
http://news.slashdot.org/tags/aprilfools

Re:Tubes

[twistedsymphony]

Honestly the RIAA should just stop all this and invest in the Tubes and maybe charge in this way. Artist would then distribute through some RIAA developer method which would not take a cut. Then the RIAA could then just charge for the bandwidth.

Thats a better idea than the mods are giving you credit for (currently 0). If they took a page from Google's book developed an online site where artists could upload their own music, which is then sold for $1 a song or $10 an album. People can sample it before they buy, Music wold get ranked by downloads and algorithms to determine what you might like based on what other people with similar tastes liked etc...
...
Oh wait...
That's iTunes...

Re:Tubes

[TerribleNews]

The thing is, is that the RIAA is just about business. And therefore all they are interested in is making money.

That's the kind of greedy shortsightedness that gets businesses into this sort of mess. Businesses are, and should be, interested in making money. However, maximizing profits over the long haul is often a very different game over maximizing them Right Now.

In the RIAA's case, it's not that they want to produce the least music for the most profit, because if that were truly the case they would finding new ways to produce music and new ways to profit from it, instead of running around like headless chickens suing anyone with a pair of headphones.

I sure hope this is the final nail in the coffin.

Re:Tubes

[jcr]

maximizing profits over the long haul is often a very different game over maximizing them Right Now.

Exactly. Warren Buffet made his fortune by investing for the long haul.

I really can't figure out why the RIAA members seem to have a disproportionate share of numbskull management. Treating your customers as the enemy is simply asinine.

-jcr

Re:Tubes

[KURAAKU Deibiddo]

With the exception of Ray Tracing To Debut in DirectX 11, all the stories listed there are from 2007.

Unless you're saying that they posted them a year early, as an elaborate hoax. ;) Hover the links with your mouse and look at the URLs on your browser's status bar (or turn it on with View -> Show Status Bar, if you're using Safari with default settings).

Re:Tubes

[peragrin]

That sound you just heard was the joke going over your head.

Re:Tubes

[Original Replica]

why the RIAA members seem to have a disproportionate share of numbskull management.

Hookers and blow.
Seriously, how much cocaine do you think Warren Buffet has done in his lifetime vs how much coke goes up the nose of the average music exec? Find anyone in a position of power that has done a lot of cocaine, and they will always have a disconnect from reality in which they always believe they are just and right in their ambitions, regardless of the facts presented to them.

Re:Tubes

[KURAAKU Deibiddo]

That sound you just heard was my stupendously feeble attempt at a joke going over your head.

There, fixed that for you. Normally attempts at humor should be distinguishable from the person making the comment being blind or obtuse (e.g. a large majority of the internet). Nice trite attempt at a comeback, though. ;)

Re:Tubes

[kimvette]

They do not want change - that would result in losing control of distribution and lose control of the market. They will no longer be able to manufacture pop stars and force hits through repurchasing their own sales (to drive up sales and land on billboard's charts), and the listener will be choosing which artists succeed, not them. For the RIAA, artist-to-listener sales and distribution is a losing proposition. That is why they are fighting P2P tooth and nail, and are always seeking to create and increase levies on blank media - then if you're in a garage band and make a few CDs for friends, they get a small cut of the work you produced, without your consent.

Re:Tubes

[SillySlashdotName]

You should read more, Warren Buffet has a major investment in coke.

What's that? Coka Cola? That's not the same as...

Oh.

Nevermind.

Bitch.

Re:Tubes

[Teflon_Jeff]

...and now, Mr. Buffet is the riches man in the world.

However, there is always the counterpoint of "In the long run, we're all dead"

What you need to do is find a way to make satisfactory profits today, while still having sustainable growth. As has been mentioned before, resorting to legal battles to stop technological progress is usually the last sign of a dying system. The RIAA needs to adapt or die.

Re:Tubes

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is is looking for a solution - it is all about short term gain of a quick buck by screwing the customer for every penny before it is too late.

There you go that's the 'mission statemement' for ya.

Re:Tubes

[Anonymous Coward]

But but. That would require hope and change. And we can't have that. Fixed that for ya.

Re:Tubes

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be easier if you just stopped stealing from them?

Re:Tubes

[UncleTogie]

They do not want change - that would result in losing control of distribution and lose control of the market.

They've already lost control of distribution, and are losing the market due to asinine lawsuits. I, for one, refuse to buy anything Sony-branded, from CDs to computers... and my clients hear all about the reasoning as to why. Quite a few have switched from the VAIO brand because of this. Remember, folks, the quicker we get Joe Six-Pack in on this, the faster it'll happen...

Re:Tubes

[Omestes]

Perhaps this years theme is to not do April Fools, and then all of us slashbots will be even more paranoid than usual, since we will keep expecting to be fooled, but won't, but are by the fact that we are expecting it.

It does give all the normal articles a penumbra of dread, at least.

Like an anti-April Fools April Fools.

Re:Tubes

[westlake]

The crap they try to pawn off as music nowadays...

RDS in the EU defines twenty nine programs for broadcast.

vTuner - built into Denon's high end HT receivers - organizes 11,000 internet radio stations into about fifty categories of music and talk.

The odds that the geek will have anything meaningful to about music outside the bare handful of genres that appeal to him personally is negligible.

Re:Tubes

[peragrin]

That or this years news was just so sad that it was true anyways. Like the OOXML vote. Now there is a Joke.

Doubt that's even possible.

[morgan_greywolf]

seeks to stop the RIAA from 'continuing to engage in criminal investigation of private American citizens. Like it or not, there's probably a few Constitutional considerations here. Although, what they should be doing is suing in individual states, where it's usually illegal to practice private criminal investigations without a license.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[guamisc]

Who cares? They are abusing the court system and as such should have their suing everyone privileges revoked. Criminals get rights denied to them all the time.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[DrLang21]

I think there actually is some precedent for baring further related law suits when someone is found to be grossly abusing the justice system.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[morgan_greywolf]

Who cares? They are abusing the court system and as such should have their suing everyone privileges revoked. Yeah, you're right. Who cares about the Constitution? Just a silly document.

Oh, BTW, the boys over here tell me you've been found to be abusing your First Amendment priveleges. Guards: Arrest this man for treason!

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[geminidomino]

There is.

It's called Vexatious Litigation

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[morgan_greywolf]

Yeah, let's check with a law dictionary on that one:

n. filing a lawsuit with the knowledge that it has no legal basis, with its purpose to bother, annoy, embarrass and cause legal expenses to the defendant. Vexatious litigation includes continuing a lawsuit after discovery of the facts shows it has absolutely no merit. Upon judgment for the defendant, he/she has the right to file a suit for "malicious prosecution" against the original vexatious plaintiff. Moreover, most states allow a judge to penalize with sanctions a plaintiff and his/her attorney for filing or continuing a "frivolous" legal action (money award to the defendant for the trouble and/or attorney fees). In other words, it has to be shown the the RIAA's lawsuit 1) has no legal basis and 2) that the RIAA and its laywers knew it had no legal basis and sued only to "bother, annoy, embarass and cause legal expenses to the defendant."

Thing is, some of the cases the RIAA has filed do have legal basis (these are the ones you don't hear about in the media and are settled out of court quickly), and while some of the most egregious examples might approach might approach vexatious litigation, I doubt you'll find a judge to agree that all of them do.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[jellomizer]

That is dangerious reasoning. This could lead to a lot of bad things. Say for example Civil Rights, If Cival Rights Organizations were banned from Sueing, because say at their time their law suits were inconvient. Then it would put hamer on socicity.

Convicted Fellons have had many of their rights revoked and they still are allowed to use/abuse the legal system, But for them it comes to a boy who cries wolf then they may lose that additional right.

But for even gready and evil orginizations who technically havn't don't anything criminal (or worthy of jail time) they still need the right to sue in cases their rights were indeed violated.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[Tenebrousedge]

Unless you can point me to something specific in the Constitution that would explain why you think that the abusive, frequently illegal and deceitful measures undertaken by the RIAA in protecting their copyrights are in any way a fundamental right of each citizen, then I'm afraid your reference to that document is merely a non sequitur. Now before you get all riled up and try to play one of the Amendment cards, understand that I'm not arguing that the RIAA (or any other person, whether I like what they do or not) has no right to try to protect their copyrights. This is /., but even so I would think to find few indeed who would deny them that right. So let's clear that one up, all right? Instead, the thing that has garnered the recording industry so much ill will and resentment is the methods they use to effect their goals. Granted, their problem is large and intractable, and it will likely to prove impossible by any means to stop filesharing. That does not, however, grant them the right to go above the law to try and prevent people from doing so. If you've been following these events, you should know exactly how questionable their methods are. If not, slashdot has a pretty good archive of articles relating to the RIAA court cases. The inanity of your last line defies a response.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[Sidzilla]

The constitution doesn't give anyone the right to illegally pursue someone in court. If they can legally pursue a case, great, but gathering evidence through illegal means renders that evidence inadmissable in most instances. Their constitutional rights end where mine begins, and vice versa.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[DrLang21]

So then I suppose the question is, if a significant portion of a series of law suits are found to be vexatious litigation, is that enough to justify barring all other lawsuits.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[geminidomino]

I didn't claim that what the *AAs were doing was vexatious litigation.

The post I responded to said that he thought there was a mechanism for which a party could be sanctioned for abuse of the legal system, and I confirmed that there was.

I do not think it would be difficult to find a judge that things that the RIAA's tactic of "Sue silly, drop case when it starts looking bad to avoid setting a precedent" over and over again might be toeing the line of VL, though.

Then, of course, I remember the judge who ordered TorrentSpy to keep logs of everything in RAM at all times, and my faith in the legal system returns to sensible, sub-zero levels.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[danbert8]

I'd just thing you'd have to show that a majority of them are without legal basis because if you sue everybody, some of them are bound to have downloaded illegally.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I could be wrong, but I think corporations are not afforded any constitutional rights to begin with.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[kent_eh]

Vexatious litigation includes continuing a lawsuit after discovery of the facts shows it has absolutely no merit. And this is where it falls apart.

The RIAA generally drops the lawsuit after discovery shows that they never had a case.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, except all the people who settle out of court because they can't afford a lawyer and settling is just cheaper...

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[morgan_greywolf]

Uh, try again.

Freedom of speech, the press, etc., all apply to corporations as well as individual citizens.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[morgan_greywolf]

Just to help you think about it --- corporations are nothing more than groups of individual citizens. A group of citizens has as much Constitutionally-granted rights and freedoms as an individual citizen.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Just to help you think about it --- corporations are nothing more than groups of individual citizens. A group of citizens has as much Constitutionally-granted rights and freedoms as an individual citizen. I stand corrected, but only mostly :) A bit of digging turned up Ohralik V. Ohio, which did essentially find that while corporations are protected, they are not afforded the same level of protection as citizens.

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[Dun Malg]

Vexatious litigation includes continuing a lawsuit after discovery of the facts shows it has absolutely no merit. And this is where it falls apart.

The RIAA generally drops the lawsuit after discovery shows that they never had a case.

"includes" != "is defined by"

Re:Doubt that's even possible.

[JosKarith]

"some of the most egregious examples might approach might approach vexatious litigation"

Foghorn Leghorn, is that you boy?

Godspeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Godspeed, Tanya Anderson.

Re:Godspeed

[sm62704]

Godsmack, RIAA

I really hope she wins this

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I really hope that she can pull off a win here and put a stop to the harrassment. However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally.

While it's a good thing to stop the harrassment of 10 year old girls, not all defendents are snow white lambs. The vast majority have most likely infringed copyright by uploading content to P2P networks. This type of behavior doesn't fall on the legal side of the line. However the punishment for such infringement, especially considering they are not intending to profit off of the distribution is far too heavy. But the rules are being violated and the violaters probably ought to be punished in some manner.

So I wonder if effectively stopping the RIAA truly serves justice or just provides legal cover to break laws in a minor way.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Anonymous Coward]

However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet

Hahahaha hahahahaha! Please stop I can't take it anymore! Hahahahaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Svet-Am]

However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally.

Tell me again why this doesn't affect you. The *AA have shown again and again that the facts of the case really don't matter -- espescially when it comes to the method they use for identifying litigants, IP addresses. If your ISP has floating IP addresses, then this could easily become your problem.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[robably]

So I wonder if effectively stopping the RIAA truly serves justice or just provides legal cover to break laws in a minor way.

Both.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Jason Levine]

Being innocent of file sharing doesn't mean you won't get sued. I seem to recall a story about a Macintosh using Granny who was accused of using Kazaa (not available on Macs) to download rap music. It was only the publicity of the story that got the RIAA to back down. (And even then they reserved the right to go after her at any time.) It was obvious to everyone (except the RIAA) that she was misidentified. And if you are misidentified, your options are basically:

1. Spend a lot of time and money to fight to prove your innocence. If you are not successful, the fines will drive you into permanent bankruptcy. (If the legal fees don't do that first.)

2. Accept the RIAA's settlement offer to make it all go away. NOTE: Part of the settlement offer is admitting that you are a pirate even if you aren't one. But at least you won't face a long court battle and possible bankruptcy.

Most people chose Option #2 since it is the quicker and easier way to make it all go away. With recent RIAA court losses, though, it seems that more people are willing to try for Option #1. That's a good thing too. The last thing the RIAA wants is to actually fight these cases in court. They just want quick settlements so they can move on to the next victim... er, evil, bloodsucking pirate.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[pandrijeczko]

It doesn't affect him - or me.

It would be very easy to demonstrate to a judge in a court room that in the case of most ISPs, IP addresses are dynamic and do not stay fixed on a particular PC; I'm sure even the most basic of ISP logs would clearly show this.

Not that I'm in the US anyway, but whilst I believe the RIAA is unduly heavy-handed with people, the fact is that they are stealing music - that means that legal CD purchasers like me pay more for our purchasers and end up subsidising the thieves.

If everyone chose to steal their music, what would happen then?

Re:I really hope she wins this

[meisenst]

>> It would be very easy to demonstrate to a judge in a court room that in the case
>> of most ISPs, IP addresses are dynamic and do not stay fixed on a particular PC;
>> I'm sure even the most basic of ISP logs would clearly show this.

And yet, the *AA have attempted to show that this doesn't matter at countless colleges and universities by forcing the burden of proof upon these institutions. "We know you have a thief among you, find them for us" is not how a case should be built.

>> that means that legal CD purchasers like me pay more for our purchasers and end
>> up subsidising the thieves.

Afraid not. You pay more for your music because the record labels and the RIAA wish it to be so.

The fact is that sales have risen during these years where "piracy" has run rampant. I would link to statistics, but I am at work and don't have time to find them. I'm sure someone else will do it at some point.

>> If everyone chose to steal their music, what would happen then?

Well, hopefully, the RIAAs of the world would realize that their business model isn't something most people are interested in funding. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like paying $15 for a CD that has one or two interesting tracks and 10 garbage tracks, and that's what they are forcing me to do in most cases. Services like iTunes allow me to bypass this antiquated way of doing business, so I use iTunes where I can.

Where I can't use iTunes, I refuse to spend the money until I know that the product (in its entirety) is worth paying for, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Tom]

However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally. Right, bro!

As someone who's never illegally flown a commercial airplane into a building on US soil, this whole "war on terrorism" thing really has no bearing on me personally.

Then again, as someone who understands that case law is being made while we watch, and some of the methods of the RIAA/MPAA are just as easily applied to other things than music or movies, and that somehow, even though the vast majority of Internet users are downloading stuff in breach of strict copyright laws, they somehow managed to pick quite out quite a few innocents, I do realize that whatever happens there does have a considerable impact for many even remotely related cases of the future.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[electrictroy]

>>>If everyone chose to steal their music, what would happen then?

Several studies have shown that if "everyone" stole music, then CD sales would escalate higher than ever. I know that sounds strange, but here's how it works:

- A person downloads songs for free.
- He/she likes the songs.
- He/she buys several CDs of that same artist, because they enjoy his or her work.
- The result is a several sales that would not have occured otherwise.

BEFORE: The person bought $0.00 worth of CDs.
NOW: The person bought $30-40 worth of CDs.
NET IMPACT: More money for the company and the artist. Stealing music helps sell more product by introducing people to new artists they had never heard before.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Doctor_Jest]

Replace "stealing" with "infringing" and you're golden. :)

Re:I really hope she wins this

[electrictroy]

This reminds me of a story I recently read:

- A man had setup a website with the name of a local mall. It was strictly an information site (like a Trekkie fan site, but this was for a mall). The local mall didn't want the website to exist, so they sued him using cyber-squatter laws. Initially the website owner lost his case, but eventually he repealed to the State Supreme Court and won. - It cost him ~$3000 in legal fees that he never recovered.

Big corporations like to go after & abuse the little guy, just because they can do it, and if the Corporation loses the case it's no big deal (just 0.000001% of their profit), but it causes major damage to the average citizen.

Big corporations need to be stopped. Corporations should be required to pay ALL legal fees for the cases they bring against individuals (unless the corporation takes the case to verdict & wins).

Re:I really hope she wins this

[ccguy]

as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet

Dial-up sucks

Re:I really hope she wins this

[pandrijeczko]

And yet, the *AA have attempted to show that this doesn't matter at countless colleges and universities by forcing the burden of proof upon these institutions. "We know you have a thief among you, find them for us" is not how a case should be built.

. Right. And I already said that the RIAA are overly heavy-handed.

Afraid not. You pay more for your music because the record labels and the RIAA wish it to be so.

Again, right. But the fact is that music thieves give the record labels and the RIAA the justification they need to make those prices so high. If people didn't steal music, they wouldn't be able to justify keeping prices so high by blaming it on "the amount of CD sales we lose". Do you see my point?

The fact is that sales have risen during these years where "piracy" has run rampant. I would link to statistics, but I am at work and don't have time to find them. I'm sure someone else will do it at some point.

I don't have the facts either but I suspect the truth is somewhere in between - namely that if there is a drop in CD sales, then its probably more due to the amount of truly turgid music being made these days.

I will admit that whilst I rarely buy CDs in the rip-off high street stores here in the UK, I do wonder how they manage to stay in business based on the prices they charge whenever I do go for a browse in them - which are consistently 33%-50% more than most online retailers.

Well, hopefully, the RIAAs of the world would realize that their business model isn't something most people are interested in funding. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like paying $15 for a CD that has one or two interesting tracks and 10 garbage tracks, and that's what they are forcing me to do in most cases. Services like iTunes allow me to bypass this antiquated way of doing business, so I use iTunes where I can.

If you're coming across CDs that have one or two good tracks on them, then you are not listening to the right kind of music - it's that simple.

Music is my most important past-time, far more than TV, movies, gaming, etc. I do research my music well and, yes, because I won't buy an album before I know it's worth the money, I do occasionally download from Usenet or BitTorrent to preview it; but then, I buy it if I like it and add it to my collection of 1200+ official CDs or just delete the tracks as it's not even worth the disk space.

For me, services like iTunes would only allow me to download music at probably a higher cost than I can source a CD for (online or secondhand on eBay) at a lower quality rate with DRM restrictions. And I find it difficult to believe how someone who believes in the free distribution of music would ever subscribe to iTunes in the first place?

Incidentally, I don't deny my own slight hypocrisy for using Usenet of BitTorrent in the first place - my only defence is that the obscure rock and psychedelia music I do enjoy doesn't get played on radio (particularly here in the UK) and if the RIAA were to check my hard disk, they'd only see MP3s on it which were also on the original CDs in my collection. However, by doing things this way, I never buy a CD that I don't consider to be not worth the money I paid for it - that in turns means I'm very satisfied with CDs as products and I therefore go and buy more of them as a result.

I think we're "singing off the same hymn sheet" here in as much as we're both happy to pay for music - it's the distribution method that we disagree about.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[pandrijeczko]

In my case, you're entirely correct because that's precisely how I buy my music. I'll even qualify your argument by saying that because I can preview my music first, I only ever buy ones that are worth the money - therefore CDs, in my view, are an excellent value product (based on the importance of music in my life anyway) and I do keep buying them as a result.

However, I am in a minority of P2P/Usenet downloaders because, in my experience, most of them use it as an alternative to paying for their music by legal means.

Therefore, by implication, the fact that I buy a lot of CDs subsidises those who do not - therefore those thieves are as bad as the record labels or the RIAA for making the cost of music so high.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Anonymous Coward]

Cmon, mods! This is hilarious. I should have learned my lesson about drinking coffee in front of my recently replaced keyboard.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[UnknowingFool]

However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally.

Tanya Anderson probably thought the same thing until she got harassed for over 2 years. When you get served with a subpoena and have to defend yourself for years even though you are innocent, you'll probably see how this affects you.

So I wonder if effectively stopping the RIAA truly serves justice or just provides legal cover to break laws in a minor way.

Most people probably don't care when the RIAA goes after people who actually infringed on their copyrights. These file sharers should know better; however, that does not give the RIAA the right to skirt legal procedures when doing pursuing their rights. Also that goes not give the RIAA the right to pursue people that are innocent. It seems that the RIAA only cares about making someone pay and not just the guilty.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's how it works in REALITY:

- A person downloads songs for free.
- He/she likes the songs.
- He/she downloads the whole album for free
- The End

BEFORE: The person bought $0.00 worth of CDs.
NOW: The person bought $0.00 worth of CDs.
NET IMPACT: Nothing changes.

To sell music in the digital age you have to give customers something they can't get from a torrent. They have to figure out what that can be.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[scottymuse]

Yeah, I'm gonna ask you to cite your source. Just a link to one or two of those studies. Not that I don't want to believe you but the people I know don't act that way.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Anonymous Coward]

- A person downloads songs for free.
- He/she likes the songs.
- He/she buys several CDs of that same artist, because they enjoy his or her work.
- The result is a several sales that would not have occured otherwise.

BEFORE: The person bought $0.00 worth of CDs.
NOW: The person bought $30-40 worth of CDs.
NET IMPACT: More money for the company and the artist. Stealing music helps sell more product by introducing people to new artists they had never heard before.

You have to see the situation from their side:
BEFORE: The person bought $X worth of CDs.
NOW: The person bought $0 worth of CDs because they are a dirty pirate.
NET IMPACT: Dirty pirates stealing our money!

When I go on a new music binge, I usually find mp3s from 5-6 different artists and frequently a CD at a time. Of those I'll typically end up liking 1-3 artists enough to buy CDs, and delete the other 3-5. The labels and their "investigators" cannot accredit the 3 CDs (+ future releases from the bands) that I bought because of the downloads, but they can trace the 6 "stolen" albums.

Hell, I usually sample artists that I've never seen advertised. If anything they make a larger chunk of profit from those CDs, since I have a feeling they take the same advertising cut from the sales that they would for a band that they actually promoted.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[arbarbonif]

Music is my most important past-time, far more than TV, movies, gaming, etc. I do research my music well and, yes, because I won't buy an album before I know it's worth the money, I do occasionally download from Usenet or BitTorrent to preview it; but then, I buy it if I like it and add it to my collection of 1200+ official CDs or just delete the tracks as it's not even worth the disk space.
Incidentally, I don't deny my own slight hypocrisy for using Usenet of BitTorrent in the first place - my only defence is that the obscure rock and psychedelia music I do enjoy doesn't get played on radio (particularly here in the UK) and if the RIAA were to check my hard disk, they'd only see MP3s on it which were also on the original CDs in my collection. However, by doing things this way, I never buy a CD that I don't consider to be not worth the money I paid for it - that in turns means I'm very satisfied with CDs as products and I therefore go and buy more of them as a result. Except that according to the RIAA's theory, you are are a slimy thief that is stealing music. If you have downloaded music that you already own, you are slimy thief. If you download music and then buy it, you are a slimy thief. If you download music and then don't buy it (even if you promptly delete it) you are a doubly slimy thief that is actively stealing money from their babies' mouths (eww). You are actually arguing the most common argument against the RIAA's tactics.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Sfing_ter]

Hold on! You mean that the RIAA are passing out legal certificates verifying you ARE a PIRATE!!??
Daaaaaaaamn, I must have one, ARRRRRRRRR Matey! The scurvy bastards be PIRATE MAKERS!

Re:I really hope she wins this

[electrictroy]

>>>"I am in a minority of P2P/Usenet downloaders because, in my experience, most of them use it as an alternative to paying for their music by legal means."

First of all, where's your citation for this? I suspect you have none; you just made it up. Invented statistics have no validity.

Second, I USED to be one of those you describe (getting music for free) although in my day we called them "mix tapes" rather than downloads, but it's still the same thing. And there was a very good reason why I stole music: As a teenager, I had no money. Having no money means I couldn't buy CDs even if I wanted to.

Thus there's no financial impact for what I did.
And no subsidy.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>If everyone chose to steal all their music, what would happen then?

Several studies have shown that if "everyone" stole all their music, then CD sales would escalate higher than ever. I know that sounds strange, but here's how it works:

- Each person downloads songs for free.
- He/she likes the songs.
- ????
- Profit!!!

BEFORE: The person bought $0.00 worth of CDs.
NOW: The company, recording artists, and lawyers make scads of money.
NET IMPACT: More money for the company and the artist. Stealing music helps sell more product by .... well, anyhow, slashdot is all about justifying stealing, so I just thought I'd jump in on the game.

[disclaimer: for those who are humor impaired, this is intended to be satire.]

Re:I really hope she wins this

[electrictroy]

Well one of the studies was published at isohunt.com - unfortunately I can not access it due to Employer censorship, so I can't provide a direct link for you. However you're welcome to visit the website yourself and read their archives.

I'm not even sure why you question the validity of these studies. "Loss leaders" have been a long-used and very effective way to promote business. That's essentially what P2P/downloading is. I've read numerous reports from 1960s/70s singers who had back catalogs with next-to-no sales, and then suddenly jumped in volume thanks to internet downloads creating a surge in customer awareness of old titles.

Downloading is a loss leader.
Loss today for increased profit tomorrow.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[pandrijeczko]

I'm prepared to take my chances. :-)

But to be fair, I am not aware of anybody yet who has been successfully sued (or even dragged into a courtroom in the first place) for format-changing their own CDs, DVDs, etc.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[electrictroy]

I think "stealing" is an appropriate word. Infringing sounds too kind; like looting... makes it sound harmless. I prefer to calling looting as stealing, and the people who do it, thieves. ----- Anyway. If for example Stephen King spent a year of his life crafting his latest novel, and you download it for free off the internet, you've not stolen property. No physical object has been removed.

But you have stolen Mr. King's labor.

Theft of labor is a human rights violation, and I prefer not to trample on other people's rights. If I enjoy King's work (and I do) then I'm going to pay him for it, same as I get paid by my employer for my work. He deserves to be compensated for his time and effort.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[pandrijeczko]

First of all, where's your citation for this? I suspect you have none; you just made it up. Invented statistics have no validity.

Well I did say "in my experience", to be fair. But I do a hell of a lot of PC repairs for close and distant family members & friends & you can guarantee that if a teenage kid has been anywhere near any one of those PCs, then it's packed full of MP3s I'm pretty sure they don't own. (If anything, the usual reason for my repairing the PC in the first place is a result of some virus or malware they downloaded through one of the countless P2P clients they have installed.)

As a teenager, I had no money. Having no money means I couldn't buy CDs even if I wanted to.

Well, I never listened to the sort of music you'd put in on "mix tapes" but in my teenage years I certainly borrowed albums from other people and taped them so I take your point - but I did also buy a lot of LPs as well.

I do agree that neither of us would've probably bought any of those copied albums or tracks in the first place. But I'd counter that by saying that these days there's a lot more disposable income about & most households seem to be able to afford iPods, new PCs and equip everyone in the household over the age of 10 with a new mobile phone.

Yes, I'm not denying that there are also genuinely poor people who cannot afford to buy music - but the people I come into contact with regularly definitely can.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[sm62704]

Not that I'm in the US anyway, but whilst I believe the RIAA is unduly heavy-handed with people, the fact is that they are stealing music - that means that legal CD purchasers like me pay more for our purchasers and end up subsidising the thieves.

Once more, here is the difference between stealing music and infringing copyright:

STEALING MUSIC
You walk into Best Buy or Wal Mart and find the CD section. When nobody's looking, stick it in your shirt. You may have to disable an electronic gizmo that sets off an alarm.

If you get away with it, the store eats the cost of the CD that they paid for. They are out the money. If you get caught, you will pay a small criminal fine for misdemeanor retail theift.

INFRINGING COPYRIGHT
You buy that CD and rip it to MP3, and share those MP3s with folks on the internet. Note that if you choose to download music without uploading anything, you have not infringed copyright or broken any laws. But uploading those files will cost you thousands in a civil suit should you be caught. If someone downloads that song from YOU they may well buy it whan they otherwise souldn't have.

Downloading is legal, uploading is infringing copyright (in the US, laws vary from country to country).

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Zephyr14z]

that's definitely true. I never buy music unless I've already heard the artist, and seeing as most artists I like don't get much in the way of airtime, downloads are the way to do it. I've easily spent hundreds more dollars on music than I ever would have otherwise thanks to "piracy".

Re:I really hope she wins this

[QRDeNameland]

However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally.

Right...and the War on Terror has no bearing on you unless you're a terrorist, and the War on Drugs has no bearing on you unless you're a drug addict. Not to get all Godwin, but holy Niemöller!!

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Bobfrankly1]

- A person downloads songs for free. - He/she likes the songs.
- He/she buys several CDs of that same artist, because they enjoy his or her work.
- The result is a several sales that would not have occured otherwise. I would agree with this if we were still in the dial-up age. User downloads 1-2 songs. User likes songs. User does not want to tie up phone line or bandwidth for 1-4 hours to download the rest of the album. User buys CDs.
Now with broadband speeds it's different, some still follow the "download, like, buy", but more often user downloads songs, user likes songs, user downloads the entire album catalog for artist with little impact to bandwidth, and no impact to phone line. User buys t-shirt of band. What we need to do is start making more t-shirts!!!

Re:I really hope she wins this

[not flu]

Again, right. But the fact is that music thieves give the record labels and the RIAA the justification they need to make those prices so high. If people didn't steal music, they wouldn't be able to justify keeping prices so high by blaming it on "the amount of CD sales we lose". Do you see my point? I do not. They have no need to justify their prices. They set them at whatever price they think will produce the highest [number of units sold] * [revenue per unit] just like any reasonable business. Don't like the price? Don't buy the plastic. "Justifying" if done at all is just a marketing gimmick.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Sloppy]

In addition, while it's not really part of this case, xxAA has been lobbying for new laws to get ISPs to be more "cooperative" with their investigations. When ISPs are required to monitor all internet use, pirates won't be the only people spied on: they can't! You don't know if someone is doing something "bad" until you have already peeked.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Sloppy]

the fact is that they are stealing music

Err.. if you've been following these cases, you'll realize that's not really true. The agenda appears to be to go after pirates, but the whole point of the countersuits is that a lot of non-pirates are being forced to spend lots of money to defend themselves against false accusations. You say "it would be very easy to demonstrate to a judge in the courtroom" but people aren't having a particularly easy time with those demonstrations. And by the time you make your demonstration, you've already spent a lot of your time and money.

If everyone chose to steal their music, what would happen then?

I think it would be a bad thing. But, again, RIAA's aggression hasn't been limited to pirates. They either need to be more careful and responsible in their "investigations" (or at least their litigations) or else they need a heavy bitchslapping. The overall issue isn't about piracy anymore, so arguments about "stealing music" are irrelevant; it's about abusive bullying and the amazing expenses we've created in our legal system. If RIAA can bring the topic back to piracy, that's great, any maybe that will be the long-term effect of this countersuit. But now is not the time to frame the discussion in terms of people stealing music; there's bigger stuff happening.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[scottymuse]

I've never met anyone who downloaded a song, liked it, and then didn't go ahead and download the whole thing for free. The only incentive to purchase it legally is the pretty plastic case, disc, and booklet, which to a lot of people isn't worth the $6.00 they would have to pay, at least. But I am from Utah, people here religious zealots and complete cheapskates.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[SillySlashdotName]

Big corporations like to go after & abuse the little guy, just because they can do it, and if the Corporation loses the case it's no big deal (just 0.000001% of their profit)

Sorry, but you are wrong.

I, and I would imagine most people, have a pile of cash that is used to pay bills, rent, and legal fees/fines. When that pile of cash is gone, it's gone. Next payday, I get another pile of cash. Lather, rinse, repeat.

A corporation doesn't work like that, they have "revenue streams" instead of piles of cash. You can't use up a revenue stream, they just raise prices to maintain their flow like the Corps of Engineers releasing more water from a dam to maintain river level. The corporation is never hurt by losing a lawsuit. Any loses are passed directly to consumers in higher prices.

Even worse, the judgement against the corporation can be used to justify raising prices more than is justified by the loss of prifit - resulting in a RAISE in profit!

I remember buying cigarettes when they were 50 cents a pack. Then there was that big lawsuit resulting in BILLIONS being paid to the states when the tobacco companies lost. Have you priced cigarettes lately? The increase in price is NOT due to an increase in the price of tobacco or rolling papers! I also used to own stock in one of the tobacco companies, and I never, EVER heard of any year they did not make a profit, including the years when paying out the lawsuit claims.

Suing a corporation is not shooting them in the ass, it is shooting millions of the corporations customers the least little bit in the ass - and the corporation doesn't care in the least.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Anonymous Coward]

- A person downloads songs for free.
- He/she likes the songs.
- He/she downloads the rest of the work of the same artist, because they enjoy his or her work.
- The result is that no sales were made whatsoever, with the potential of sales having existed if the option of getting the music for free wasn't.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Quila]

The corporation is never hurt by losing a lawsuit. Any loses are passed directly to consumers in higher prices.

That's why I support making it easier to pierce the corporate veil. If the label CEOs knew about these tactics then they should go to jail as conspirators and be personally subject to civil penalties.

Have you priced cigarettes lately? The increase in price is NOT due to an increase in the price of tobacco or rolling papers!

True, it's mainly due to increased taxes enacted by over-spending, nanny-state governments.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Dhalka226]

Not the OP, however: I understand the incredulity, but here's one study I was given in a telecommunications economics class. (The link from my school's website appears to be gone, but based on filename this is the same PDF I saw):

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

A quick excerpt from the abstract:

Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales.

The basic conclusion, if I remember correctly, was: The top 1% of artists in terms of popularity lose sales due to pirated songs, and the rest actually see their sales increase with piracy. Obviously you can fact-check this yourself to see if my recollection is correct.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[glittalogik]

Hi. I copied a few tracks by Pendulum from a friend's laptop(most notably Slam). Based on what I heard, I bought Hold Your Colour the next time I was in a record store, as well as tickets to their next concert in Sydney. It's some of the best drum and bass I've ever heard, the album artwork is stunning, I like having it sitting on my shelf, and the price was reasonable thanks to the record store in question having a sale at the time.

I also paid for Saul William's latest album after downloading his earlier works. I'll happily buy those too if I find a local store stocking them, but given his attitude to the industry I doubt he minds all that much either way. I'll definitely be purchasing tickets to any live show of his that I can attend.

Then there's one of my new favourite psytrance outfits, ITP, who've just released their latest album as a free download on its first birthday. I'll be buying the next one, sight unseen, I know it's going to be amazing. If you're into the genre, then check them out.

So yeah, I download music. I download movies. I buy CDs. I buy DVDs. More and more often, one of those actions will arise from another, and whilst the former two result largely from curiosity, the latter two now result only from quality.

That's my take, anyhow. I doubt I'm the only one.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[glittalogik]

I worked merch at the last Combichrist concert in Sydney, and we sold more knickers than albums. Never underestimate the power of awesome branding/merchandising.

Re:I really hope she wins this

[Technician]

I would be willing to guess at least 4 9's of computer users have infringed copyright. (99.99%). Ever visit a webpage and right click and save as.. Copyright infringement. Ever forward an e-mail with cute photos? Copyright infringement. Ever use file save web page complete? Ever forward a cute joke online? Copyright infringement. Ever save a photo as a desktop background? Copyright infringement. Oh, ever find a background MIDI file on a page and save it? Copyright infringement.

Of photographers, joke writers, and music publishers, only music and movie producers get to rape the public this badly in the court system.

Can you imagine if Bonsai Kitten had a massive lawsuit campaign? Or how about your other um.. photo collection from the web?

Do you know anybody online who hasn't done any online copyright infringement? (not just music, anything copyrighted)

One Lawsuit to Rule Them All!

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

... and somehow, I doubt it will be successful - if it is, it'll be due to some sort of freak accident with a bad guy turned good ...

short and sweet...

[pig-power]

Go Tanya!! hmmm...April Fools Day??

I don't get it...

[cayenne8]

Where is the April Fool's joke in all of this??

For that matter...where are any April Fools articles?? I hope they're still gonna do them....

Re:I don't get it...

[Brian Gordon]

Scroll down the main page, ray tracing will be implemented in DX11, which will be imlemented in Vista SP2 by the end of the year.

Re:I don't get it...

[autocracy]

Personally, I hope they either get us with one good article, or go Ponies style at around noon. Last year was crap. One stupidly obvious article after another. Most years have just gone off the deep end, really.

Re:I don't get it...

[sm62704]

Well, I submitted an article about using thiotimoline for space exploration but it's either pending or rejected.

I tried. Sorry.

Re:I don't get it...

[0111 1110]

Where is the April Fool's joke in all of this?? What makes you think this isn't? I mean, suing the RIAA? Haha. That's a good one.

Re:I don't get it...

[More_Cowbell]

I know it's not what you asked for, but the only decent one I've seen so far:

And for those of you who have google.com/ig as your homepage (and thus initially missed it) there is a much more elaborate one on the standard google.com

Re:I don't get it...

[Buran]

I don't come here to have some "journalists" waste my time. I come here for news. I'm glad they AREN'T BSing us (so far) this year.

good news

[the4thdimension]

It finally looks like the shoe is on the other foot... or however that saying goes.

It's too bad that are likely to buy a vowel, erm.. a law.

Cannibals!

[organgtool]

tried to grill a 10-year-old girl Finally we have proof that the RIAA are cannibals!

Re:Cannibals!

[AioKits]

tried to grill a 10-year-old girl Finally we have proof that the RIAA are cannibals! Unrelated note.... Is 10-year-old girl red wine or white?

Re:Cannibals!

[dreamchaser]

Generally speaking, one treats human as one would treat pork. I would suggest a nice Reisling unless you go with something on the spicy side, in which case a Pinot Grigio works. If it's got a heavy tomato sauce I'd just go with Chianti though, or if it's smoked and has bbq sauce maybe a Shiraz. So, mostly white but sometimes a red.

Re:Cannibals!

[Anonymous Coward]

You've made the faulty assumption the RIAA is composed of human beings!

Re:Cannibals!

[SillySlashdotName]

Damn, I thought it was fava beans?

be sure to read the update at the bottom.

[n3tcat]

Apparently she has to file a 3rd revision now.

Re:be sure to read the update at the bottom.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean this?

New systems generate new problems.

damn right.

[apodyopsis]

Hope this is not an Aprils Fool, its about time somebody tried to roast those fuckers.

And I right that this is one of those situations that she was one of the few people who had a chance of doing this as she already had them in court and could add it in as an amendment?

If Joe Public tried this they would probably be able to block it before they got to court, no?

I just love the irony that they originally tried to block the complaint because it was not detailed enough, and that backfired when it came back as 100+ pages of **AA damming dirty laundry in their faces. Heh Heh.

Re:damn right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope this is not an Aprils Fool, its about time somebody tried to roast those fuckers.

The summary clearly states they want to grill the girl, not roast the fuckers. Geesh, get it right, eh?

TDz.

Obligatory Tolkien spoof

[Anonymous Coward]

Three lawsuits for the Jersey yutes using WiFi,
Seven for the little kids in their third-grade lab,
Nine for college men who share on the sly,
One for the RIAA on its dark throne
In the land of Washington where the lawyers lie.
One suit to end them all, one suit to crush them,
One suit to expose them all and in the courtroom brush them
From the land of Washington where the lawyers lie.

The first thing a court does...

[westlake]

the more interesting provisions in it is in the 18th claim, which seeks to stop the RIAA from 'continuing to engage in criminal investigation of private American citizens'

The first thing a judge does is strip your case down to its essemtials.

The broader the reach and more fanciful your demands, the more quickly they disappear from view.

- - and never faster then when you try to persuade a court to make policy decisions in criminal law when they are hearing a civil case.

I see no constitutional barriers to the launch of a private criminal investigation. There was, after all, no such thing as a paid, professional, police force in the U.S. before 1845. Police History

The Pinkerton Detective - "The eye that never sleeps" - dates from 1850.

Re:The first thing a court does...

[Tenebrousedge]

There are no constitutional barriers, but the RIAA has been using MediaSentry as an investigative service in states that MediaSentry is not licensed to be such, AFAIK.

Re:The first thing a court does...

[TubeSteak]

the more interesting provisions in it is in the 18th claim, which seeks to stop the RIAA from 'continuing to engage in criminal investigation of private American citizens'
...
- - and never faster then when you try to persuade a court to make policy decisions in criminal law when they are hearing a civil case.

I see no constitutional barriers to the launch of a private criminal investigation. There was, after all, no such thing as a paid, professional, police force in the U.S. before 1845. Police History I think you're slightly confused.
Not having a Private Investigator license makes those investigations criminal.

The claim is that the RIAA lables are engaging in investigations that are criminal.
NOT that the record labels are engaged in investigating criminal acts.

Re:The first thing a court does...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be modded higher. I was going to point out that distinction but you beat me there.

The RIAA lawsuits are a civil matter and basically, what they're doing (and yes, other people's position on this point may be different) is collecting information that their rights have been invaded.

For this silly claim 18 to be taken seriously, the judge will essentially have to decide either (a) that the RIAA's information collection practices are criminal and thus, by virtue of collecting the information of people violating their IP rights they're doing something bad, which is basically not going to happen because you know what, having a server that collects IPs of people downloading stuff that's not theirs to download isn't going to be ruled illegal since hello, you're only going to be collected if you're downloading stuff you didn't have a right to download (que the people who will make up fantastic and unsupported error rates for the information gathering), that subpoenaing these internet providers to obtain information that in most ISP contracts you're allowing them to release (read that fine print saying you're not going to use the service or anything illegal or violate any copyright) is illegal, etc.

Or (b) that by virtue of doing any investigation, the RIAA is acting illegally, and they're going to have an uphill basis with that claim. Gathering information about who's doing you wrong isn't criminal, and if it was, then the RIAA could make an argument that all of these idiots trying to gather the source code for their data collection software (oh, we just want to make sure their data collection practices are sound by exposing the source code to the public and NOBODY would ever think of using that information to make a simple software program to bypass those collection practices) are basically doing their own half-assed illegal investigation.

Oh, the RIAA is doing something bad (in protecting intellectual property rights that are assigned to them by all historical protections and those wonderful politicians who pass laws), but we have no proof and so we're filing frivolous claims to get as much information as possible so we can see what it is that they've done that's wrong...

Re:The first thing a court does...

[westlake]

For this silly claim 18 to be taken seriously, the judge will essentially have to decide

(a) that the RIAA's information collection practices are criminal...
(b) that by virtue of doing any investigation, the RIAA is acting illegally...
[c] the RIAA is doing something bad (in protecting intellectual property rights that are assigned to them...but we have no proof and so we're filing frivolous claims to get as much information as possible so we can see what it is that they've done that's wrong

The judge narrows claims to the specific - definable - actions which injured you. You almost never get the chance to frame yourself as a member of an injured class or to paint the defendant's misconduct with the broadest of brushes.

Re:RIAA

[sm62704]

God damn it somebody please mod that as TROLL. The link goes to the NIMP thing. For that matter why can't anything pointing to a known trojan be filtered out??

THIS comment is offtopic. The above comment is dangerous to your computer. I have to hand it to the asshat who posted it, he managed to make the status bar report that the link was to yahoo, and somehow overcame the slashcode that reports a link's domain at the end of the link.

Message from music-listening public

[MECC]

You're already dead. Please find a grave to lie in already.

I hope the countersuits hold water

[thogard]

I run a web site that provides free hosting to bands that I think have a clue and my site has been banned by many universities because of the RIAA which has resulted in the bands not getting gigs in the US and other countries. From my point of view, the RIAA's actions are purely to prevent additional competition.

April 1st, court hearing.

[tomd123]

Judge: How does the Jury find the defendant (RIAA). Jury: Not Guilty. Judge: Fine, then ... (Jury Interrupts) Jury: Hold on a second ... APRIL FOOLS!!!!!!!!!

Re:RIAA

[Dan541]

The link goes to the NIMP thing. For that matter why can't anything pointing to a known trojan be filtered out?? / Because then the next article would be "Slashdot censors users!"

Extortion?

[pcfixup4ua]

IANAL, but could what the RIAA be engaged in constitute extortion? I.E. You settle this civil lawsuit, and we won't get the government to prosecute you.

Re:Extortion?

[Omnedon]

"That's a nice house you've got there. Be a shame if you had to mortgage it it pay legal costs."

Re:Extortion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well DUHH.

They're a corporate entity with countless millions of dollars in the bank. For people like that, we call it "asserting their rights" and "enforcing the law". Terms like "extortion" or "harassment" are applied to the little people like you and me.

Also remember other streams

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from CD sales, artists can make money from live concerts and t-shirts. An artist that never sells a single CD can still gain exposure through filesharing that would encourage people to pay for the live shows.

uuuhhhhh....

[Dharkfiber]

uuhhh... April Fools?

Fairy Tales

[Kryptic Knight]

"This legal argument is TOO SHORT!" said the big bad RIAA
and after much reading "this legal argument is TOO LONG" they decried.

"Ah .. but this legal argument is JUST RIGHT" and it grinned as it said it .. "yes .. just right for us."

One lawsuit to stop them all...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else see the title and think this?

One lawsuit to stop them all,
One lawsuit to find them,
One lawsuit to bring them all,
and in the darkness bind them.

Re:One lawsuit to stop them all...

[trooper9]

Yup. Already had most of your post typed out before I saw you had it up already....

Re:RIAA

[znerk]

I have to hand it to the asshat who posted it, he managed to make the status bar report that the link was to yahoo, and somehow overcame the slashcode that reports a link's domain at the end of the link. I'm going to help you out, here, and point out the "rds" at the beginning of the URL. This is an indication that the link is actually to yahoo's redirection service, and the true url is referenced at the end of the link. if your status bar is too short to display the whole link, well, I can't help you there. On the other hand, it was quite clear to me that the link actually points to "RIAA(dot)ON(dot)NIMP(dot)ORG" (obfuscated to keep slashdot from cheerfully turning *mine* into a link).

In other words, keep your hat on, and don't hand the above-mentioned asshat anything. That dinkus doesn't even deserve the term "script kiddie", much less "hacker"... although you may want to check your browsing habits, if you only look at the first 3 "dots" in a URL to determine if it's safe.

Beware the Ministry of Truth!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rebel against the ministry of truth!

Re:RIAA

[sm62704]

I'm not up to par today, didn't sleep well last night. Actually I'm pretty close to retarded right now.

If I was more motivated I'd look at the source for the comment, but I have a lot of stuff on my mind.

Thanks for the comment, it was informative.

Well, that's something good.

[wattrlz]

At least it will help with global warming.

Re:Hookers and Blow

[fahrbot-bot]

Find anyone in a position of power that has done a lot of cocaine, and they will always have a disconnect from reality in which they always believe they are just and right in their ambitions, regardless of the facts presented to them.

So you've read W's diary.

I went to so much trouble, too :(

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they'd have some. Maybe they really are skipping it this year? Or else they'll spring something on us, later. Because no one will get to read them now, here are the stories I made up. Oh, I also invented two semi-plausible things that I put in stories I don't have copies of. A "meaning checker" that would work like a spelling or grammar checker. It would do things like replace two with 2 and too with also then have you read the sentence to make sure the words you used had the right meaning.

The other story was about ways to DoS the Great Firewall of China from outside. You can, in theory, overload the content filter parts. If they're too busy to forge RST packets (or they don't forge them in time), that part of the Great Firewall won't work. You can also create false positives. So you can send packets containing banned content into China to create false positives (and tell that it's working by watching for forged RSTs). And you can reflect it by using OS bugs that sometimes reply with parts of the original packet (e.g. pings), which could allow you to create millions of false positives for them to investigate. Unlike most things, those allow outsiders to interfere, who have no worry about being arrested by the Chinese government. Of course, they would adapt things to filter them out, but hopefully that would accidentally create more openings in it by filtering out too much, creating new opportunities.

Those might even work, so I hope someone follows up on them :) Note that I wrote them all as I Believe in Irrational Property instead of I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property. Here they are:

RIAA Yacht Copied in Daring Act of Piracy

In a what the Coast Guard is calling a 'daring act of nautical infringement,' pirates have copied RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol's personal yacht. After attacking with high speed inner tubes, they quickly made off with the data necessary to exactly duplicate the ship and vanished, but not before leaving behind an NFO with a pirate flag and a threat to 'rip' former RIAA chief Hillary Rosen's ship next. The RIAA is now demanding that the US Government issue Letters of Marquee and Reprisal so that they can prosecute these pirates under a little-known provision of copyright law governing ship designs as well as Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.

Microsoft Seeks Partnership With IKEA

After being spurned by Yahoo, Microsoft is seeking to acquire the furniture maker IKEA. Microsoft's Ballmer was quoted as saying, 'They have many assets I can use for leverage in pursuit of future acquisitions.' The deal appeared to get off to a bit of a rough start when Ballmer's tour of one of their factories was cut short after what authorities are describing as a 'bizarre furniture-related mishap,' in which three VPs who opposed to the deal were hospitalized. Authorities are not releasing many details, but one officer made the cryptic comment that, 'I didn't think even Bob Goatse could do that with a chair.' Even so, inside reports indicate that the remaining company officers are now 'very eager' to finalize the deal.

SCO Lawsuit Was Really "Performance Art"

SCO's D

"Stealing" is incorrect

[Quila]

Let's start with the baseline:

You do not own the text of the book you write. It is not your property. It is knowledge, it cannot be property. In this country there is no natural right, no ownership at the moment of creation, of such works -- they belong to everyone by default.

However, to encourage people to create such works, the Constitution authorized the granting of a limited monopoly right to them. They belong to the public, but for a limited time (was 14 years) you have certain rights to those works that nobody else has. With some exceptions (Fair Use, etc.), only you have the rights to reproduction, performance, etc.

By the very concept and definition, it is not stealing, it is not theft. It is infringement on that granted limited monopoly right.

Out of court settlements

[Quila]

Part of the complaint is that many innocent people will settle out of court in order to avoid being financially ruined by the RIAA in court. That doesn't necessarily include judgment -- the fees during trial are enough to ruin most people.

Not a chance

[Quila]

Barring future lawsuits is a serious last-resort for the courts. Jack Thompson has been abusing the courts for years, and only now has the court decided to tell him he must have another attorney sign-off on any actions. He can still sue, he just can't do it himself.

The worst (best for us) I see happening for the RIAA is they are ordered to change tactics: their investigators must be licensed, the collection centers shut down or tactics changed, no more dropped John Doe suits, and they must have prima facie evidence before bringing suit, etc.

That's a good thing. I wouldn't want any copyright holder barred from defending his copyrights.

The RIAA dumped The Tubes a long time ago

[Quila]

They were pretty much only a one-hit-wonder with "Beauty."

Re:The RIAA dumped The Tubes a long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

What about "White Punks on Dope" and "What Do You Want From Life?"?

Stop sniffing glue and put down the crack-pipe!

[rts008]

"But you have stolen Mr. King's labor..."

Mr King's amount and intensity of labor is the same to write the book whether I download his book or buy it in Wal-mart.

Now if I download it, I may have infringed on someones copyright, but I have not stolen anything.

Re:Stop sniffing glue and put down the crack-pipe!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Now if I download it, I may have infringed on someones copyright, but I have not stolen anything.
You say that as though that somehow makes copyright infringment OK.

Re:RIAA

[Homer's Donuts]

Opendns caught that one for me.

Re:RIAA

[FreakyLefty]

A while ago when trolls were abusing Google's "I Feel Lucky" button somebody posted some javscript that would warn you of it. I can't remember who it was, so I can't give credit where it's due, but it also works for the nimp trolls too.

http://smart.dur.ac.uk/andy/stuff/trollbegone.js

RTFA

[scubamage]

Seriously, as much as I appreciate the obligatory RIAA hatred, this has nothing to do with the actual article. The actual article claims that Anderson and Lybeck are disobeying a judge's strict orders to amend their complaint in accordance with local rules of law. Whats strange is that I've seen legal complaints hundreds of pages long, some over a thousand. This judge seems to be perturbed about only 108 pages. I they don't follow the judge's rules this case won't exist much longer.

Re:RIAA

[sm62704]

Thanks, I DLed it and will look at the code when I get done with my eye operation Thursday. Just letting it sit there for now.

You can say that, again . . . and again . . . and

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time there is a discussion about the RIAA, inevitably someone types up a post regarding how shitty the music is these days, and that they would actually purchase music, if the the RIAA bothered to put out anything good. Thought I can't understand why, it is also inevitable that these posts get mod points. (Maybe the moderators are all sheep who can't think for themselves?) Usually these posts are made by people who have absolutely nothing to add to the discussion, so they figure this is a good way to get a few mod points.

So, you just keep regurgitating lies for easy karma YOU FUCKING KARMA WHORE!!

Hmmm . . . sounds like you already made this point before. And you even got a score:5 for it!! Do you post that every time there is a discussion about the RIAA? Is that all you have to say about the topic? I'm sure I would find even more if I had access to more of your history. Well, like the artists you listen to, you just keep following that formula, it seems to work for you.

You do realize Metallica has been a bunch of sell-outs ever since they released that piece of shit the Black Album, don't you? They sucked ever since. So why, if Metallica writes the music, and Metallica performs the music, and Metallica approves of the sound mix of the master tapes and Metallica decides to release said music on a new Metallica album, why is it the RIAA's fault? It's not the RIAA's fault. Don't go buying it and then complain about the RIAA; They didn't write that crap. Why don't you blame the responsible parties - Metallica for writing/recording/releaseing that shit, and yourself for being stupid enough to buy it.

So, OK, now we agree that Metallica sucks, but that doesn't mean every other artist/band does. Open your eyes a little bit. There's a wealth of good music out there today. You just aren't smart enough to know where to go to find it. Well, here's a hint: you're not going to find it by listening to the pop hits station on the radio, or by watching the lastest videos on MTV.

You know, it doesn't exactly give you too much credibility. I mean, if you're dumb enough to go buy the latest Metallica CD, do you really think you ought to be complaining about the state of music in general? Yeah, it kind of makes you sound like a clueless dick.

Umm, I'm confused..

[cheros]

As someone who's never illegally flown a commercial airplane into a building on US soil

There's actually a legal way to do this?

Re:Umm, I'm confused..

[Tom]

Theoretically, yes. But the word was more included to stay as close to the original as possible.

Hm. With permission of both the owner of the plane and the building, there might be. Not sure if it would violate any aviation laws.