Slashdot Mirror
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."
My blog
Go Tanya!! hmmm...April Fools Day??
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.
>> 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.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
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.
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).
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
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.
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.
We are all just people.
"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.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
What about "White Punks on Dope" and "What Do You Want From Life?"?