Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BusinessWeek Takes On the RIAA

Posted by kdawson on from the palpable-hit dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "BusinessWeek magazine has gone medieval on the RIAA, recounting in grisly detail the cruel ordeal to which the RIAA has subjected a completely innocent defendant, Tanya Andersen of Oregon. Nobody can read the story and come to any other conclusion than that the RIAA and its lawyers are total jerks. Of course we've been reading about Atlantic v. Andersen on p2pnet.net and on my blog, and discussing it here, but there's something extra special about a mainstream publication like Business Week really letting them have it."

9 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It would be a good thing... by jnmontario · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would have to agree. As a consumer, I avoid, if I can, businesses whose sales tactics/merchandise irritates me. This sometimes 'paints me into a corner' where my stubborn streak of punishing businesses means I forgo their product entirely. It drives my wife insane....I find it amazing she sticks with me.

  2. Let's Stand Up - A Call to Action (mildly O/T) by rathehun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reading through this story, it continues to shock me -- not what asshats the RIAA etc are -- but that we here, at the collective hive-mind that is Slashdot, haven't already come up with a way to help people wrongly being prosecuted by them and their sleazy lawyers.

    There seems to be a clear pattern to their targets - people who know relatively little about technology and who are more likely to settle than battle it out in courts. I'd argue that we need to help these people out.

    About halfway down the story, the defendant, Tanya Andersen is said to have looked up information online, hoping to find information on similiar cases.

    Why don't we, through /., set up a site, aggregate information about similiar cases and build up a body of evidence to "[...] show that the RIAA engaged in serial bad-faith lawsuits [...]". In the long run, the space could serve as a place for debate on the current copyright regime, the inflated monetary value assigned to the songs/movies downloaded, etc.

    I'm sure that some of us here are lawyers as well - maybe some time could be spent decoding the various court documents/legal stuff that the RIAA sends out - a distributed legal advice centre (cue Beowulf joke)...

    This is just an idea, of course - but I'd be happy to get involved in whatever way I can. I have some small amount of expertise in building websites - perhaps that's the first place to start...

    1. Re:Let's Stand Up - A Call to Action (mildly O/T) by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why don't we, through /., set up a site, aggregate information about similiar cases and build up a body of evidence to "[...] show that the RIAA engaged in serial bad-faith lawsuits [...]".

      Because that would take away from precious time ogling the latest Star Trek film or signing petitions to stop Uwe Boll from making movies. d:

      All jokes aside, if you are serious about such a project, then figure out what you need to do it technologically - is the site going to use PHP? Would you just do it easy and go with Wikimedia? etc.

      Once you have a rough plan, you would have to find people with the talents you need who are willing to help on their free time. Projects like this (ones where people don't get paid) often have staff members that abandon ship faster than a rowboat full of Cuban refugees at the Florida coast. Anyone working on it would have to document/comment everything appropriately so their inevitable successor can continue their work.

      What can you do? Well, if you wanted to fill the ambiguous position of "Project Lead", you can start by registering a .com and getting some decent hosting for the site. Again, you'll need a plan ahead of time aside from a few paragraphs in a /. comment to get some people to get on board with the project.

      Is theriaaareabunchofthievingbastards.com taken? It might be too long, but it makes the point...

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  3. Saw the future last night by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yesterday I heard about Nine Inch Nails new album (Ghosts) on NPR. I visited the band homepage, paid $5 (yes $5) via paypal, and downloaded the new album in FLAC. I didn't have to install a special software client (this turned me away from the amazon store), didn't have to use a centralized service, didn't have to create an "account" with a new password I'll never remember, nothing. Buy and enjoy. I'll admit I have downloaded unauthorized copies in the past. But at $5, which mostly goes straight to the artist, what is the excuse?

  4. Re:Contradictions by Snocone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    False analogy.

    Carjacking is theft. Downloading is copyright violation.

    The difference is that theft deprives the owner of use of the original.. Copyright violation does not.

    An unfalse analogy would be "Should someone who constructs a fibreglass replica of my Lamborighini, violating Lambo's design copyright, be treated less harshly than a carjacker of my Lamborghini, because he never would have actually bought the car at market value?" To which the answer, to any sane person, is "Well, duh."

  5. Interesting choice of words by lysse · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Mr Gabriel, for the RIAA, asserts that:

    we could have pursued the case until the end of time.
    That's interesting in itself, considering that most people who engage in litigation only pursue a case until they win; is he in fact implicitly admitting that the RIAA could not have won the case, merely strung it out for as long as it took to bankrupt everyone else involved?
  6. Re:It would be a good thing... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The trick is to start with something easy to avoid. Thanks to torrentz i can avoid buying all RIAA much, i do rarely go out to by music from indie lables tho.
    What id quite like is somebody to produce a scanner that lists all non-RIAA music in my collection so i can go and buy the albums the RIAA doesn't "protect".
    The problem is when you start trying to apply ethics to buying your snacks & drinks. Think Ms has a monopoly, look at coke. Snacks while not bieng as owned by 1 company are instead owned by 2/3 companies, but atleast they make it obvious so its easier to avoid say nestle than coke (coke, fanta, oasis, powerade, etc)

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  7. Re:It would be a good thing... by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Additionally, if you're currently benefiting from what an artist did ten years ago, for instance by listening to a song he performed, why would it be unfair for him to be compensated for it?

    Good idea. I like to paint. I say I start charging people every time they look at my paintings. Why should authors and musical artists be the only ones who get paid for the same work over and over again?

    --
    I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
  8. Me too, me too! by Akita24 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now that all the innocent people have been ass-raped, had their lives ruined, fought the good fight, these assclowns crawl out of the woodwork and say "bad RIAA, no cookie!" Where were you fucks (the media) when there was work to be done or your comments might have saved thousands from extortion? They don't give a shit about anything but making a buck now that it's "news." As far as I'm concerned the leeches at Business Week (and the other news media) are just as guilty as the RIAA. They didn't do their job reporting something of great importance to a lot of people until it was safe, profitable and the trendy thing to do. Journalism seems to have gotten flushed down the toilet along with anything even resembling corporate ethics a long time ago.