Slashdot Mirror
Judge Refuses To Sign RIAA 'Ex Parte' Order
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA just can't get enough of going after University of Maine students, but it appears that the judges in Portland, Maine, may be getting wise to the industry's lawyers' antics. RIAA counsel submitted yet another ex parte discovery order to the Court ('ex parte' meaning 'without notice'), in BMG v. Does 1-11, but this time the judge refused to sign, pointing out that there is no emergency since there is no evidence that records are about to be destroyed [PDF]. This is the same judge who has previously suggested the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against the RIAA lawyers, accusing them of gamesmanship."
Even if you are innocent or think you have a good chance of being found not guilty, the time it will take out of your life, possibly having your good name tarnished and hurting your job or chances of income, the negativity on your credit to have a judgment against you, etc is enough to have people settle for a few thousand dollars they should not have had to pay.
The RIAA and their lawyers have one thing that most defendants don't have - bags of money to fund these suits. The goal isn't to win - those who fight the charges have shown that the RIAA doesn't have much of a leg to stand on - but to drag the cases to a settlement where they get some money.
I don't think they would give this up - even with a string of defeats, they will eventually find a friendly judge or get enough laws passed in their favor to protect their antiquated business model.
My Sysadmin Blog
I would love to see people stand up, but years of seeing the **AAs, have made me pessimistic. Most will probably not stand up for their rights, because it is easier and less risky to just pay the $3k of protection fees.
And how many people are actually innocent?
;D
I don't see the issue in that a few innocent people may get caught, I see the issue in that we are all criminals
(And I think it's to late for them to fix it, all crimes of copyright infrigement should just be statute-barrred.)
With all that has been going on with these cases, there has been tons of money thrown down the drain through court costs and layers fees. Most of it on the side of the recording industry. They haven't made any dent in which accounts for anything. I understand going after legitimate pirates who attempt to profit from shared distribution. People like that need to be jailed. With the industries failure to create a viable model of distribution within the digital age, I start to ask are they spending all their time on lawsuits while hoping the internet is a passing fad? I think it's time they wake up to reality and take a good look at what is already available and accept it. Acceptance can be a bitch sometimes but what else can you do sometimes, right? RIAA, please just move on. This is getting embarrassing.
But our justice system was founded on the principles of you are innocent until proven guilty, with a RIAA case, it is the exact opposite, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are innocent, rather then the RIAA prove you are guilty. And some of the people have gotten fines put on them for very little solid evidence and all the evidence wasn't even enough to convict them (so someone had a few songs in their shared folders, but they can't even prove they are or were being shared!).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I'm waiting for the RIAA to claim infringement against something they don't actually represent the copyright (or mechanical license) to. One thing Copyright Law does a pretty good job of, is protecting you (the copyright holder) from other parties claiming your work as your own (and using that claim as a basis for litigation).
I keep hoping they screw this up, and claim to represent some independent songwriter who will then press criminal charges.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Here come the (-1 Troll) mods... Sig embarrassingly related.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
> And how many people are actually innocent?
Everyone is, until proven guilty.
(Though you have a great point about criminalizing large segments of the population for profit.)
It's as tough as the other question I keep wondering about with these characters:
"How mean and how heartless can someone who was born of a human mother be?" Each time I think I've seen how low they can sink, they find some way to sink even lower.
These questions are simply unanswerable.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
More specifically, if the prosecutor loses they should have to pay. If the defendant loses, lawyer fees are paid by their respective parties. Wouldn't want the RIAA to have all their cases handed to them for free.
In China they have laws which everyone has to break to conduct business. The government uses these laws to arrest / imprison / execute whomever they feel like for whatever reason they feel like - if everyone is guilty of breaking the law, "innocent until proven guilty" becomes a moot point. Local officials use them to extort bribes from the populace. There's enormous potential for abuse of such laws.
But is the offer to share the same thing as sharing?
To overuse a car analogy, if you buy a car that can go >110MPH (basically the highest legal speed limit), are you guilty of speeding? And should the DMV just fine every driver for speeding anyhow, since I'm sure 99% of all drivers during their lives have exceeded the speed limit (even by 1MPH... or inadvertently, going downhill, for instance)?
Just because you could, doesn't mean you did. More likely than not, the car in your driveway can exceed the speed limit. Why don't you explain why you have it, since you can be speeding?
Sorry, but I am a conscientious objector. I do not share music, I refuse to buy any more CDs, instead, I rely on the massive compilation I collected in the 80s and 90s, and in the event that I just HAVE to have the latest Fall Out Boy single, I buy it on iTunes since I have the disposable income. But generally, if it's not on the radio, I refuse to continue to fund the economic terrorists that represent the RIAA and I pretty much eliminate "pop music" from my life as an objection to the RIAAs business practice. In effect, I'm a well-to-do Gen-Xer who votes with my wallet.
I take issue with this heap o' crap because the RIAA is trying to criminalize MY behaviour. They fight against fair use and try to prevent me from transferring my CD collection to my iPod. They fight to criminalize my sharing" or music between my own media devices... the two tivos and 5 computers I own and share within my home.
I abhor any and all court cases that imply that all potential "infringers" are guilty until proven innocent, as this represents a stereotypical assumption that the "criminals" are young kids who "rip off" the establishment through their deeds.
This straw man argument actually DENIES my ability to vote with my wallet, as the courts presume that criminal violations have undermined the RIAAs business, when in fact, my boycott of their goods contributes to their market failure. However, my "voting with my wallet" is misrepresented as a "crime against the RIAA" that has cost them loss of revenue.
Criminalization of a "loss of revenue" is an undue burden on our society and must not be tolerated.
What I've always liked:
Loser pays the winner the cost of the loser's lawyer fees. (As well as their own lawyer fees, obviously.)
If the winner had to fork over ten million to win, and the loser paid ten thousand, then the winner gets ten thousand of it back. If the loser paid ten million and still lost, and the winner could only afford ten thousand, congrats, mr. winner now has $9,990,000.
I'm sure it's horribly flawed in some way. But it's also beautifully poetic.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
But for $12.99 you get songs that you can only listen too on your computer or "approved devices". Of course, you can rip the streams but then you might as well just pirate since you are once again a dirty outlaw.
I think that while you have an excellent point, when you pay money I think that most people would expect an experience that is superior to not paying money. Rhapsody certainly makes it easier to find music than the pirate methods, but it is a lot harder to use your music once you get it.
I think that the original poster has a point - to get the same level of convenience as the pirate product, I expect the studios would be looking for more than the $12.99/month that Rhapsody gets.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Playing the devil's advocate here (hence AC), it's not really the same thing.
Having files in a publically shared folder demonstrate *intent* to share. That is, if another computer were to request the files, they would get them.
Intent counts here, I think, because it is the last action required on behalf of the person. You would find a person equally liable if, for example, they had scheduled a computer to send out slanderous materials at a given time. The fact that someone discovers the program and stops it before the tort has occured does not entirely eliminate the defendant's liability.
I agree that no copyright infringement has occured in this situation (and thus, statutory damages should be out of the question), but I would find it to be an actionable civil tort.
If you contacted a supermarket chain and offered them copies of Britney Spears' latest album so they can distribute them all over the country, that would be "making available for further distribution" in the sense of copyright law and would be illegal even if the supermarket chain doesn't accept your offer. If you offer the same album to ten thousand private citizens to download and keep, that is not "making available for further distribution" in the sense of the copyright law, even though the RIAA claims it is. As long as nobody accepts your offer and downloads the album, nothing illegal has happened.
I've often heard it said that those in the legal profession are the ones who carry out responsibilities that were once held by kings and nobles. The RIAA's only fault is confusing kings and nobles with vindictive gods.
You can't buy music from Rhapsody, you can only rent it. Rhapsody is more like a jukebox than buying a CD.
I get unlimited music for free, and legal. I have this device called a "radio", you might have heard of it? Its only drawback is that all its music is RIAA music.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Current copyright law (in the US, at any rate, I have no idea what other countries' laws are like), has several problems, but the concept of copyright law itself is perfectly fine. In fact, I would say that it is a (as you put it) natural law, much like laws against rape, murder, destruction of property, etc.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I can't believe how well you guys have summed it up.
Thankfully, though, it appears we've entered a new phase. The phase where more and more people are fighting back, and more and more lawyers are jumping into the fray.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Any system where you have to have money in order to sue or defend yourself in court is horribly flawed, because it exchanges the rule of law for plutocracy. I'm not sure how to fix it, thought; if you simply have the state pay all legal fees, it makes rising nuisance suits even easier than they are now, and might even make making them for hire a new profession.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I think you exaggerate by comparing the ability of our governments to enforce copyright with their ability to control the tide. If it's not within their power to enforce copyright, it isn't within their power to enforce any law. In any case, that isn't what we've been debating. We have been debating the ethics of copyright, not whether or not it's feasible.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Further, I hold that a lack of copyright is unethical and unnatural, because it allows someone to use the work of the author without compensating him (assuming he wishes to be compensated, of course), analagous to giving someone materials and forcing him to make you a table, without pay.
The public should have liberty to build upon others' work, but it should in no way be able to profit from said work without putting any effort forth themselves, nor take said work without compensation. I honestly fail to see how you can call these actions "natural", and condone them. They're natural in the same sense that it's natural to kill a man who angers you, and should be condoned to exactly the same extent.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard