Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Says "Wanna Fight? It'll Cost You!"
jeiler writes "Ars has the details on an RIAA strategy to double the cost of settling copyright infringement suits for students who try to quash the group's subpoenas in court. In a nutshell: settle early, pay $3,000; try to quash the subpoena and the settlement cost rises to $8,000."
If half the RIAA's claims are as bogus as some say they are, the cost to settle shouldn't matter. Because you should win if you haven't done anything wrong. Right?
Right?
This can't possibly be a frosty.
How is this different from any other type of corporate lawsuit? Raising settlement costs if the other party prolongs the case is hardly new.
How is this not racketeering and extortion? I mean, c'mon...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
and prolong the fight, and if loses, declare bankruptcy.
...you ignore their notices and force *them* to bring *you* to court? You can claim you never got the notices. Not showing up at court at all is harder, because (I'm pretty sure) you can get arrested.
I understand that raising the cost of settling out of court is meant to deter people from fighting in the first place, but considering the ludicrous fines they expect people to pay, it's a little too low. Looks to me like they're just trying to highlight their low, low prices, to avoid people setting a precedent in court, against them.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Excluding the illegal downloads arena (which I know is what they're suing over), I think half the problem is the *AA not keeping up with technology.
At home I have a sizeable DVD collection (around 230 at last count), but with the release of Blu-Ray I'm starting to realize that my collection will eventually be obsolete (such as when DVD first came out, and people with a reasonable VCR collection realized that their collection would eventually be worth squat).
I think this is one of the reasons people download (the other reasons being ridiculous prices, etc). People realize that technology changes - CD collections have been superseeded by portable MP3 players (ipod and the likes), VCR's replaced with DVD's which will eventually lose out to blu-ray (once the prices down).
And people realize this - why should you pay for a CD/DVD, which will eventually become obsolete, when you can get what you want in a digital format (for a cheaper price)?
Preventive measure...
1.) Offshore proxy
2.) Encrypt your network traffic
3.) Change your MAC address from factory default if you can
Now let say you got your notice, now you should...
1.) Move your assets offshore, i.e. Carribean, Switzerland, cayman island etc.
2.) Practice your legal rights, especially the fifth amendment and the second amendment of the U.S. constitution.
3.) If all else fails, move to Canada or elsewhere to seek political asylum, claiming POW status, as **AA is basically a war machine against humanity.
"The New Age. The New Beginning."
Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
He's got a point - it can't possible be a frosty, on account of the post made before it.
ResidntGeek
How about tag this story with "fuckoffalready".
Sorry for the language, but I'm just tired of the RIAA shit. It has gone on too long, and is *ridiculous*...
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
This is a civil case. That means it isn't so easy to defend yourself. In a criminal case the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a fairly high standard because it means, just as it says there must be no reasonable doubt that you committed the crime for the jury to convict. That means that the prosecution actually has to prove their case, the defense needn't do anything at all if they don't. Also in a criminal trial, you get a lawyer, even if you can't afford one. Public defenders generally aren't as good as high paid lawyers, but they are lawyers none the less who can help you navigate the complexities of the legal system.
A civil case has a much lower standard, the preponderance of the evidence. More or less that means whoever has the more convincing argument. There can still be reasonable doubt, so long as one side seems to present better evidence, then they win. Also, you aren't given a lawyer, you have to pay for one yourself.
So even if you are innocent, paying the extortion money can be the easy out to take. It'd be real hard to mount a defense for $30,000, much less $3,000. Even if you do, they could still win.
That's the problem here. It isn't one of these "Oh you are innocent so you have nothing to worry about." No, you have a lot to worry about. Either you pay a ton of money to hire a lawyer to try to defend yourself, or you do it all by yourself and almost certainly lose just because you don't understand the legal system.
Isn't this the same strategy DirecTV used against people who had purchased satellite card hacking hardware?
With the RIAA acting like a bull in a china shop, they will not only destroy the loyality of their own customer base ( which will cause the RIAA members to go out of business in the end ),
but they will also cause a lot of collateral damage:
They will, in the long run, cause a lot of political pressure for abolishing copyright law from a large portion of the population, so politicans will eventually abolish copyright in order to be able to win elections.
Now, a complete abolishment of copyright will cause damage because many people who currently use copyright in a reasonable way will not be able to create their products anymore.
Which means that the creation of information-products will be mostly in the hands of the government and to a lesser extent in the hands of hobbyists.
Creation of information-products like books, software etc mostly in the hands of the government is IMHO a dangerous thing because it gives a lot of influential (propagandistic) power to the government. (most politicians will like this, BTW)
Threatening someone to keep them from defending themselves against litigation is illegal. Someone at the RIAA should end up doing time for this.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You know that really doesn't matter if you beat them in court now does it? And given their recent history in court, they're getting stomped. They could put the settlement fee up to a million dollars and it wouldn't matter because nobody should ever settle.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Two words: Legal Insurance.
It costs about $17 a month, and I get hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal cost coverage for most situations. Basically, as long as the case does not involve a vehicle moving violation or is a conflict of interest with my employer (a major grocery chain), I am smilin' all the way to the court house.
I've had the insurance for almost a year now, and I've actually been kind of hoping for an opportunity to sue/counter sue someone... God bless America.
Has anyone compared timelines for these strong arm tactics and profits of the movie, music industries?
If they are able to quash a subpoena in the case, wouldn't it render the case pretty much over right there? With no evidence (which is what the subpoena(s) usually provide), how could the case not be dismissed (read between the lines: no settlement cost at all)?
If it's a traffic ticket, it doesn't get raised if you take it to court and fight it normally. Why have these racketeers not been thrown into prison for this illegality?
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Eight grand is about what I make in a year. For a year's salary, I'd shoot a lawyer in the back of the head, cut them up, pour concrete over them, and toss them off a bridge. (Don't worry, I would never do that to an actual human being.)
So yes, copyright infringement can be criminal. However, the RIAA's evidence is extremely weak, not nearly enough for a criminal case. What's more, not all infringement is criminal, some is civil. Same sort of thing with traffic tickets. Some can be criminal, but many are not. If you get a simple speeding ticket, that's not a criminal ticket, it's a civil one.
Now also many crimes can have a civil component as well. Take a hypothetical situation: Suppose you are the owner of Evil Corp, and my wife works for you. Because you are evil, you don't give two shits about your employees and knowingly put my wife in a very dangerous situation. This causes her death. You end up getting charged with reckless endangerment and plead to manslaughter. Ok, great, however I'm still now a single parent trying to raise kids. Something that might help is some of the vast amount of money Evil Corp has made. So I file a civil suit against you for wrongfully causing her death. I win this, and thus get a large portion of your money.
OJ Simpson had something similar happen. He was acquitted of first degree murder charges. However he lost a civil suit charging him with causing wrongful death.
There's good reason for the system to work like it does, and to have civil and criminal components to a given case. However the RIAA is abusing it. They are trying to use civil suits to be able to go after people on extremely shaky, and often outright incorrect, evidence.
It is certainly a loophole that needs closing, but you have to be careful. While the civil system does allow for things like this, it also gives you the ability to go after people like the hypothetical Evil Corp, and does so even if the DA refuses to bring criminal charges.
Sounds a lot like the flawed thinking that got us into Iraq. Sometimes it's better to surrender and hope for the best rather than get yourself into a fight you have no chance of winning.
What would it cost to hire a lawyer, go to court and win (if winning or the complaint being withdrawn is the likely outcome)?
Would it be more than $3000?
athletes... go after those who are MEN
-1 scary as hell?
Looks more and more like mafia style actions.
...it's not an extortion case or anything.
Jory
Then you are a fucking idiot.
has it occurred to you that it's not just 'the big corps'? It seems that to people like you ANYONE who tries to make a living from software, movies, music or games is part of some silly 'EVIL CORPORATE' group that you have defined as the enemy, despite the fact that probably everything in your house, and everything you wear was made by some corporation, big or small.
Small companies are defended by copyright law just as much as larger ones, in fact more so, because we cant afford tons of lawyers and security measures to defend our stuff. The internet was a *fantastic* opportunity for small companies like mine to get publicity, to get known, and to deal direct with our customers without middlemen and gatekeepers. For the first time ever, a small one man company could create something innovative and sell it globally direct to the people without anyone taking a cut.
And then assholes like you came along and decided for no fucking good reason you would just take everyone's work (including the small guy's) and make it freely available to everyone.
End result...
Small guys crushed out of business, and the big corporates with their retail monopolies are back in power.
nice work asshole.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
This pushes the emphasis back onto social contract: because it is hard to detect a driver's skill, a single standard is set for all, which better drivers are expected to buy into since they believe in society.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Small guys won't be crushed out of business, if they choose a NON-PREHISTORIC BUSINESS MODEL.
Like software customization. Customize free open source software, and rent your worktime instead of selling a product. As long as companies want changes, you'll have a job.
OK, you want to sell music? Make it good, and sell it cheap!!! Just like Radiohead did with In Rainbows(TM). They gave the music for free, higher quality mp3 costed a bit more, and then they sold the limited editions which costed a hundred bucks. Wanna know how much the guys earned? Around a f***ing million dollars. Which is WAY MUCH MORE than if they had sold their souls to the RIAA.
You want to sell books? Sell e-books. And sell them cheap. If they're good, you'll have people from all the world buying them from your online store.
You want to sell games? Give them away and get the profit from game add-ons or a subscription service (it worked for Blizzard. But guess what, if the game creation software you're using is free, your profit will be much greater).
You want to sell movies? Well, you have bad luck because you have to invest thousands of dollars on software because there are no decent Open Source Video Editors that can rival the commercial ones. So what do you do? Push it on the moviegoers with overpriced popcorn and sodas. However, if you make a good movie, the people will tolerate that sh** because the movie's worth it. No matter how much movie piracy there is, you recover all of your investment within the first week in the theaters.
But you could earn even more if you began distributing the movies on DVDs, cheap, and without copy protection of any kind.
If the software and material to make movies becomes easily accessible, then the end product will cost you less to make and you won't have to whine because people keep sharing your precious software, movies, music or games.
The fact this kind of thing isn't blatantly illegal is just another example of how f**ked up this country's legal system is as it gives big business free rides and doesn't give two s**ts about the average person...
i think someone's gonna get hacked again! come on! guess!
unless they paid me money.
When is the RIAA going to finally crack down on people that play music loudly enough to be heard by others? There are many times during the day that I can plainly hear music from other automobiles while on the road and from co-workers radios while at work. This is plainly a violation. Anyone that plays music at a volume that can be heard by others should be charged for a special license to redistribute and violators should be crushed by the full weight of the mighty music industry. I cannot believe these intellectual rights violators have been getting away with this obviously criminal activity for so long!
There's one simple way to stop the RIAA, MPAA, BSA silliness...make the member companies jointly liable for the excesses of the enforcement organization. Apply the same regulations for bill collectors. As long as they're playing by the rules and obeying the law, no problem. But if you're responsible for the actions of a collection agency you hire, you might be a little more selective about who you pick. Likewise if Sony, BMG and the others found themselves exposed to liability, they might lean on RIAA to play by the rules. In fact, I'd be willing to bet RIAA membership would drop significantly overnight.
I had a dispute with Dish Network a couple years ago, they tried to blame an advertising partner for the problem.
It would change the entire outsourcing landscape. If the local hospital is responsible for the actions of outsource contractors, they might think twice before hiring medical transcription services from Abduls Discount Transcription in downtown Pakistan. As long as companies can insulate themselves from liability when trying to cut corners the silliness is going to continue.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It's time to pass a law that basically applies to copywrite infringements of this nature, dealing with music and video.
If the plantiff who is suing loses, they have to pay legal fee's and double their own claims.
So if RIAA was suing Joe Blob of the internet and Harvard law school graduate for 20,000. Joe blob defends himself in court, and wins. RIAA now has to cough up joe blobs time 30kk. Plus, they have to pay back double the asking price at 40k.
They've convinced their Clients this legal service and the lawyers are rackin' up the billable hours.
Realize that an organization (any organization) becomes less self-aware (right hand knows what left hand is doing) as it becomes larger. Once it gets to a certain size, behaviour becomes fragmented--you'll often see one department working at cross purposes to another in the same company.
Ask anybody who's ever worked for the government (even a city government), or a Fortune 100 company.
The answer to the question "Why do they do something that is clearly self destructive?" is that there is no "they", and the folks that are doing the suing know *exactly* what they're doing.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
The free world would never let allow the abolishment of copyright law. Would it not allow for an influx of open sourcing everything? (See Marx and anti-communism materials for more information)
Really what needs to happen is some artists need to unionize and sue the RIAA for not sending the care packages they rightfully deserve for creating the copyrighted material the RIAA is suing the consumer for. If the consumer is lucky, the record companies will buckle when Artists realize the money is in playing concerts, not record sales. Nothing like a Creative Commons License to brighten your day.
...after all, the cost for the lawyers to fly has gone up. And with having to pay to check their boxes upon boxes of evidence, they had no choice.... right???
I'd rather take the $8,000 when I win the case then have to pay $3,000.
The FCC has no control over cable TV. They just have control over broadcast TV. Any rule they make will not legally effect cable TV.
Cartman, behave, or no cheesy poofs for you!
before things get out of control. again our hopes lie with the geek attorney that has done so much single handedly.
joke ofc, with an important dosage of serious in it.
Read radical news here
If were the price of say...a speeding ticket....I believe that this would be more effective. People would probably just pay it because they wouldn't want to deal with the hassle of fighting a $75 fine. Less court fees, more income for the RIAA, and mom, pops, and little joey think twice before dling illegally.
Not that I agree with Imaginary Property Rights but there are more effective, non-assholish ways of doing things.
Physics is imagination in a straight jacket. ~John Moffat
Maybe it's time for some viral civil disobedience. Dual-layer DVD's hold a fair amount of music. Maybe we need to start burning our music collections and leaving them in public places for people to scarf. Hell even a SL-DVD would be enough to get a fair amount out there.
Did a little research and did fine a company in Sweden that offered it:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/28/p2p-insurer-will-pay.html
Don't know how valid that is, but it would also work if a large percentage of downloaders kicked just a few bucks into a slush fund to help people fight if sued.
The above article stated the odds of getting sued at: 1:1840
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
How is that *not* extortion? Someone? Anyone? This is ridiculous. These boys have to go down!
Think about it from a lawyer's standpoint. You get a constant stream of income to support a group of very good IP defense lawyers. It's the typical reverse-ambulance-chaser play. You get money in the form of premiums, and then if you can prove bad faith on the part of the RIAA/MPAA you can attempt to recover your fees from a deep pocketed organization. Sounds like a good double-dip option. Somebody contact NYCL and a couple of startup investors. In fact, if you can get a few universities to add $19/student/year to their fees (it's a drop in the bucket when tuition is topping $30-40k), you might be able get startup funds from just a proposed team of lawyers, especially if you can kick in support for the Uni against subpoenas if they cover all their students with a policy. As long is you incorporate, if for some reason you lose miserably, you just shut down the company and let the losses die with the corporation.
I want in on this at the ground floor.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The movie companies consistently advertise movies for DVD (and now Blue-Ray) with the tag-line, "OWN it today!" This is a LIE! According to them, you don't OWN IT.
You instead have purchased a license to view the movie on approved devices from the supplied media within the limits that they stipulate.
Their advertisements should have to have the tag-line, "Buy a license to view on approved hardware from the supplied media within the confines of our stipulations Today!"
Wow! That sounds so exciting. Can't wait to "Own it"...Oh, wait, I mean "License It Today!" Yay!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Here's the question: suppose you get *AA letter and you try to fight it. At some point, you will be served with a search warrant, right?
Does that give them the right to ruffle thru ALL your disk files and try to find 'further crimes' ?
Suppose you have a DVD collection that you ripped for your home theater PC. Technically, that implies you broke the law - using non-plastic DVD's to watch movies on, having ripped them to hard disk.
This is what I wonder about, in terms of this whole RIAA/MPAA thing being a scare tactic. How many people are 100.0% guilt free when it comes to having NO copies of your DVD ripped to disk or an audio cd converted to mp3 or maybe even 1 or 2 songs that you can't show the original CD to?
I assume that if you take their threatening letter to court, they will invade your home and 'discover' whatever you have on ANY of your drives. Is that not true? And, can that, alone, be enough of a chilling effect not to want to even TRY to fight any letters you receive and simply just pay-up to make the trouble go away?
Utter and complete bullshit, and what's really sad is that I'm not surprised. Being sued, right or wrong, shouldn't be about how much money you have to defend yourself, damnit, especially when you're faced with a terrorist organization like the RIAA. Fucking bastards!
Now if you don't believe that you need the original media, I think that the *AA will disagree with you there.
The other bad thing is that if you get your files from an artist's website, they'll probably have you by the applicable body parts, which is what I'm personally worried about since I don't have traceable documentation for where I've gotten each and every mp3 that I have. All said artist has to do is to remove the files from their site, and they have a case against you.
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
How long before they get a nut with something to prove?
Why pay $3,000 - $8,000 extortion, or $30k on up to defend yourself when for much less you can stalk the RIAA lawyer outside the courtroom and blow his head off?
(Not condoning violence, but I know there's more than a few "unbalanced" people in this country and I see the RIAA eventually catching one with their wide nets).
For God's sake, stop buying music from RIAA members. I stopped contributing to their bottom lines a long time ago.
I've never seen an industry that actively sues its own consumers, often wrongly with nothing more than weak circumstantial evidence. It's common sense that biting the hand that feeds you is just plain stupid.
The record companies have been obsoleted by technology, and they know it. They didn't understand how to leverage technology to their benefit. What they are doing is a desperate attempt to stick around a little longer. It wouldn't bother me a bit if all record companies go belly up.
I have never to do a stupid to download a illegal music staff and RIAA only do suing who do download a illegal staff off.
Gallon of gasoline: around $4.00
Bag of packing peanuts:$10.00
Plastic bucket to mix in:$2.50
Bic Lighter:$1.00
Baseball bat at thrift store:$1.00
Ride to executive offices of **AA near you $?.00
O.K lets dance *ssh*les!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
i am down to only 3 albums for the entire year, never bothered re-importing my (entirely legal) collection of CDs when i upgraded my computer.
my ipod died right around the time the RIAA filed their 200k lawsuit, and i hate the music industry so much that i just don't listen any more. music is just not cool. i don't want to be hauled in to court in 10 years over my teenage daughter's music sharing.
if you want this to stop, come to realize that music and movies actually SUCK because of the people complicit in implementing Taliban punishments for minor copyright infringements.
professional art can be a thing of the past for all i care. they are a waste of your time, and if we don't put the RIAA's backers out of business we will eventually end up being sued because of one of our kids sharing a song with his friend - which is ironic because radio broadcasts music in the hope that people hear it.
"Down with fucking safety nazi shitheads!"
I will have to remember that one, next time a "I don't believe in intellectual property" nazi starts to argue with me.
The RIAA and MPAA admitted publicly a couple of months ago that these lawsuits represent a money loss of millions per year. Even though they are ostensibly suing for the purpose of "recovering lost revenue", the suits have not been making them any money at all. They have been a huge cost.
That still doesn't make it "not racketeering". Here are several large companies, ostensibly in competition, which have banded together for the common cause of extorting money (even if the act of increasing fees, is not extortion, the rest of their methods have been) out of people who, in a reasonable world, would probably "owe" them $0.20 to $2.00 for royalties.
And if that's not racketeering, I don't know what is.
the title of the article is concerning. putting fake words in the mouth of an individual or entity just isn't done in any news agency.
isn't slashdot's mantra "news for nerds, stuff that matters"?
ps. i think the riaa stinks too, but such tactics arent lazy
This article reminds me exactly why I'm boycotting the RIAA record labels.
Every time I think I might go back to purchasing their music, they offer me plenty of reasons not to.
Read a traffic ticket someday. They have fields for criminal and civil complaints, and different language. With a civil ticket it will say something along the lines of "Without admitting responsibility... etc," for a criminal ticket it'll say "Without admitting guilt... etc." Criminal proceedings are to establish guilt, civil are to establish responsibility.
Or if you don't believe me, here's a Justice Court page about "Civil Traffic Violations": http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/justiceCourts/CourtsAndSections/trafficviolations/civiltrafficviolations.asp
Please don't shoot off your mouth and call someone wrong if you haven't researched the background. Law is a complex field.
If this isn't blackmail, actionable under RICO, then we should just void all of those laws as being totally useless.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
"But you could earn even more if you began distributing the movies on DVDs, cheap, and without copy protection of any kind."
He's just expplained why that isn't an "answer". Can you read? Destroying copyright just hands power to the big guys, to big telcos, and Chinese mafiosos.
I think it's you who needs to get up to date. You're stuck in 1998.