Slashdot Mirror
RIAA May Be Violating a Court Order In California
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of its 'ex parte' cases seeking the names and addresses of 'John Does,' this one targeting students at the University of Southern California, the RIAA obtained an order granting discovery — but with a wrinkle. The judge's order (PDF) specified that the information obtained could not be used for any purpose other than obtaining injunctions against the students. Apparently the RIAA lawyers have ignored, or failed to understand, that limitation, as an LA lawyer has reported that the RIAA is busy calling up the USC students and their families and demanding monetary settlements."
They could...IF that weren't blackmail.
The article's title should read: "RIAA Violating a Court Order in California".
**insert favorite profound quotation here**
This is a country where the congress can reject a bill (auto bailouts for example) just to see the president go ahead and do it anyhow.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Sounds more like a pragmatic solution and better than criminalizing your potential customers via dubious legal processes, such as this one.
...Or legalized racketeering.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Right. Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?
To put it simply, NO. The judge put a very narrow restriction on the information. Any other use is a violation of that restriction. Judges take a dim view of being ignored.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Because if there's one thing students in the US don't have enough of, it's fees.
But seriously, an opt-in fee to benefit the artists sounds like a good compromise, though I think it's safe to say that's not going to happen. It will be a mandatory fee, collected by the universities and deposited into the coffers of Sony BMG, EMI, Warner and Universal without them having to lift a finger. Artists will never see a dime, labels will have a new printing press for cash and students all across America will get screwed.
It's a sad state of affairs when the pessimistic view is synonymous with the realistic.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Free?
I'm Canadian. I pay a levy on all blank media to pay for the possibility that those materials might be used - at some point - to hold copyrighted materials.
I've paid for the content, and I am damn well going to get my money's worth. It is NOT my responsibility to make sure that the money I paid is going to the right hands. I've paid; it's done.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?
The suggestion was to have the infringing person(s) pay a fee in lieu of legal action. The definition of racketeering approximately is; Paying someone to not undertake an economically damaging course of action to you and/or your business. That's a nice credit score you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Wow, who fired their marketing department. They could have billed it as "download all the music you want for 5 dollars a month". Instead, they're running it as "we're forcing college students to give us 5 dollars a month and we won't sue you". Except for the mandatory part, which sounds like it could be dropped, it's basically what people have been telling the RIAA to do since the Napster fight.
And when has that ever stopped them?
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Blank media includes hard drives. You have to put those files somewhere.
May I redirect you to The Pirate Bay's legal department?
Jeez, that amounted to 'Nya-nya, we're in Sweden and you can't get us.' Are they trying to make the --AAs look good with that page?
Given the RIAA's history of suing people who don't even have computer and/or an internet connection, I doubt the efficacy of your suggestion.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
As a fellow Canadian, I couldn't agree more. I have been paying this "tax" for years on every media purchase I've made. My business requires me to purchase recordable media and I know I would save thousands every year if this "tax" did not exist.
I'm almost tempted to "get my monies worth" but I feel I have too much to lose, if I were dragged through court.
I suppose this is how the RIAA/CRIA operate. Preying on those they feel are vulnerable. I'm not even a very big music fan, in fact most of what I listen to is about to lose its protected status soon.
I do believe that if given enough time and political conditioning, they will craft laws for themselves in favour of their business model to the point of absurdity, if they haven't gotten there yet.
Its only a matter of time before they begin to investigate and sue "suspicious purchasers" of recordable media. Read "big purchasers".
In their effort to limit copyright infringement and maximize profits, they have created a generation of would be criminals. Simply because they refuse to adapt their revenue stream and the only outcome is aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved, given enough time.
this business of suing people has become so lucrative...
I don't think so. According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Countersuits? Feh! The headline I look forward to is: "RIAA lawyers jailed for contempt of court". That will discourage them more than countersuits.
Never buy music CDs.
That's a good principle to go by in general these days (indie artists excluded, of course :)
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Yeah, but can he give them a slap on the wrist (i.e. a fine)? Or can he actually give them a solid kicking (a 7-figure+ fine and organise some sort of professional sanctions against the lawyers) and actually end the cases? Because the RIAA isn't suing people for the money, they're suing people to try and scare the public at large and if they can go "look, we can get your names on a 'no-sue' basis, ignore that, sucessfully sue you anyway and it'll only cost us a moderate fine" then they're come out clearly on top. Infact if the message that they can carry illegal lawsuits all the way through even after being called on it gets out, it'll play right into their hands.
To play devil* for a moment, using the old information-wants-to-be-free argument, once someone knows who it is that they need to sue how can you conscionably tell them that they can't actually sue them because you only told them the name so they could use it for something else?
*the devil is the RIAA's advocate.
FGD 135
How can it be a CD if it doesn't conform to the CD standard published by Phillips?
The legal term for that is "extrajudical settlement". Man, you make that sound like something illegal. What are you, a commie? It's perfectly legal to buy yourself a get-out-of-jail card here if you're rich.
Or to browbeat your opponent into submission by giving him the choice of giving you a nice amount of money or face higher legal costs than he can afford, if he's poor.
Didn't anyone ever wonder why the RIAA never went after someone who has enough money to actually defend himself in court?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, such cases are very few. And when they do happen, under the bombastic headline there is a simple explanation — the sued computer-illiterate is the parent/guardian of a tech-savvy minor, who did engage in stealing...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
stop stealing and law-suits will stop.
Only after you stop murdering your children, and by "murder" I mean fail to pay them additional allowance for not crapping their pants.
Having paid off our congress to continuously extend copyright far beyond its intended utility does not give them even a sliver of moral credibility. The works in question did not spring from a vacuum. They are the fruits of our common culture. Reasonable recompense adequate to encourage the works' creation is all they are due (just as it says in the Constitution) and complete control for two lifetimes is not reasonable. The fact that it's the law does not make it automagically right.
Seriously, you still call copyright infringement "stealing" despite having it explained to you hundreds of times exactly why it isn't in any way related to stealing? You're an idiot.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
May I redirect you to The Pirate Bay's legal department?
Jeez, that amounted to 'Nya-nya, we're in Sweden and you can't get us.' Are they trying to make the --AAs look good with that page?
Never hurts to point out that just because they can buy laws like the DMCA in most countries, they don't have that control everywhere yet. Copyright law is so ridiculously out of whack, only countries with very corrupt governments or very ignorant governments (or both), could possibly still believe that it is in the public's best interest to award practically perpetual monopolies on information.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
most of what I listen to is about to lose its protected status soon
Not if Disney has anything to say about it. ;)
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
Also 'Nya-nya, a torrent file is not copyrighted material'
c++;
Why don't just stop listening to their music and watch their movies? Its your free choice.
There are so many options for entertainment. If I were living in the USA, I would just not listen/watch the crap RIAA controls.
Now that would "help the artists" so they would stop cooperating with such organisations.
Not sure its still necessary - the RIAA seems to have lost key points already - http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5928.cfm . The problem is that unless you read /. or follow these cases for other reasons, you won't know that. Secondly, it is up to you or your attorney to point out the appropriate case law, so if you get scared and settle, or if you don't have an attorney that brings forth these issues - you lose regardless of whether or not you did anything wrong. What is needed is a direct case against the RIAA like this one - http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxcringely/archives/2008/12/boston_illegal.html and a cease and desist order from a judge. At least that way things can be moved to the criminal courts or counterclaims could be filed against them.
When all else fails, try.
Which supports the theory that many here have put forward that this isn't about money or even copyrights at all. It's about control. It used to be that the only way to become even a moderately successful musician was to get a contract from a Big Recording Label. Since the labels had their pick of artists, they could dictate the terms. On the consumer front, you had to buy the music that the big labels decided would be on the shelves. Indie bands were around, but were a tiny niche. And any time the label came up with a new format (vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD), you needed to buy your collection all over again.
Computers and the Internet have changed all that, though. Nowadays, an artist can upload their music to eMusic, Amie Street, or a whole bunch of other sites to sell it. They could even sell it on their own website. Indie labels (offering artists better terms) are becoming more popular. Portable music players and the MP3 format mean that your music will play on your music player for some time to come.
The big labels don't like this and are trying to stop it at all costs. They tried to get the courts to declare that MP3 players were illegal (the Diamond Lawsuit). When that failed, they tried to keep music offline (Napster). When that didn't work, they worked with Apple on iTunes with the requirement that DRM be built in. When iTunes got too powerful, they allowed DRM to be ditched to come up with iTunes competitors (e.g. Amazon MP3). In each case, reality forces them back a notch, but they're still fighting back. If they had their wildest dreams granted, all online music would be made illegal, ripping CDs would be illegal, used CDs would be illegal, and portable music players would be illegal. Unless the RIAA finds a magic genie, though, it's not going to happen.
In addition, the lawsuits are also a diversion of blame. Sales are down and the labels need someone to blame. Should they blame the poor economy or the increased competition for consumers' entertainment dollar from DVDs, video games, etc? Should they blame themselves for putting out garbage music and seeking out bands purely on the basis that they sound similar to a band that had a hit? Or should they blame Evil Internet Pirates? Obviously, they've chosen Door #3 and are attempting to pin all of their financial woes on Evil Internet Pirates. It's much easier than blaming yourself or recognizing that sales were up during a boom time and now it is a bust time.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
For all I care, it may be perpetual — just like ownership of tangible property.
Who owns all the basics they are building on?
Should we locate the heirs of Shakespeare and give them $1000 for each book, film and song containing quotes, references or straight out adaptions of his works?
If copyright should be eternal that would be the logical thing to do.
Here comes the justification! That's right, Metallica would never have thought of that tune, if they weren't breathing the same air as me, so now they owe me. It is amazing, how people don't recognize, how slippery a slope this is — this justification is applied very easily to the theft of tangible property as well. Then, again, given the sudden surge in popularity of income-redistribution (a.k.a. wealth-spreading) recently, I guess, I should not be surprised...
Metallica did not invent Heavy Metal. They should pay their predecessors like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and others for using the sounds they invented instead of stealing it for their own profit.
Seriously? Not in any way related? Not even in the getting something for nothing against the will of its creator way related? Please, don't come back, claiming, RIAA aren't creators, but merely owners — it is irrelevant. Metallica sells through their own label, but you would you steal from them just as well...
Why call it stealing instead of rape, murder or terrorism?
If you just need to find a word to make it seem more morally wrong why not go all the way?