Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Claim of Stopping Suits "Months" Ago Is False
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a report on Wired.com, the RIAA spokesman claimed that the RIAA has not filed any new lawsuits 'for months,' and according to the Wall Street Journal report discussed here yesterday, the RIAA stopped filing mass lawsuits 'early this fall.' Knowing that the RIAA has a problem with telling the truth, I did a little investigating, and found out that the RIAA had, in fact, commenced a wave of lawsuits just last week. Why would anyone believe anything their spokesperson says? This is an organization that has a tendency to misspeak a lot, if you know what I mean, even when under oath."
CNet has a copy of the RIAA's new form letter that it will ask ISPs to pass on to alleged copyright-infringing users. It says, in part, "This letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' rights to recover or claim relief for damages incurred by this illegal activity, nor does it waive the right to bring legal action against the user at issue for engaging in music theft."
The RIAA tell a mistruth to make themselves look better in the public eye? I can't imagine...
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
We will ask the ISPs to cooperate in sending C&D letters to people we identify with our proven-poor methods, THEN, after having said we won't sue* we'll use the C&D letters from the ISP to target lawsuits.
I really have to wonder how their lawyers sleep at night (on beds of $100 bills, I'm sure). The people employing the lawyers I have no doubt sleep peacefully, dreaming of other ways to game the system.
it's probably a ploy to get more people to download pirated music, as lawsuits seem to be their main source of income these days.
And we all though "YAY" the RIAA is going to stop suing us? Remember his little brother MPAA is more than happy to take you to court.
Do you wear tinfoil on your head, or am I missing something? I skimmed the entirety of the linked pages on recordingindustryvspeople and saw lots of documentation and commentary related to exactly what I expected. I saw nothing that made me feel any urge to grab an e-meter and get my thetans excised.
I would love it if you could please clarify the connection between recordingindustryvspeople and Scientology.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
HAH! I run Firefox with Adblock/Flashblock/NoScript. I could refresh all day and I never would have caught that.
It all depends on when the interview was done. Maybe the spokesperson just said "we haven't filed any lawsuits in months" and left unsaid the rest, which is "but it's about that time we did". Besides, it's that time of the year, do you think the RIAA would forget about your christmas presents. Santa may sometimes forget the x-mas presents for the poor and downtrodden, but RIAA-claws wont.
...the old plan, twice the spin.
Just think, with the ISPs on board they can be sure they sue the right people this time round (probably).
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. - H. L. Mencken
>>> This is an organization that has a tendency to mispeak
"RIAA is an organization that has a tendency to [lie, intimidate citizens, and extort money] a lot, even when under oath." There. Fixed that for ya. ;-)
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Well spotted, i've been to the page and have not paid attention to the ad, but in this case the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
If it were you or me, we'd be in the slammer, but if you're a rich member of a powerful industry, it just gets ignored by the courts. Ah yes, to be rich and powerful.
Having RTFA with the letter attached, it looks to me like the RIAA is adopting a similar approach to the MPAA and other commercial movie/TV houses: sending a missive to your ISP and ask them to do something to stop it. It doesn't specifically state what the ISP must do or must not do, aside from provide assistance in causing the matter to stop.
Nowhere does that article (or letter) specifically ask the ISP to hand over information to the RIAA.
Now if your ISP got one of such letters, they may have the choice of:
1) sending you an email and asking you to cease and desist in accordance with the request from the RIAA;
2) providing the details to the RIAA and say "your problem";
3) disconnect you and say to the RIAA "problem fixed."
Now if my ISP did (1) and had no further contact with the RIAA, except to respond with something like "We've contacted the user and requested remedial action" then the ISP would be complying with the letter presented.
Of the choices, 1-3, I'd be happy if my ISP fitted into category (1) - they've done their part, preserved my "anonymity" and made it known to myself that I need to "fix things".
Good to see Baghdad Bob found a good job following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
Accusing someone, falsely, of an illegal act is libel per se. There is immunity for doing it in a lawusit. But sending their C&D letter to the ISP, well there is no immunity for that.
If my ISP gets one of those, I will file a libel action against then, and I'll bet $$$ that their illegal investigators Media Sentry are involved, which will give me yet another lawsuit to file.
Uh, where exactly do you see this? First one I see is http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/click?id=KJNspj7Wol4&offerid=142481.10000581&type=3&subid=0 . Basically for sports authority.
Meanwhile, although I assume it's sarcasm, it's a bit of a stretch :P
RIAA Caught Lying About Stopping Prosecution Tactic
Otherwise, when people see "RIAA Claim..." people stop reading. "RIAA Caught Lying..." gets people's attention.
I once had a signature.
In my highly scientific survey of making tick marks everytime someone mentions adds on slashdot, 98.3% of the time, the following post(s) refer to how awesome adblock/flashblock/noscript are.
I get it, you like gloating that you don't see ads. Grow up...
And the WSJ is checking facts like SNL's Weekend Update apparently.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
"LET them die!"
Seriously. How long do we need to put up with this kind of abuse from corporate America? They used to welcome customers with open arms, happy that their families could eat that night because we were all happy to consume and be treated like human beings. I'm not sure where that train derailed but it was a bloody mess.
About a year ago I began a very small social experiement. I simply got tired of seeing what the music, movie, and videogame industries were doing to their customers. Sure, they caught a few pirates here and there, but how many innocents got entangled in that mess? In any event, I no longer own any CDs, movies, or video games. Not even books. Sorry publishing industry but I'm too afraid you're going to be next on the list of up and coming assholes.
Everything I have is free. I get my music from places like Jamendo. I watch the myriad of web based shows that people create independently for our viewing pleasure. I play only games that cost no money...did I mention I installed Linux? I even am to the point where I only read public domain literature.
Why all this? For the same reason I bought a cheap, fuel-efficient Toyota. I'm voting with my wallet. And don't get me wrong, if I like something one of the above groups writes and publishes to the web, I donate money to their cause. Again...I'm voting with my wallet.
People. Wake the hell up. Your wallet is a tool for change. You wallet means more in this country than any tick mark you make next to some politician's name on a little paper ballot. Use it. Use it well. Use it wisely. Apparently it already worked on the "Big Three." Surely, we can make it work on the MPAA and RIAA.
And at the risk of being flamed and down-modded, let's not forget that achieving artistic excellence is grindingly difficult and will rarely be done for charitable purposes.
I don't know if you have any experience with the internet, but the banners on websites are not individually hand-picked by the website owner and carefully arranged on the page for emphasis. The website owner signs up for Google ads or something, which then throws banners up on the page according to some loosely-defined algorithm, often based on keywords present on the web page. In my experience Scientology banners pop up in the stupidest of places. NYCL does't endorse Scientology and more than he endorses... (click)... Ghiradelli Chocolate.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Reminder: I am not a lawyer in the US. This is a discussion forum, not legal advice.
I question whether an ISP receiving this form letter would necessarily be compelled to act.
It is apparently a 17 USC ss. 512(c)(3) notification; however from a careful reading of the letter and from my own understanding, the relevant part of the DMCA to an ISP providing access to one of their residential users using a peer-to-peer service to host and/or transmit copyrighted music files without the relevant permission of the rights holder(s) would appear instead to be 17 USC ss. 512 (a):--
I note that subsection (a) does not contain any provision for "expeditiously disabling access" (i.e., takedowns), and would appear to intend to apply to internet routing in the normal form except where caching or content modification takes place (though ISPs do not have a so-called "common carrier" status, this is the relevant section that provides them with a disclaimer of liability for their downstream customers infringing copyright).
I would appreciate comments on the same. Nowhere in the form letter do I see the RIAA making a threat against the internet service provider, any form of subpoena or open request to identify the user in question, or retain any identifying records for later subpoena. I surmise that this might be because their counsel are aware of the contents of 17 USC ss. 512 (a) and do not wish to appear too hostile to the ISP, as, at least by my reading, the ISP could quite happily junk this, or pass on a friendly warning to the user in question that they've been flagged, and take no further action on the matter.
I would further surmise that they are insinuating that should the ISPs not cooperate willingly, they will push for legislation to compel the ISPs to submit, although this might necessitate an effective repeal of the DMCA, as in letter the DMCA acts as a conditional limitation of liability rather than a prohibition. It remains to be seen if the current legislature in the US in fact will be receptive to this idea.
Reminder: This is not legal advice, merely my own ideas and observations on a discussion forum. Always consult counsel qualified in your jurisdiction before taking action. Doubly so if you're an ISP tech looking at these as they come in and wanting to know if you can killfile them; definitely contact your legal department and seek specialist advice regarding your individual situation.
I think it's high time we move on to filesharing methods that actually protect our identity.
Whoa, time out! NYCL is the local Slashdot guru on all things RIAA and IIRC, been personally involved in the good fight for quite some time. I don't recall him ever advocating Scientology in the past. Several thousand knowledgable and well-researched posts to Slashdot on RIAA matters over a period of many years just to trick people into clicking on a Scientology ad today would have to constitute the most over-engineered setup of all time.
Remember... never attribute to bad Thetans that which can be adequately explained by the vagaries of third party ad servers. (with apologies to Hanlon's razor)
"The sum of all knowledge does not imply the knowledge of all sums" Kurt Gödel (paraphrased)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3235/2869757210_4f05a7bcdd_b.jpg
She's pretty hot for a lying demon-woman.
There is no such thing as "music theft". It is settled law in the US that copyright infringement is not theft, and calling an infringer a thief can constitute libel.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It was a marketting ploy, conceptualized, designed, and brought to fruition by the music industry: the same people that have the power to turn shit in to gold records.
Most likely a ploy to see who would fire up thr bittorrent clients and start going crazy. Never believe this crap until your certain the laws have been written, passed, and every one is truly in the clear.
We will ask the ISPs to cooperate in sending C&D letters to people we identify...
ISPs are well know to *fold* at the slightest sign of a lawsuite, I expect the RIAA to have much better luck with this approach.
As to why the RIAA *has no shame* at all *and keeps on doing* things like this? No court has seriously slapped their hand, and it doesn't look like any will in the near future. So much for our court system protecting the innocent and keeping an eye on things.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Every time you think the RIAA has gone as low as it can, it finds yet another way to open up a whole new universe of douchebaggery.
Please, God, let them say something like this under oath, and let it be in front of a judge who takes a dim view of perjury (and prefers jail time to fines as a method of educating people on the workings of the US legal system).
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
"waive the right to bring legal action against the user at issue for engaging in music theft."
Assuming the party receiving this letter is guilty of anything, it is probably copyright infringement, not theft. Since they specify theft, and not infringement, would that mean that they are waiving the right to "bring legal action" for infringement?
1. Class action lawsuit against RIAA for false advertizing. They make up an absolute lie to look non-evil to sell more records.... Anyone who bought those records bought them under false pretenses.
2. ?????
3. Profit!!!
That's trademark.
You do NOT have to take defensive action to maintain a copyright.
While they don't explicitly identify them as such, the content of the e-mail is essentially a DMCA notification. Since the content is not stored on the ISP's systems, and is just a transitory communication over the ISP's network, the ISP is not obligated to perform any action whatsoever. They could >/dev/null 2>&1 them and there's nothing the RIAA could do about it.
To be valid, the DMCA notification needs to be directed to the party hosting the content, in this case the end-user. The ISP for that user is not obligated to 'pass on' the notification to the end user any more than they would be to 'pass on' a notification meant for another ISP. It is the complainants responsibility to identify the correct destination for the DMCA notification, not anyone else's.
Even _if_ the ISP were hosting the content on systems they own, the only obligation they would have would be to remove the specifically identified offending content from their systems. Per the DMCA, the alleged offender would have 10 days to contest the validity of the DMCA notification at which point the ISP would be required to re-post the content if they did so. The claimant would then need to begin legal proceedings to obtain further relief.
Seems to me to be a re-hash of a previously failed tactic. Once the RIAA found this was a dead-end, they began their DOE lawsuits.
Omeganon
The simple solution to this is to bankrupt the RIAA members. It worked for the big three - they've been producing crap cars for decades now, while the Japanese took our advice that our own people would not receive, and have been producing fantastic, high-quality cars.
That's not to say that the the big three produce all crap - but the high-quality reliable vehicles they do produce (the 'Vette, a few caddies and other luxury cars) are vehicles that Joe Sixpack can't afford. On top of that, the reliable vehicles they DO have and are utilitarian and comfortable (such as Pontiac Vibe, the Saturn Astra) are made by Japanese or European manufacturers (OK the Astra is a rebadged Opel, but it's still not what I'd consider part of the big three).
The RIAA, truthfully, is producing mostly crap nowadays. If an artist can't produce a mega-hit or won't sell out to do so, then they won't get air play. Oh, they'll get signed, but that's only for the label to bind them so they can't go elsewhere to an indie label who will make that long-term investment.
Just say no. Don't listen top top 40 radio, don't buy their crap, and don't download their crap either, because you're only fueling their argument. Just stop being a customer. Buy used records/CDs. Sure, it'll drive the price of used media up a little, but guess what? The labels won't live through a year or two of an outright boycott. They'll try to legislate a used media tax, but there is no way that would fly (right of first sale: when you buy a CD or DVD, you OWN it. They know this and cop to it in their own adverts. Britney spears, own it today on CD! Narnia/Prince Caspian, own it today on DVD! They KNOW you own that copy, not just license it).
Don't even do Rhapsody, because the labels are using them to try to get you to embrace DRM, because then you WON'T own the music, it will be licensed under that model - under contract law, because it's a rental.
Just say no. Spend your money on DVDs - better value. You get an entire movie for less than the cost of a DVD. Check out hulu.com - free movies and TV series archives.
Break the record companies. It can be done. Don't download their crap and they won't have any basis to sue, and don't buy their crap because it will bankrupt them. Just say no. It didn't work for drugs, but it did work for the auto industry and it can work in the music industry.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
IT IS FUCKING LIE!
Perhaps the RIAA was expecting that Big Media would happily propagate the lie, but drag its feet on the retraction? How dare they? We all know that Big Media lives and breathes social ethics.
What exacaxtly RIAA thinks they are?
How can RIAA even concieve the idea, that they have some sort of magic authority to "appoint" or "authorise" business entities (ISPs) - completely unralated to RIAA and most of them operating in other countries - with rights and duties that clearly belong to law enforcement, courts, etc., in order to chase the interest of RIAA?
What makes RIAA think that a trade association, registered in the USA has some sort of borderless, global authority to issue enforcement notice to ISPs?
The RIAA letter says:
"This letter serves as an OFFICIAL notice to you that this network user MAY BE liable for the illegal activity occurring on your network."
"WE respectfully REQUEST that YOU REMOVE or DISABLE ACCESS to the unauthorized music."
Please notice: "official", "may be liable", "we request", "you remove or disable access".
Furthermore from the RIAA letter:
"INFRINGEMENT DETAIL
-------------------
Infringing Work : XXXXXX
Filename : XXXXXX
First found (UTC): XXXXXX
Last found (UTC): XXXXXX
Filesize : XXXXXX
IP Address: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
IP Port: XXXXX
Network: XXXXXX
Protocol: XXXXXX"
Who or what piece of legislation authorized RIAA to collect all these information?
Who authorised RIAA to represent this information as some sort of "evidence"?
Who authorised RIAA to submit all these (illegaly?) collected information as "evidence"?
Who authorised RIAA that they can submit (illegally collected?) "evidence" to a third party in order to "request" anything from a third party, based on (illegally collected?) "evidence"?
Any lawyer in the house?
As has become painfully obvious in the political sphere over the past eight years, lying is not done for the sake of lying, nor is it done for the thrill of fooling one's fellow citizens. It is done to promote an agenda that would otherwise be difficult to advance without widespread belief in the false statements of the liars. In the case of the euphemistic "recording industry assoc" the lies are aimed at mitigating the negative publicity that is cutting into the very profits they are trying to protect. In short, this is one of those lose/lose situations to which unrestrained greed invariably leads.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Just for the record, the ad for Tom Cruise's web site was placed by Google AdSense, not by me. Also it had to do with his movies, and had nothing to do with his religion. But the Ghirardelli chocolate ad is an "affiliate ad" -- i.e., one that pays my blog a commission if someone were to click it on and buy some stuff...so I did, in fact, pick that one. Personally, I think Ghirardelli chocolate is great, and people might want to buy some as gifts around Christmastime.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Whoa, time out! NYCL is the local Slashdot guru on all things RIAA and IIRC, been personally involved in the good fight for quite some time. I don't recall him ever advocating Scientology in the past. Several thousand knowledgable and well-researched posts to Slashdot on RIAA matters over a period of many years just to trick people into clicking on a Scientology ad today would have to constitute the most over-engineered setup of all time.
Not only have I never promoted Scientology, I wouldn't promote any religion, ever. I hate the whole concept of trying to sell one's own religion to others. Just as much as I hate the whole concept of trying to disparage someone else's religion.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Bitch bitch bitch. Moan moan moan. If you are so up in arms about it, go after them already. If a bunch of /b/ tards can make a mockery of Scientology and may yet push it over the edge to it's destruction, certainly some dedicated geeks can do the same to the RIAA and MPAA.
Black faxes. Prank calls. DDOS. Protests in front of the HQ of RIAA and their lawyers and the HQ's of the big record labels involved. Boycotts of RIAA labled artists. You can do it, but you'd rather moan behind a keyboard and bawwww about it when you get sued for downloading some shitty tune. There are ways both legal and not so legal to take the fight to these fuckers. Tired of seeing this? Hit them where it hurts, in their wallets and their pride.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Get behind the abolition of copyright, or the imposition of more reasonable interpretations of it - like fixed terms less than ten years, no criminal prosecution unless done for financial profit, limitation on liability to the retail price of the item ($.99 per song and $5.00 per movie, not per potential copy).
Although your idea is a good step too.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I knew it! You are obviously plotting along with the gym agenda to make us all obese so they get thousands of costumers.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
I throw myself on the mercy of the court.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
she left her ViBrAtOr in AND on !!
I was driving about when I heard this story on NPR.
I will be emailing them back through their feedback system with a link to this writeup.
I urge others to do the same.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
It also has a bit to do with your search history... *cough*
At the end of the day, putting Scientology and stupid together isn't much of a stretch...
I guess your name, "Anonymous Coward", says it all.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Because putting you and stupid together is just as easy.
What?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007
YOU said that. I'd like to say thanks, it's rare someone says something so colossally stupid and wrong, especially regarding civil rights. I've enjoyed making an example of your stupidity and ignorance.
But do yourself a favor, get a new nick. You don't get to call anyone stupid ever again thanks to that comment.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...