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.
...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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
Perjury is only when under oath. Unless done to commit a crime (libel, fraud, etc) you're allowed to lie as much as you want.
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.
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.
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
Your wallet is a tool for change.
Sure is. ;)
Joking aside, I have to agree. I haven't yet taken it to the extent you have. I still have my old music and movies but I don't buy anything new. It was never really a conscious decision against the RIAA or MPAA for me, but a result of a growing dislike towards money-grabbing/useless corporations generally. (For me this not only includes companies that don't provide value for money, but also those that treat me as a stupid consumer.)
I'd like to send these associations and the companies they represent the way of the Big Three, which would hopefully knock some much needed sense into them. The problem as I see it is that media is seen as a disposable asset by many people; something to just waste money on regardless of the low quality and unoriginality. Vehicle purchases are quite different: most people want to get value for money and have a vehicle that will last them years.
Part of me - the slightly sinister part - secretly hopes the economy will worsen more and the general populace will be forced to tighten their belts even more. With luck, it would be enough to seriously disable these media cartels. However, even then I doubt it would work. More people would just clue onto downloading tracks and the RIAA would go back to their old method of suing every last one of them. Other people would continue to purchase their shiny CDs even in the face of bankruptcy (the world has no shortage of idiots).
"Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
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
Who or what piece of legislation authorized RIAA to collect all these information?
They don't need any. It's 'published' via a public system (the p2p network).
Who authorised RIAA to represent this information as some sort of "evidence"?
Presuming this is presented as a DMCA notification, their clients and the US Government.
Who authorised RIAA to submit all these (illegaly?) collected information as "evidence"?
See above.
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"?
See above. Read the DMCA.
Any lawyer in the house?
IANL but I have received DMCA notifications that should have been directed to others.
Omeganon
I throw myself on the mercy of the court.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful