RIAA Lied To Congress About New Filesharing Suits

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "On December 23, 2008, the RIAA's Mitch Bainwol sent a letter to the Judiciary and Commerce Committees of both the House and Senate, falsely representing to them that the RIAA 'discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August.' A copy of the letter is online (PDF). In fact, as many of you already know, the RIAA brought hundreds of new lawsuits since August. See, e.g., these 40 or so cases which just represent some of the cases brought in December." Maybe they're just taking a broad view of the world "initiate."

Comments

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm riddled with surprise.

Re:Hmm

[commodore64_love]

As my brother would say, "I find that shocking." "Really?" "No."

RIAA should be prosecuted for perjury and contempt of Congress.

Re:Hmm

[Amazing Quantum Man]

As Captain Renault would say, "I'm shocked! SHOCKED!"

Re:Hmm

[EbeneezerSquid]

RIAA should be prosecuted for perjury and contempt of Congress.

That would require a Justice Department which is not on the RIAA's Payroll.

Don't ya love that CHANGE?

Re:Hmm

[Zantetsuken]

Made more fun by that article the other day pointing out that some top RIAA lawyer became something like deputy attorney general (too tired to find it tho)

Re:Hmm

[commodore64_love]

Isn't the DOJ one of the prosecutors in the RIAA v. John Doe cases? Yep some change. And then there's this: "RIAA serves defendant with summons and complaint on January 20th" - I thought RIAA was supposed to stop this stuff? http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html#1448276563095039304%23links

And finally: "Terrorised by the labels" - http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18386

Britanny, 18, is not a fake RIAA statistic. In a letter to her mother and father, she writes, "Thank you for covering for me. I'm sorry I ask if the money all the time. I'm sorry that I got you and me into all this trouble with the RIAA. If I could do this all over again I would be a lot smarter about it. I feel like I've let you all down. I let myself down. All this stuff makes me feel like an idiot. I feel like all this crap is taking away from your lives and the rest of the family. I'm sorry. I love you, and I'm glad that you have supported me and basically taken care of all this crap for me."

"February 3, 2009, is the ultimatum day; the day the RIAA's extortionate demand to settle a file-sharing threat for $7500.00+ or be sued in Federal Court in the Western District of Michigan will expire.

"My daughter is the target of this particular attack."

Bastards. I now quote the Declaration of Independence: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..... He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

And this is news???

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying RIAA lied is like saying the is sky blue or windows sucks. It's a well known fact.

-Rj-

Re:And this is news???

[Anonymous Coward]

But without windows, how would we know if the sky was blue?

Re:And this is news???

[FilterMapReduce]

But without windows, how would we know if the sky was blue?

Indeed, the only time I ever see the sky is when I'm using Windows XP.

Re:And this is news???

[PitaBred]

Yeah, but lying to the senate is perjury. Every single one of their lawyers and executives should not pass go, not collect $200, and go straight to jail.

Re:And this is news???

[Ihmhi]

My inner geek wonders if there's a way to have several desktops of the same landscape with different weather and have it change based on the real weather pulled from AccuWeather.

Re:And this is news???

[Mattcelt]

You could probably hack Virtual Desktop Manager to do it.

Re:And this is news???

[Hurricane78]

Very simple. You take a set of photos of the same landscape with different weather, put them in a folder, and name them by their weather state.

Then you write a little cron-job that reads the weather from some online update service, calculates a weather state string from that, and overwrites the symlink of the current background image with one linking to the image with that state string.

If required, you can send a "update background image" command via dcop or something similar.

My whole desktop changes (theme, image, colors, sounds, etc) with the weather, day and night, amount of sunshine (automatic adaptive color calibration), and season.

Today I had the first flowers flowing over my desktop, and the grass started to grow, but now it's getting a bit darker.

The only problem is, that I photoshopped many of the images, and did use different landscapes, because obviously I can't take a photo for every hour of every day of a whole year... and sit in my room all year long. ;)

Re:And this is news???

[T Murphy]

The obviousness makes it no less important to report this. The day we just let it slide unnoticed is when we've truly given them free reign.

Re:And this is news???

[NadNad]

But without windows, how would we know if the sky was blue?

Indeed, the only time I ever see the sky is when I'm using Windows XP.

The only time I see blue is when I use Winders also, but it's unrelated to my desktop-pattern...

Re:And this is news???

[Buelldozer]

Why be satisfied with static images?

Most machines have enough oomph that you could take a picture of the view that you want, link the location to accuweather, and have the GPU calculate the required effects. Day, night, rain, snow, wind...whatever.

Re:And this is news???

[h4rm0ny]

Maybe, just maybe, you haven't turned on that computer in a year.

Nope. I was using it yesterday and it was fine. Windows XP has been fine for me. Never had a crash or similar. However, I seem to have been modded troll and flamebait for simply calling someone out for stating "Windows sucks is a well-known fact." Obviously can't disagree with the herd, here.

Re:And this is news???

[MacWiz]

News would be if the RIAA told Congress the truth.

Re:And this is news???

[Ihmhi]

I suppose I could just pull the live stream from a traffic cam (the video "monitoring the flow of traffic" kind, not the photograph "you ran a red light" kind) and have that as my desktop...

Is lying to Congress illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is lying to Congress illegal? Is it considered perjury?

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[auric_dude]

No, just par for the course.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[ushering05401]

Depends. Are you a professional baseball player accused of using steroids?

If so, yes, lying to congress is illegal.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[liegeofmelkor]

You're thinking of lying BY Congressmen... that's business as usual.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[noundi]

Is lying to Congress illegal? Is it considered perjury?

No but in RIAA's defence I think it's mandatory.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[Yez70]

Isn't that what they impeached Clinton for - lieing to congress? Mitch Bainwol needs to sit in jail for a year or two and think about it.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[Big Hairy Ian]

Is lying to Congress illegal? Is it considered perjury?

I hope not I don't think the USA has the prison capacity to cope with that

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[Gyga]

Clinton was under oath, I don't think the RIAA was.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[z80kid]

No. He lied in a sworn deposition in federal court.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[ilo.v]

Is lying to Congress illegal? Is it considered perjury?

It depends. How much money you have donated to their reelection campaigns recently?

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[ta bu shi da yu]

If it was, the jails would be more full than usual. Perhaps it's time to implement perjury in this context!

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[dkleinsc]

Is lying to Congress illegal? Is it considered perjury?

I do not recall.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[NicknamesAreStupid]

It is illegal for people who testify before Congress under oath to lie (perjury). However, there is no law against organizations misrepresenting themselves in such a way. Corporations do not take an oath, people do. Therefore, if you can construct an organization that can misrepresent itself through its people without those individuals who testify under oath actually testifying a known (to themselves) falsehood, then you have a legal loophole. You might think that in order to construct such an organization there must be a conscious and concerted effort among the leaders to create such a deception, but that is not necessarily true. If the charter of the company is in line with its need for self-preservation and sustained growth, you might envision how its "misguided" practices might ignore the rights of others and the laws that govern people. There are other remedies for corporations, but they are treated quite differently (and more differentially) than people. This may not seem right because it shouldn't be. However, half of all murders go unsolved, and that is not right but it is true.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[OutSourcingIsTreason]

And if you're a president lying to Congress about Saddam Hussein trying to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger, and thereby causing thousands of deaths, it's legal?

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[cthulu_mt]

Wait, Colin Powell was President? Would that make him the first black President?

Fail.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[mcgrew]

iANAL but IINM they can be charged with "Contempt of Congress". Except they can't, because the fix is in, the RIAA has bribed "your" and "my" representatives with campaign cash. There isn't a snowball in hell's chance of these scumbags ever being charged with anything.

You have no representation in the US government. Only corporations and the very rich are represented.

OT but on the same note, Madoff will never be put in a cell despite his stealing fifty billion dollars.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[OutSourcingIsTreason]

You're not a big fan of State of the Union addresses, are you?

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[denis-The-menace]

It might be if you receive a BJ from a woman in a blue dress and lie about it.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[cthulu_mt]

Different than testifying before Congress which is what the whole thread is about.

And to answer your question, no. The President should send a letter to Congress like Washington did. It would be more effective than an hour of self congratulatory masturbat^H^H^H^applause.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[noundi]

Hahaha you have to love that fucking thing, what's the point of asking someone anything unless you can assume they speak of the truth!? My point is, why the fuck is congress wasting their time with this bullshit? Why not automaticaly put everyone under oath? You'd get a lot more shit done, instead of trying to lead a society with facts based on bullshit. Defectivebydesign, y'know?

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[BCW2]

It probably is, but only when under oath.

Then again it would be hard to enforce since it is almost impossible to find a member of Congress who knows how to recognize truth.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... the whole Yellow Cake part of the story is an interesting one. Was it a "lie"? Did the US produce fake documents? Or where fake documents produced to mislead the US and they bought it? To actually try and claim Bush lied about the yellow cake you'll have to prove Bush knew the documents where fake but continued to try and pass them off as valid after the discover of them being identified as such.

Given there's a huge administration that were actually doing the grunt work, it'll be hard to prove. Particularly since people like you love to claim the incompetence and idiocy of Bush. So, what is it? Is he some brilliant master mind who's capable of a massive scheme that fooled millions of people world wide or is he a bumbling idiot who's strings where pulled by other people (typically pointed out to be Dick Cheney by your lot).

You can't have it both ways. Given the article linked to has a statement claiming they were incompetent, I'm guessing that's the occam's razor of this problem.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[CelticWhisper]

Come on now. Everyone knows the cake is a lie.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Isn't that what they impeached Clinton for - lieing to congress?

Umm, no. It was lying to Judge and Jury in a sexual harassment case brought against him.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[wastedlife]

Pretty sure most of the rest of the world was convinced he was full of shit. Also, incompetent idiots are fully capable of lying. These traits are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[sxeraverx]

I do NOT recall having sex with that woman.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[Libertarian001]

Depends on the what meaning of the word is is.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[zorro-z]

It could be considered to be Contempt of Congress, defined by Wikipedia as:

Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. While historically the bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered "contempt of Congress," in modern times a person must refuse to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee - usually seeking to compel either testimony or documents - in order to be considered in "contempt of Congress."
...

The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[dkleinsc]

That wasn't to Congress, that was during a deposition.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[austin987]

That depends on the meaning of the word 'is'.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[Buelldozer]

I have no independent recollection of those events.

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[Thinboy00]

yes, but they can't lie manipulatively (you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not both)

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[Thinboy00]

and furthermore, Clinton was acquitted (though for political not legal reasons)

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[Thinboy00]

and which party do you support?

Re:Is lying to Congress illegal?

[dpastern]

Next question.

Congress will pass whatever the RIAA wants

[viking80]

Congress will pass whatever the RIAA wants

Re:Congress will pass whatever the RIAA wants

[Thinboy00]

this is roughly how I would respond to you, if I wasn't lazy enough to just link it.

Somehow I doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

that this will result in any form of purgery charges for said lawyer, or any form of legal consequence.

The RIAA seems to enjoy making a mockery of the legal system and legal process.

Re:Somehow I doubt

[johanw]

They have learned a lot from their teachers in the scientology cult, and are now perfecting it. It's about time that China (I can see noone else with sufficient power) drops IP laws altogether and forces the rest of the world to just cope with it. At least they have a threat the US fears: if they dump all their US dollars the yearly US inflation will reach 4-digit numbers.

Re:Somehow I doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

if they dump all their US dollars the yearly US inflation will reach 4-digit numbers.

They can't start dumping anything because they have a shitload of dollars: If the dollar goes down, so does the Chinese economy. The same goes for most economies of course but China is by far more reliant on the dollar than others...

Re:Somehow I doubt

[dafdaf]

Yeah. That's what makes the whole system interesting. If the USD is subject to massive inflation, nearly all countries will loose but the US would win - because of it's massive dept. :-)

Re:Somehow I doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

If the dollar goes down, so does the Chinese economy. The same goes for most economies of course but China is by far more reliant on the dollar than others...

If China destroys the American dollar, they have a huge manufacturing base that will be happy to sell goods for Euros.

Re:Somehow I doubt

[johanw]

Dumping their dollars (and losing their value in the process) is still far cheaper for them than to start a conventional war. And what other are those dollard good for otherwise? It's not that they have any realistic chance of ever spending most of them for real products or services.

Re:Somehow I doubt

[Shakrai]

It's about time that China (I can see noone else with sufficient power) drops IP laws altogether and forces the rest of the world to just cope with it

You know, there is a happy medium somewhere between "absolutely no IP laws whatsoever" and lifetime + 100 year copyrights. And if China did that they'd instigate a trade world that would drag down the global economy and do them at least as much (if not more) harm as it would to the US or anybody else.

Re:Somehow I doubt

[jank1887]

Too big to fail. Applies to national economies as well as big banks and automakers. Gotta love it.

Re:Somehow I doubt

[Dan Ost]

It's not that they have any realistic chance of ever spending most of them for real products or services.

You mean, besides buying oil with it?

Re:Somehow I doubt

[jbeaupre]

1) They would not be creating new dollars, so it would not directly create inflation (They can't directly increase the pool of dollars).

2) They have dollar denominated assets. If they try to quickly dump them, it depresses the value of those assets, creating a bargain for the buyers. An unless it's the Fed buying up the assets, it temporarily sucks up a ton of cash from the economy. Together, that creates deflation. Arguably worse than inflation.

2a) However, there is now a glut of US debt instruments, making running a deficit a bit harder without "printing money." But that would only increase US debt by a fraction. Only modest inflationary pressure.

3) They have to convert those dollars to another currency. That devalues the dollar and inflates the other currency. Import to the US slow down (there is finally an inflation effect).

Overall, it's a net negative to the US, but not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Re:Somehow I doubt

[adamchou]

China is by far more reliant on the dollar than others...

depending on how you define reliance, that would actually be wrong. Since 2005, the renmibi has been pegged to a basket of currencies. There are however numerous other countries whose currencies are pegged to solely the USD still.

but then again, in today's world economy, everyone is reliant upon the US economy

RIAA Lied

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news grass is green, bears defecate in the woods. More at 11.

Re:RIAA Lied

[Anonymous Coward]

and pigs are still in the aeronautical r&d stage

Re:RIAA Lied

[polle404]

next you'll probably claim that the Pope's catholic, as well?

Re:RIAA Lied

[jombeewoof]

If you studied your floyd properly you'd know that pigs could fly.

Re:RIAA Lied

[jank1887]

a little rocket propellant, and anything can fly. :)

Re:RIAA Lied

[cthulu_mt]

The Pope is a bear, dumbass.

Re:RIAA Lied

[geobeck]

The Pope is a bear, dumbass.

Okay then, does the Pope sh*t in the woods?

Re:RIAA Lied

[cthulu_mt]

No. Papal poop transubstatiates. It's in Leviticus or Numbers I think.

And in the end.

[k-macjapan]

While we all know that they are scum will anything really come out of this? Here's hoping...

Re:And in the end.

[troll8901]

To fight against the ruthless commercial world ... I say, it's time to go back to the basics, and fight like real men!

Let's all be pirates!

RIAA owns the Dept of Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this link on Gizmodo.

Promissory estoppel?

[Andy_R]

Does this make promissory estoppel a defence in these new cases? (I didn't know what it was either until it was mentioned on /. a while back, basically it's legalese for 'hey no fair, they said they wouldn't sue if I did it'.)

Re:Promissory estoppel?

[adamchou]

IANAL.... but my gf is =)

If my understanding is correct

1) Promissory estoppel is used for contract law and there was no contract initiated by the RIAA and the people so it wouldn't be valid here

2) The document linked to on Mr. Beckerman's site says they discontinued the lawsuits. They didn't specify a length of time that it would remain discontinued for so it'd seem to me they're free to start again when they wanted.

I'm not trying to take the RIAA's side... just making a point. I still hate them with a passion.

Re:Promissory estoppel?

[Kjella]

1) Promissory estoppel is used for contract law and there was no contract initiated by the RIAA and the people so it wouldn't be valid here

Actually, it can apply if you make public statements or behavior that leads the general public to perform acts that'd otherwise be copyright infringement. It has happened with fictional works that have been presented as fact, when the author later tried to claim copyright infringement it was barred by estoppel (Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1992).

However, there is a considerable gap between the RIAA publicly admitting to changing legal strategy and the RIAA giving implicit permission to non-commercial copying of their works. As long as tjey don't give the impression that this is legal, whether infringements can be effectively prosecuted or not, I don't see that estoppel applies.

Re:Promissory estoppel?

[YourExperiment]

IANAL.... but my gf is =)

Yeah, my gf loves that too. Oh wait, sorry...

Re:Promissory estoppel?

[Rick Bentley]

IANAL.... but my gf is =)

Nice to see someone screwing a lawyer for a change...

Re:Promissory estoppel?

[geobeck]

They didn't specify a length of time that it would remain discontinued...

So the fine print might have been "We will not initiate any more file sharing lawsuits*

*until we finish typing this sentence."

Kind of like a local radio DJ's insistence that the Vancouver Canucks are on a one-game winning streak, and are going to stay on a roll, continuing the streak until tomorrow night--the next time they play.

Re:Promissory estoppel?

[tinkerghost]

As long as tjey don't give the impression that this is legal, whether infringements can be effectively prosecuted or not, I don't see that estoppel applies.

IANAL also - however, estoppel doesn't have to give the impression that it's legal, only that they won't pursue the legal remedies made available to them.

For instance, if I own Killer Widgets and publicly state that individuals can freely copy the utility for personal use, I can still file copyright claims against MS, Dell, or any other company that copies or distributes the utility. If, however, I sue Joe Q Public the principle of estoppel would come into play.

I admit to not having read the RIAA's statement - they usually give me migraines - but estopple would be based on the exact wording of their statement. If they stated they would not pursue any new complaints, estoppel would apply. If they stated they had stopped, estoppel wouldn't necessarily apply. If they said legislative cures weren't needed because they had voluntarily stopped, estoppel still wouldn't necessarily apply, but they should be getting a pretty letter in the mail asking them to come & explain themselves.

Re:Promissory estoppel?

[dkleinsc]

No he isn't lying: his gf is totally into that. With me.

It's a trap

[Anonymous Coward]

They were probably trying to encourage more downloading = more people to sue for profit.

Steal this song

[jessica_alba]

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

Re:Steal this song

[liegeofmelkor]

Talk like that just gets you shot!

Re:Steal this song

[troll8901]

One day, far in the future, we'll look back at the past (c. 2050), and shake our heads, and wonder why greed and other sins were so prevalent.

Re:Steal this song

[Anonymous Coward]

Your attitude to women as property may be the reason you're looking for sloppy seconds ;)

Re:Steal this song

[jessica_alba]

who doesn't wonder why its so prevalent today?

Re:Steal this song

[commodore64_love]

One day, far in the future, we'll look back at the past (c. 2050), and shake our heads, and wonder why people thought a "commonwealth" society could work. All it encourages is parasitism of the slothful upon the industrious.

Re:Steal this song

[MadKeithV]

One day we'll all look back on this, laugh nervously, and change the subject.

Re:Steal this song

[agnosticanarch]

Or crucified.

Re:Steal this song

[Ironica]

One day, far in the future, we'll look back at the past (c. 2050), and shake our heads, and wonder why people thought a "commonwealth" society could work. All it encourages is parasitism of the slothful upon the industrious.

That's a pervasive myth, but it turns out, it's not true.

World!

[omidaladini]

Maybe they're just taking a broad view of the world "initiate."

Ahh, world!

Re:World!

[DogAlmity]

The World Initiate is a shadowy organization similar to the Illuminati.

Duh.

Slashbots will post whatever populisms they want.

[Rogerborg]

Slashbots will post whatever populisms they want.

I say we take up arms...

[macraig]

... and use good old-fashioned violence. The effectiveness of physical violence in achieving goals is much underrated these days. I seem to recall the American Revolution involved a bit of violence, didn't it, and we trumpet the success and worthiness of that violence in every classroom in the country, right? A second revolution in these not-so-entirely-United States seems a bit overdue. We have more than a few barons and overlords and Captains of Industry just begging to be introduced to a guillotine. I think the folks in Texas would readily understand this notion that some people just need killin' (http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/11/texas-murder-sentences-probation-to.html).

What sort of revolutionary vigilante violence might we visit upon the RIAA's clients and its sympathizers in Congress?

Re:I say we take up arms...

[CaptainOfSpray]

>What sort of revolutionary vigilante violence might we visit upon the RIAA's clients and its sympathizers in Congress?

Windfall tax, 100%. Take the lawyers for every cent of their fees, and the RIAA for every cent of the settlements. And then throw them into Boston Harbour.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[commodore64_love]

Shoot the RIAA CEO in the head. I promise you his replacement will be afraid and discontinue the extortionate letters to citizens.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windfall tax, 100%. Take the lawyers for every cent of their fees, and the RIAA for every cent of the settlements. And then throw them into Boston Harbour.

Lite Brite images cause panics in Boston and you want to fill the harbour with sharks?

Re:I say we take up arms...

[Just Some Guy]

Microsoft has installed a virus-like add-on to my Mozilla software, and I'm not hippy about it.

Are you at least a little treehugger about it?

Re:I say we take up arms...

[MarkvW]

Willing to kill and die . . . for pop music?

Be sure to keep your firearms WAY separate from your ammo, dude.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[commodore64_love]

"not hippy" is a reference to the 5-part Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[couchslug]

The RIAA markets shit music that it invents to entertain morons, so refresh us on why this is worth a fight?

Revolution wouldn't fight for access to crap we should not want in the first place, but create new, free entertainment. The RIAA punishing consumers of its nasty products is useful in the way that proprietary software companies making their users experience suck is useful. I approve of both "strategies".

Fighting the RIAA is exactly like fighting for easy access to warez when the goal should be to replace proprietary software with Open and Free alternatives.

I'm fine with the RIAA punishing people who want their products. Those people are worse than the RIAA because they fund it. Stop wanting, stop buying, just spit out the dick already!

Re:I say we take up arms...

[G00F]

I believe one of the biggest lies is the phrase: Violence doesnt solve anything. It only makes sense for those in power, as they keep power from the masses this way. We could all dress up as Indians and raid their warehouses full of CD/DVD's and dump/burn them.

But honestly, most of you I don't want to see shirtless. And I'm sure there are even some geek girls I don't want to see shirtless either.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[Braino420]

I seem to recall the American Revolution involved a bit of violence, didn't it, and we trumpet the success and worthiness of that violence in every classroom in the country, right?

What do you think happened during the American Revolution? Do you think we went to Britain and attacked them or something? All we did was make our own government and defend ourselves, we didn't shoot first. So, your example actually works against you, because Britain was the one who used violence, and you see how that worked out.

A second revolution in these not-so-entirely-United States seems a bit overdue.

I could agree with you here, but for different reasons. I mean, you are talking about spilling blood over some silly songs, right?

What sort of revolutionary vigilante violence might we visit upon the RIAA's clients and its sympathizers in Congress?

Yikes! The RIAA is doing a perfectly fine job hanging themselves as it is, let's just keep providing the rope.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[geobeck]

Lite Brite images cause panics in Boston and you want to fill the harbour with sharks?

No one said they had to have frickin' laser beams!

Re:I say we take up arms...

[Belial6]

Because what happens with the RIAA sets precedence.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[StikyPad]

Yeah, if only we relied more on violence. Why, I bet it could even solve international disputes too!

Re:I say we take up arms...

[Chosen Reject]

Not that I'm in agreement with the grandparent, but to reduce it to that level of triteness is like saying the American Revolution was started over tea.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[macraig]

It worked well with Germany, kept them in line for decades, hasn't it? You have to at least bloody the bully's nose once, to clue him into the fact that you're willing to finish the job if he doesn't learn to at least pretend to be respectful. It's exactly why we (claim to) have a policy of no negotiation with terrorists.

Well, guess what: we have plenty of economic bullies and terrorists right here at home already; no need to import them, they're already native-born citizens, eager to beat up on their fellow Americans if it will put a few more bucks in their pockets. Perhaps it's time to do more than just slap a few wrists and chide, "Shame on you!"

Re:I say we take up arms...

[StikyPad]

Violence is a last resort. What other actions have been taken to try to reform the RIAA? A couple people fighting back in court? Give me a break. If people really cared, they'd stop patronizing the big record labels, but they don't, and they won't. Most of the public believes piracy is wrong, and the RIAA are going after criminals. Maybe some of that is PR, but turning into an abortion clinic bomber certainly won't help the other side at all.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[macraig]

Well, it might have been terrifying to the British, at least, the prospect of losing control of their prized resource.

That's exactly why I mentioned the American Revolution, because here and now the RIAA and its clients are like the British: fighting tooth and dirty nail to keep from losing control of their prized cash cow.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[Raenex]

You're just an ugly murderer, no better than the Unabomber or McVeigh trying to force their views. The RIAA, at least, is suing people in court, and not hiring armed thugs to come to your house. By the way, copyright was enacted in the Constitution.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[macraig]

You're quite the clueless indoctrinee, aren't you? The RIAA does in fact get armed thugs to forcibly break into people's houses: they're called marshals and police, and they're very good at ransacking houses and seizing personal property, and in general just taking orders from TPTB and not asking any critical questions. The fact that this activity is all "legal" is because the victors - the people with money and influence - are precisely the ones responsible for creating the laws that make THEIR activity "legal" and this activity "illegal".

It hardly matters that copyright is codified in the Constitution; it's not an infallible document, any more than the people who drafted it were infallible. There was just as much lobbying and distortion of the political process occurring back then as now. People who are adept at manipulating others tend to always get what they want, regardless whether it actually benefits the whole or not. Witness the current bailout shenanigans, and the EAGER involvement of so many members of Congress, irrespective of political party.

You need to find some better sources for your education and/or be more critical of those sources. You've been fed a diet of misleading propaganda and it's made you mentally anemic.

Re:I say we take up arms...

[Raenex]

The RIAA does in fact get armed thugs to forcibly break into people's houses: they're called marshals and police, and they're very good at ransacking houses and seizing personal property, and in general just taking orders from TPTB and not asking any critical questions.

My understanding is that they don't bust down your door, confiscate your computer, and search your house. Instead, there is a court order to turn over your hard drive: http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2006/10/8095.ars

It hardly matters that copyright is codified in the Constitution; it's not an infallible document, any more than the people who drafted it were infallible.

It's a starting point. The Constitution is widely regarding as a solid document. We have procedures to change it and the primary one is via the ballot box. If you think violence and murder are the way to enforce your views then you'll see just what a hellhole a country can become when everybody with their pet-peeve issue responds in kind. No doubt you'll be on somebody's list.

initiate

[kae_verens]

well yeah, you could say that the alleged downloaders did the actual initiating by taunting the poor little RIAA du.

the old "he started it!" defence

Yes, they discontinued...

[erroneus]

...then recontinued very shortly thereafter. I discontinue driving at every red light...

Re:Yes, they discontinued...

[MadKeithV]

Heck, they even discontinue between every two lawsuits!

And its in no way a problem with the Obamadmin....

[3seas]

...astration.... http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/05/1539251

I don't get it.

[Godji]

OK, so the power of the RIAA's lawsuits was not so much in the money they were going to extract from victims, but rather the general fear that ensued.

Then the RIAA goes on to say they won't be doing that anymore, thus discontinuing the fear.

But they never actually stopped, only gave up some of their power (fear is power in their case).

Could anyone please find some logic in this?

Re:I don't get it.

[rdnetto]

You were expecting the RIAA to act logically? I suppose you also believe that CD sales are down due to piracy...

Re:I don't get it.

[genner]

Could anyone please find some logic in this?

It's business logic...also known as non-logic.....also known as stupidity.

Like the Judges have been saying

[Demonantis]

Judges in RIAA cases have been saying this for a long time. The RIAA is acting like a bully and abusing the fact poorly organized law is on their side. Microsoft did it with their antitrust case. These large corporations or associations are just to large to be legally accountable for their actions. The scary part is that they know it.

Re:Like the Judges have been saying

[Mikkeles]

Probably apocryphal, but I heard of one judge declaring "[Companies] have no bodies to kick, nor souls to damn; so you're all responsible [referring to the directors/owners]".

I think this is a good attitude.

mafiaa

[mapkinase]

The tag is "mafiaa", but I never saw any news about MPAA suing somebody, only RIAA, at least here at /.

Somebody care to explain?

Re:mafiaa

[ikono]

It's a portmanteau of Mafia and Riaa -- MAF IAA.

Re:mafiaa

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The MPAA brings frivolous suits too, just less of them. It makes the same frivolous arguments and supports the RIAA in its frivolous suits, sometimes submitting amicus curiae briefs on behalf of their brethren. To its credit, in its cases against individuals, (a) it seems to do a little homework -- unlike its RIAA brethren -- prior to bringing suit, and (b) it uses lawyers more nearly resembling human beings who are permitted to negotiate more reasonable settlements.

Re:mafiaa

[mapkinase]

I thought it's MPAA+RIAA-> *AA -> mafiaa

Re:mafiaa

[mapkinase]

Yeah, but we don't hear about those lawsuits as much as about RIAA suits.

Do you have any links?

Re:mafiaa

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yeah, but we don't hear about those lawsuits as much as about RIAA suits. Do you have any links?

The only MPAA v. End User case I know of that wasn't quickly settled is this one, but for all I know that one's been settled too.

Re:mafiaa

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

As it turns out that one was settled too.

Re:mafiaa

[mapkinase]

Thanks for the link.

That's the case of distribution. Was there any case against people who only download stuff?

Th Information Prohibition 1996-2010

[kulakovich]

Never has there been such a parallel in our history. The Prohibition in the United States, from 1920 to 1933, and the Information Prohibition, 1996-2010.

A close second is the novel Dune and the parallel to the Clinton/Bush/Obama triumvirate.

Enjoy your history humans, you're living it.

~kulakovich

Re:Th Information Prohibition 1996-2010

[ShipIt]

I just recently read Dune for the first time. Did I miss something? Triumvirate? Space Guild / Bene Gesserit / Emperor? Still don't see the parallel with the federal executive branch (though it's early and caffeine levels are low)

Re:Th Information Prohibition 1996-2010

[kulakovich]

ohai - I was thinking more Atreides/Beast Rabban/Paul especially given the past 20 years, the Fremen, etc.

/tongue-in-cheek-sorta-odd-though

Re:Th Information Prohibition 1996-2010

[ShipIt]

Ahh - gotcha - thanks

Re:Th Information Prohibition 1996-2010

[Raenex]

You've got it completely backwards. At no time has there been so much free flow of information. The amazing thing is that so far, the courts have rebuked crap like the Communications Decency Act, though there have been cracks in the wall like Children's Internet Protection Act.

Think about it. Encryption is legal. There is no national firewall. You can post any damn thing you want for free on any number of sites anonymously, and have it be seen and spread around the Net instantly. Bloggers are providing an alternative news source. The Abu Ghraib prison torture photos were posted on the Net.

No, what you're complaining about are lawsuits over copyright infringement. Copyright was established by the Constitution.

Nothing will be done to the RIAA

[das3cr]

Who would you take a case to? The DOJ?

Oh wait, the DOJ and the RIAA are basically clones now. I'm sure this DOJ will be labeled the most corrupted political appointment in history.

Re:Nothing will be done to the RIAA

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Who would you take a case to? The DOJ? Oh wait, the DOJ and the RIAA are basically clones now.

That is a problem, isn't it? That Mitch Bainwol's lawyers occupy key posts in the Justice Department.

Re:Nothing will be done to the RIAA

[das3cr]

That is a problem, isn't it? That Mitch Bainwol's lawyers occupy key posts in the Justice Department.

As I see it, it is.

So the question needs to be asked. Is there a way to overcome that obstacle?

Re:Nothing will be done to the RIAA

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

That is a problem, isn't it? That Mitch Bainwol's lawyers occupy key posts in the Justice Department.

As I see it, it is. So the question needs to be asked. Is there a way to overcome that obstacle?

Yes there is. But the only people who can do it are (a) President Barack Obama and (b) Attorney General Eric Holder.

Also, the Jenner & Block attorneys who received the appointments -- Messrs. Perrelli and Verrilli -- can conduct themselves with personal integrity, establish a "Chinese Wall" around record industry and motion picture industry matters, and recuse themselves entirely from anything having to do with those clients.

Re:Nothing will be done to the RIAA

[Tekfactory]

If that doesn't happen, and you ever get in a case where it's applicable, get a good lawyer that will ask the Judge to throw them out.

And keep throwing them out until you get one with no conflict of interest.

Re:As the famous saying goes..

[mcgrew]

Attribution: William Shakespeare. Note that the character who mouthed that phrase was a criminal.

If you ever face a divorce or bankrupcy or DUI or are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're going to need a lawyer. When you need a lawyer you NEED a lawyer. The problem isn't the lawyers, it's the laws and the lawmakers.

the clincher!

[way2trivial]

Exactly right.

the lawyers all took a coffee break, and that counted as a cessation of lawsuits.

of course, then their caffeine riddled corpsus's began again.

World initiate?

[eclectic4]

Would any world initiate be a pretty "broad view"?

Re:But congress has the power to make you change

[geobeck]

Congress has thugs (police) to enforce their decisions. slashbots don't.

There's an idea. We need some hired goons.

Unfortunately, the kind of goons slashdotters are likely to get will probably run into the RIAA's front office brandishing bat'leths, then transport themselves out of the room while security laughs themselves silly.

I'll get the hammer...

[revxul]

May they please be nailed to the proverbial (and maybe literal) wall now?

not initiated...

[Sfing_ter]

These are not "initiated" suits, they are "retaliatory" suits. See the difference. :D

But did they do *precisely* what they *said*?

[ClayJar]

Take the quote, "we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August". Now, the normal way of reading that is "as of August, we are no longer initiating new lawsuits". On the other hand, if you read it with a cynic's eye, you get "we are no longer going to initiate new lawsuits in the month of August".

It's not poor RIAA's fault that people misinterpreted their perfectly honest statement. All they were saying was that August is traditionally a busy month with summer vacations and the beginning of the school years of many locales. They simply found their calendars overbooked, and initiating lawsuits when college students are still moving in to their new apartments... frankly, it was more trouble than it was worth.

From now on, new lawsuits will be initiated from the second Monday in September through the Thursday of the last full week of July.

(COMMENTER'S NOTE: The preceding post was intended as an ironic, tongue-in-cheek piece of very basic entertainment. I did not read their entire letter, nor did I compare it to the list of known -- or unknown -- cases. If it happens that it really *can* be interpreted this way, it's still bald-faced deception.)

Required...

[gabrieltss]

Is lying to Congress illegal? Is it considered perjury?

No it's required.... Name one corporate whore, military person, or congress person who has had to testify before congress that todl the truth... They ALL lie! it's just that no one on the "investigative commitees" has the balls/tits to come right out and say "Your a F!@#ing lier!" to the boobs.

it's a narrow take on "in August"

[Giant peach]

They don't initiate lawsuits in August anymore. Only in the other 11 months.

Re:As the famous saying goes..

[toddestan]

The problem isn't the lawyers, it's the laws and the lawmakers.

Who do you think become law makers, and who do you think make the laws? The root of problem *is* lawyers.