Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Drops Enforcement Case To "Sort Out" Inaccuracies
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The other day I reported on my blog that the record companies had assigned, to the RIAA itself, a $4000 default judgment they'd gotten against some lady in Massachusetts, and that the RIAA was going after the defendant with an 'enforcement' proceeding to squeeze the money out of her. Today, it turns out, the RIAA withdrew its motion because, according to the RIAA's collection lawyer, the motion 'contained factual inaccuracies ... which plaintiff needs to sort out' (PDF). The collection lawyer must be new around here; a few little 'factual inaccuracies' never bothered an RIAA lawyer before."
They are learning the lessons.
Gee, Ray, I read the motion to enforce default judgment and I saw very few facts indeed other than an allegation of identity, and another of nonpayment. What the h*** could possibly need to be sorted out? Unless maybe Mr. Mann's firm, as a reputable one would, *reviewed the allegations of fact supporting the original default judgment* and found them, well, fantastical, to use a kind word.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
If by incapable of learning, you mean severely mentally (and morally) handicapped, then yes.
Is that he's the first one out of however many the RIAA employs that seems to have a vestige of conscience and a care for due process.
Is it really that bad in your profession Ray? A single guy sparks up and says something decent and it's a news item?
You must have been pretty lonely in law school. We slashdotters always knew you were rare. We just didn't know *how* rare.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
it's quantity over quality, I always say.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Do you really think that it's the threat of the RIAA that has caused file sharing to drop?
First, I'm not sure whether or not that's actually the case. However, even if it is, the RIAA's lawsuits is not, I think, the best explanation. The rise of iTunes, free songs on MySpace, free music videos on YouTube, etc., has made a much bigger difference. People don't do filesharing as much as they used to because they don't need to. Why download a P2P client and expose yourself to risky files of uncertain provenance when you could just listen to Pandora?
I know that my own file sharing activities have significantly dropped, not because of anything the RIAA or MPAA have done, but because there are loads of television shows and movies available to watch anytime, for free, on Hulu.
Pulling the first one from the phone books is probably not a good way to proceed.
Ibid.
I wouldn't recommend trying to help people not fight the RIAA. The RIAA doesn't behave in the public's interest. Also, as to the other part of your argument, we don't need to take a defeatist attitude fearing what the RIAA might say. The RIAA already complains about widespread illicit copying, the RIAA threatens to sue everyone, and sues many people. Some of the people they sue don't deserve to be sued. The RIAA is reckless and they lie. Clearly we should oppose their efforts by boycott and education.
You could only buy copies of music which you know to be good. This act shares the same outcome as a boycott but is quite different in its intention. Richard Stallman proposed this for MPAA-studio-made movies, recognizing that so few of them are worth seeing at all anyone who was so selective would see very few Hollywood movies.
You could buy tracks from distributors that treat you right, like Magnatune. Artists get half of the cost of each track, artists retain their copyrights (Magnatune licenses from the artist), you can preview Magnatune's entire catalog, you can get audio in a variety of formats, you can share tracks with others, you can include tracks in your other works (subject to the limits of the applicable Creative Commons license), and there's never any DRM to contend with. I don't work for Magnatune; it's remarkable what a great deal Magnatune offers in relation to their competitors.
But you can go beyond believing in market lies (as if you ever had any say in the market) and get into education. Explain to your musician friends that it's remarkably unlikely any unknown musician will become famous. The real choice before the musicians is not whether to sign with an RIAA label, it is how much control will the artist share with the listener. Artists can choose to keep control of their copyrights (songs, recorded performances) and sell their own stuff to the public, or artists can choose to lose those copyrights by signing with a label and going into debt to a label. Musicians should choose to stop trading away what little they have in an attempt to become famous.
Digital Citizen
Artists can choose to keep control of their copyrights (songs, recorded performances) and sell their own stuff to the public, or artists can choose to lose those copyrights by signing with a label and going into debt to a label.
And that element of choice is exactly what is at the core of the RIAA litigations. Digitalization and the internet have given musicians and listeners the choice of leaving the record company middlemen out of it. And more and more of both are making that choice. Which is why these corporations are doing their utmost to put the genie back in the bottle, and to try and make the internet the kind of closed, monopolistic marketplace that existed before. Be wary of attempts of the record companies to 'work with the ISP's' and to take away net neutrality, because what is at the core is the desire to recruit the ISP's to be their gatekeepers the way vinyl record manufacturing plants, payola to radio stations, and expansive distribution networks were in the past.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful