Slashdot Mirror
RIAA, Stop Suing Tech Investors!
The RIAA isn't just suing tens of thousands of music consumers; they've also begun filing lawsuits naming the directors of and investors in tech companies that they believe contribute to copyright infringement. NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "ZDNet urges the big recording industries to stop suing tech investors, and cites the draft legislation that I posted, which would immunize from secondary copyright infringement liability any work done by a director in 'his or her capacity as a member of the board of directors or committee thereof,' and any conduct by an investor based solely upon his or her having 'invested in any such corporation, including any oversight, monitoring, or due diligence activities in connection therewith.'"
Clearly there would be less copyright infringement without all these PC's lying around.
I should say - I think that this law suit is bollocks, obviously.
But if you want to prevent this sort of thing, all you need is a law to indemnify inventors and distributors of technological devices and other services against contributory infringement. Why single out the investors and directors for legal protection?
Investors and directors already have far too *much* indemnity against the actions taken with their money, generally speaking. This would set a terrible precedent, potentially causing tremendous harm to society in order to advance a very minor point of agenda.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
RIAA, we know you're running out of money, so by all means start suing well-heeled investors instead of grandmothers living off small pensions.
Hell, I'll even recommend a few law firms that bill starting a grand an hour to help you out.
What's really needed are some laws that prevent the mafiaa from filing frivolous lawsuits in general. Officers and directors of a specific class of companies don't need special protection.
Once that's accomplished, then it's up to the legislative bodies to determine what a pirate really is. And *then* various judicial bodies to hear test cases and rule on whether or not those laws make any sense. A long and drawn out process, but at least its somewhat transparent and allows all the various stakeholders to get their day in court if they're unhappy with the results.
Cheers,
IANAL but I thought the whole point of corporations was to limit investors' exposure to the amount of their investment. Otherwise your grandma could be sued for the Ford Explorer rollovers since she owns 100 shares of Ford stock in her retirement savings.
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
These investors need to go all in short with leverage against the members of the RIAA that are doing this and drive their stock price to zero.
Make them go bankrupt.
Problem solved.
...but everytime I see an article like this I wonder why no one is listening. Just stop buying products associated with the RIAA and MPAA. Period. If people had done that when this whole fiasco started, they'd both be out of business by now.
You the consumer are just as responsible for what these asshats do because you feed their wallets! Knock it off!
You may have no choice but to give the government billions of tax dollars to fight pointless wars, bailout failing businesses, and remove tattoos in California, but you DO have a choice in what music/movies you buy. Use that freedom or don't bitch when the MAFIAA comes knocking at your legal door.
This is just perfect, because up until recently they only sued people they knew couldn't fight back. I would love to see them snare a Senator, a Congressman or Warren Buffet in their carpet bombing assault on the internets.
So they're suing tech companies and investors related to said companies...
1. get the RIAA to sue IBM.
2. ???
3. Profit! (or at least, no more RIAA)
Let's see...
Any computer company (ibm, microsoft, apple)
All online auction sites like eBay (because they are full of nothing but counterfeits)
Any company that sells ethernet cards or cables.
Oh hell, let's sue the mining industry because they produce the copper for the cables, because copper carries signals that could be carrying stolen bits of data.
As you can tell it's pretty damn stupid.
The only companies that profit directly from copyright infringement are in China. Anyone in the US profiting from copyright infringement is exempt under the DMCA safe harbor clause.
All this faffing around trying to sue the copyright infringers or the people that may have helped them. Forget that, just go straight to the source and prosecute the content makers. Without any media, there would be no copyright infringing...
Lets think about how this would have affected the development of: the personal computer, the VCR, the tape deck, CD burners, torrent distribution, the xerox machine, the printing press...
What's really going on?
RIAA warfare against "piracy?"
or
The RIAA is attempting to buy legislation which would allow them to destroy technologies that allow independent artists to compete with them.
Suing individuals for ridiculous sums of money was like a playground bully beating up scrawny kids for their lunch money. It's easy, but there's not much profit in it.
Suing investors who can actually afford to mount a legal defense for similar sums of money is like trying to beat up the principal for his lunch money. And he's been itching to try out that new paddle.
Except wouldn't it take only a few investors to stand up to the RIAA, get the charges toss out in court (and hopefully damages awarded to the defendant), and set a precedent which would strongly discourage future frivolous lawsuits?
That is, supposing they don't just fold and settle out (I'm hoping that the insult and idiocy of such a lawsuit would be enough to discourage such).
Why is login restricted on your sig site? Should I apply for a handle?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I was at the Chicago Maritime Festival yesterday, and had dinner with a bunch of folks I know, mostly musicians. One member of a the group was very outspoken about how the DMCA and all had *seriously* screwed her group, and all indie musicians. From what she was saying, you have to pay the record companies... and if you're not signed, there is *no* *way* to sell, other than individually, via the online sources that sell by the track.
In addition, the recent screwing by the RIAA & buddies to increase the fees paid by streaming media stations drove *many* under... and a lot of musicians, such as those who are on the renfaire circuit, lost their outlets....
Then, of course, there's the clip I hear of Arlo Guthrie saying that it took him THIRTY YEARS to get the first dime of royalties from Alice's Restaurant.
But the RIAA is *so* about musicians getting paid for their art....
mark
I think it's a sign of how weak and sickly our nation has become.
This kind of behaviour is clearly rabid, and most civilized societies put a merciful bullet in the heads of rabid animals.
Whether literally or figuratively, the RIAA needs to be put down.
[End Of Line]
They want to sue investors and tech companies? Good. It will be suicide for them. They'll have to sue AOL for funding the development of Napster. In so doing they'll have to sue Time Warner, a member of the RIAA. Not to do so will show bias between members and non-members, making all their claims questionable and if I'm not mistaken leave them open to a RICO suit.
The news from the last year or two is misleading in saying Napster acquired AOL Music. AOL already held interest in Napster because they funded its development. Pages on AOL's web site stating this were major points used by Harlan Ellison's attorneys in Ellison v. Remarq, AOL and Various John Does. AOL's attorneys appeared to be completely unaware of this relationship which placed AOL firmly opposite to its own claims of being anti-sharing.
Such corporate merging, spin-off and reacquisition is a common occurrence giving surface activity for various legal and financial reasons while the investors and holding companies retain ownership all along. Whether the Mafiaa's landsharks are unaware of the above, or (more likely IMO) hoping the defense attorneys and the judged are, makes little difference as long as the relevant courts can be made aware of the information. Anyone interested in the specific supporting details can contact Charlie Petit at authorslawyer.com.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Can't be given to corporations? I know that RIAA is doing the "shoot yourself in the foot" task, but have to do it in each toe first? Whats next? Suing Obama?
I'm glad that they've finally been so blinded by their greed that they are finally attacking people who can afford to fight back.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Specifically immunizing investors from secondary copyright infringement suits is putting a band-aid on a festering wound. Number one, they're already covered by the corporate veil anyway, unless the RIAA buys the judges (in which case the laws won't help). Number two, the whole concept of secondary copyright infringement is something made up out of whole cloth by the courts; it doesn't appear in the statutes. So how about explicitly eliminating the doctrine of secondary copyright infringement entirely? It's pretty much used only for evil.
Actually, that goes for copyright period. So here's my suggested draft legislation
1) The United States denounces the Berne Convention and denounces and withdraws from all other organizations, treaties, and/or agreements which would require it to enforce any provisions of Title 17 of the United States Code.
2) Title 17 of the United States Code is hereby repealed, as of thirteen months from date of enactment of this legislation, or when all denunciations and withdrawals in paragraph 1 have taken effect, whichever comes sooner.
It seems that since they've already blown off both their feet, they're now moving on to what they have left. I'm pretty sure that was one of their arms right there.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
(The more they sue, the quicker they are gone. Essentially, ZDnet tells them how to live longer... against their will... Well, I say: In this case, let them have their will. :D)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The officers of a corporation are protected from suits, unless the plaintiff asks a judge to "pierce the corporate evil".
Swapped them letters for you.
So, anything at all that threatens the RIAA's hold over radio playlists must (in the eyes of the RIAA) be killed off at all costs, because the alternative is the death of the RIAA. They are like a cornered animal -- almost defeated, but at their most dangerous.
Ideas? What they may do? What we can do? (I doubt they'll hire assassins, so I'll just focus on more probable issues.)
Fuck you and the whore you rode in on.
I can't believe the negative and adversarial mood this whole story has provoked here. Surely this is good ?
they have widened their aim, but they have targeted people with similar resources now - people who can and will fight back.
Remember, first they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. They've just started fighting for real.
"The fact is there is big money in filing frivolous lawsuits"
Well, we certainly agree on that statement. I've seen your nick around, and read a few of your posts, but other than your opposition to the RIAA, I'm really not aware of your stands on other issues. Since you indicate that you're a lawyer, and since you made the statement about frivolous lawsuits, I have ask, doesn't that put you in opposition to most tort lawyers? My state has been called "Tort Hell" for the habit of tort lawyers shopping for the for the most favorable courts and juries, and filing frivolous lawsuits. When you say "frivolous lawsuits", are you including all the ambulance chasers too?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Sorry but surely the 'investor types' *couldn't* care less about such matters.
Citation Needed
Just bought a couple Linkin Park CD's from Amazon Marketplace. The disks were labeled "Like New" or "Very Good".
Rather than spend $24 for the two I paid $9 bucks. The RIAA's cut? $0.00
That's what they can expect moving forward.
I don't like their attitude and I don't like their lawsuits against people.
I have a couple more CD's to purchase in the next few weeks. The RIAA can expect more of the same.
BTW, the Amazon CD's came as advertised.
Thanks for playing :-)
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
"Anakin! He's too dangerous to be left alive!"
I'm waiting for the headline, "RIAA Sues Everyone With Ears" ... and I only partially expect that The Onion will be the one to carry that.