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.'"
You've exaggerated the protection a bit, but you're correct. In most states, a corporation is a treated as a legal entity that can be sued, fined or sanctioned. The officers of a corporation are protected from suits, unless the plaintiff asks a judge to "pierce the corporate veil". Typically, judges are loathe to do this unless the plaintiff provides a significant amount of evidence that the officers knowingly participated in illegal activities.
Delaware and Nevada are corporation-friendly states and such a suit probably would go nowhere if filed in those states. Other states may have activist judges that think corporate protection is meaningless, and allow litigation on flimsy evidence.
As is often stated here, IANAL, but have formed two corporations and have paid a large portion my lawyer's kid's college tuition doing so.
== First cross river, then insult alligator.
This is more spot-on than the joker seems to realize. According to Bruce Schneier:
(full article is here) Computers
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Well-heeled investor types generally don't like getting told what they're allowed to do with their money. Especially when they're told they're not allowed to put it somewhere where they think it will make them lots of money.
The reality is that 'investor types' could care less about such matters. They put their money where they believe it will make the most money relative to the risk. And if the making of the investment were to put at risk more than the investment itself, but their own assets, they will steer clear. Even if the only exposure were the legal fees incurred in defending a frivolous lawsuit, that is a substantial risk which could run into the millions.
The fact is, this is not a theoretical possibility. This is something that is happening now, ever since the judge in Napster incorrectly allowed the investors to be exposed to the record companies' frivolous claim. The investors did not choose to 'fight for a principle' or 'show the record companies what they could do with it' or show them how 'they don't like being told what to do'; they did what businesspeople do, they settled, to avoid the risk of continued litigation expense and exposure. Since then, some investors have balked at investing in digital music, preferring instead to put their money in other industries, where the competition are not a bunch of litigation-crazy freaks.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Well, in Germany, for private persons, as far an I know, this is the law... Apart from paying for empty media like cd-rs and hds, and other stuff. So we should pay multiple times. But they of course still think they can sue us. ...Well... nobody pays the PC tax anyway. If the government guy comes to your door, you simply tell him you have no PC, and then to go fuck off before you beat him up.
But usually, if opening the door naked does not drive them away quickly, letting him come in, closing the door, and then slowly starting to jack off, does it for sure. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.