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.
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.
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.
The vast majority of the public doesn't have a clue what slashdot is. The vast majority of the music buying public is essentially clueless about nearly anything related to law and rights and all that. The popular commercial news will not report on these stories for a wide variety of reasons. Even if they covered the story attempting to demonize the people being sued, it would be VERY difficult to spin the situation to look this way considering the targets and especially considering the ones that were excused from litigation once they were identified.
I don't buy music... but not for the reasons you might think. My reasons include 1) today's new stuff sucks, 2) I am not moved by music as much as other people seem to be, 3) I realize that music is not a possession but a thing to be licensed but is owned and even controlled by someone else.
But take heart. The movement of public attraction to the indies is growing steadily... perhaps not fast enough but still growing. The use of DRM technologies is also on the decline which is also indication of where things are going. But the progress may never completely uproot the real problem here:
The public is being led around by the nose by a LOT of popular notions. People think they need a "good credit rating" (aka the "I love Debt rating") and they think they need all of the crap and nonsense they buy. I am guilty of all of this same stupidity but I see it and increasingly fight this addiction to plastic. I gave up debt financing on anything but houses and cars and will soon give up on debt financing for cars as well. Spending cash and watching your checking and savings accounts erode with each individual item is far more sobering than watching "bills paid" come out of my accounts. (We see bills as necessary to pay and so we don't anguish about that as much right?)
Okay, this seems to be going off-topic a bit. But the point is that we are living in this consumerist culture that will literally require a cultural revolution to get us out of. If Obama were REALLY interested in bringing this country out of financial ruin, he would start movements that would result in a cultural revolution or at least a return to more simple values. This consumerist culture makes a few of people rich off of nonsense and crap... but that's not as bad as the other, larger side of that statement! This consumerist culture makes a lot of people poor because of nonsense and crap.
The music and movie industries are part of a larger classification identified as the entertainment industry of which the other forms of media are enlisted members. (So is it any mystery that 'the media' doesn't want to cover this topic?) Entertainment is not considered to be a necessity by the standards of most people and when people start watching their spending, that's usually the first to go.
That's the general rule, but there are exceptions. Otherwise, it would be too easy to exploit the legal concept of limited liability corporations to avoid responsibility for your actions. IANAL either but I have come across plenty of people with "clever" ideas they think will limit tax or litigation exposure.
For example, Acme Freight Inc could set up a different subsidiary for each truck it owns with $100 of share capital each, and transfer ownership of one truck and one driver's contract to each one. That way, if there was an accident that particular subsidiary would be sued (but only owns the wreckage of the truck and $100). Acme Freight Inc would then claim that their loss was limited to their investment. Trying to get the courts to accept this scheme is likely to be tough, given that it is both grossly immoral and totally contrary to public policy and the intent of the road accident liability laws.
The subsidiaries have no significant economic capital or operations of their own, and effectively act as agents for the Inc. rather than separate trucking businesses. That sort of situation makes it more likely for the courts to "look through" the legal entity. Of course YMMV and IANAL etc...
In this case, the RIAA has effectively started claiming that the investors knew their service would be used for illegal ends and they set up a separate company to shield themselves from the legal consequences of their actions. Who knows what the courts will decide, but if the investee has a meaningful amount of capital of its own, has separate management and operates independently I wouldn't hold out much hope for this argument.
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.
IANAL but I thought the whole point of corporations was to limit investors' exposure to the amount of their investment.
IAAL... and I was under the same impression.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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
There are already laws in place to protect against the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
Name them. (And once you do I will show you why every one you name is entirely ineffective to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits.) The fact is there is big money in filing frivolous lawsuits and the Big 4 record companies are the best customers for this product. They have spent far more on it than they have on product development.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Citation Needed