Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sued For Fraud, Abuse, & "Sham Litigation"
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "It's been a rough week for the RIAA as massive layoffs are about to cost many employees their job. On top of that, the anti-piracy outfit is being sued in North Carolina for abusing the legal system in its war on piracy, particularly for civil conspiracy, deceptive trade practices, trespassing and computer fraud in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Moursy. Named along with the record companies as defendants on the counterclaims are Safenet (formerly known as MediaSentry) and the RIAA. This case first started out as 'LaFace Records v. Does 1-38' until the court required the RIAA to break it up into 38 separate cases, at which point it morphed into 'SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Doe.' Only after the RIAA finally got its 'expedited' discovery did it become SONY v. Moursy. And from the looks of things, it has a long, long way to go. The RIAA hasn't even filed its answer to the counterclaims yet, but is making a motion to dismiss them on the grounds of legal insufficiency. Sound like a good investment of record company resources, anyone?"
I live with artists, and I will gladly pay for worthwhile music. That means the guys I see in bars. That means the guys I see at concerts. You think we treat artists like slaves? You realize that to this day not a single filesharing case settlement has actually been shared with a SINGLE recording artist? The artists are slaves, but not to us. Fuck the RIAA.
No, wait. The Nuremberg defense is "I was under orders" - it's used when you actually DID something bad YOURSELF. Merely working for someone who also does bad things is not bad in itself unless and until you yourself do bad things.
Take Osama's chauffeur, for example, who was kept for years (and probably still is) in our lovely concentration camp at Gitmo. What did he actually do, other than being connected to/working for a genuine bad guy?
Of course, working for a bad guy isn't really something you SHOULD do, but if you do it anyway, it's not something that should be legally actionable. You are responsible for your OWN actions, not anyone else's. (And in fact, the fact that you ARE responsible for your own actions is precisely why the Nuremberg defense is not considered valid by most.)
Before anybody starts in on the "Yay, less employees!" style rant, please remember that there are GOOD people who work at bad companies... not everyone is an evil backstabbing conniving shrew with the goal of proving that everyone is evil and owes them billions of dollars.
Of course, I have no proof of this "decent people" there, but one can only assume there would be.
This is why many religions have an idea called "right livelihood". The Buddhists are very good at using sensible terms with simple descriptions and so I borrow their term here, but it's a recurring theme appearing in many belief systems. It goes by different names but the concept is that part of having integrity involves earning your living in an honest way that causes as little harm as possible, whether that harm is intentional on your part or incidental.
I know I could not in good conscience work for the RIAA. I could not see the harm and the human suffering and persecution that they perpetrate and join up with them without having a lot of inner conflict. Most of that conflict wouldn't even be a conscious thing. It would manifest in terms of a general dissatisfaction, of the vacuous sort that "you need more stuff, latest fastest greatest" rampant consumerism is designed to fill. It would be the opposite of being strong and needing very little and having a joyous satisfaction with life that comes from trying as much as possible to live in harmony with other beings. It would cost me my principles and therefore my well-being, not in a catastrophic sense but in a subtle corrupting double-minded sense. When I say double-minded, I mean that sensation that one part of you is for something while another part of you is against that something. It's become common, but that is not at all normal and is properly regarded as a disease (or "dis-ease") state.
I'm not advocating a religion or a religious belief. I'm saying that sometimes concepts become incorporated into these beliefs for what you might call practical reasons. It's unfortunate that religion has become such a divisive tool for control but I think that for most of them, this was later added onto the original beliefs and observations to make them into "systems". Most of them started out as sincere efforts to experience true health and joy on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels. You can see that if you can perform the not-so-easy task of unravelling and getting past the practitioners who know little about their own beliefs, the needlessly complex religious language, and the institutionalization and systematization of what are supposed to be personal beliefs. For most religions, I think the early founders would be quite horrified to see what their ideas have become, not unlike how the Founding Fathers would feel about the monstrosity that our federal government has become. In both cases, that does not mean that the original ideas were unsound, it means that the ideas become monsters when they turn into systems and demand that people conform to and become subservient to those systems. This process is in direct opposition to the idea that a belief is a tool or a helper that is there to give you ideas to consider, test, and accept or reject as part of your own personal quest to decide for yourself what you believe. The idea of "right livelihood" is one that I was thankfully able to test by observing other people instead of having to make my own mistakes and I have found it to be a sound idea.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Absolutely. How are large record companies even useful nowadays? It used to be that it was expensive to record and reproduce music, and distribution involved getting physical product out on shelves. Since shelves = floor space = rent, stores had to move as much product as possible, so there was value in having the music they were selling promoted by big companies with a lot of advertising money and a stranglehold on commercial radio.
The landscape has changed dramatically over the last decade. Recording is so cheap that it can be done reasonably well with equipment costing a few thousand dollars or less. That means it's pretty much accessible to everyone. For $10/month you can sign up with a digital music distributor who will put your mp3s on Amazon.com, itunes, etc. Set up a myspace page for your band or register a domain and get an inexpensive web host and you've got a web presence. It's up to you to get your music heard and purchased, but when you do you'll get most or all of the proceeds.
Seriously, what has the music industry given us lately except bland, pretty pop stars with little musical talent?
After I got laid off the last time, I got a VERY lucrative offer from an extremely scummy company that did data mining and direct marketing. After a long discussion with my wife, I turned it down, even though there was a very real chance that doing so would have meant losing my house. Fortunately something else came along, but it was scary there for a while.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I would say that in the past, skilled craft was essential because there was no other way to produce durable, useful goods. Now we have factories and mass production and economies of scale to take care of our material needs. The mistake we have made is that we act now like everything is a product and that craftsmanship or artistry have become more obsolete.
What we could do instead is decide that we have raised our material standard of living to where we can now apply craftsmanship and art to higher expressions of our humanity rather than mundane material survival. An economy based on scarcity (as opposed to what is called a resource economy) and a monetary system based entirely on debt (fiat currency, the Federal Reserve and similar systems that the same international bankers have implemented in every industrialized country) and therefore unsustainable are the main reasons why this has been held back. If we can overcome these things, we would find that we stand at the brink of a new Renaissance far greater than anything that has been imagined before. That is our current challenge.
I agree very much with Bill Hicks when he said that the reason why things are so fucked up right now is that we are undergoing evolution. Hicks went on to say that our institutions are crumbling because they are no longer relevant. Much of the abuses (in my opinion) perpetrated by the RIAA and others have been about these institutions trying to use force, typically the force of law, to remain relevant. I think they are merely prolonging the inevitable. This is a tough time because the old control-and-manipulation-and-coercion based ways of keeping order have to give way first before something new and better can replace them. The unrest and dissatisfaction that is so prevalent right now is part of this process. The one thing that is certain is that our current system is not sustainable. It absolutely must and will either radically change or cause its own collapse. I think something much better is coming that will be based on true love and respect and appreciation for ourselves and each other, for the simple reason that we've tried almost everything else and everything else doesn't work.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein