Slashdot Mirror
Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA
whisper_jeff writes "Ars has an excellent write up outlining how Kiwi Camara (Jammie Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer) is following the 'Best Defense is a Good Offense' philosophy and going on the attack against the RIAA. Not content to just defend his client, he is laying siege against the RIAA's entire campaign and beginning the work of dismantling it from the bottom up, starting with the question of whether they actually do own the copyrights that were allegedly infringed. And, if you're thinking this is good for everyone who's been harassed by the RIAA, you'd be right — Camara, along with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, plans to file a class-action suit seeking to force the RIAA to return all the (ill-gotten) money they've earned from their litigation campaign."
We first discussed the efforts of Nesson and Camara to thwart the RIAA last month.
We would all like to see the RIAA lose on all points brought up here, but how strong are these arguments, and are there known ways the RIAA could dodge them?
My webcomic
It sucks that this isn't one of the cases where the RIAA went after a senior citizen who doesn't even know hot to turn on a computer. Its a good thing that the RIAA is so evil and stupid, because otherwise I'd find it much harder to root for her side.
Well that would be kind of dishonest, wouldn't it? Your average file-sharing culprit isn't an innocent old grandpa, but a young adult who downloads movies and music for his/her own use, full well knowing it's illicit. If we're going to defend file sharing, let's be honest and call things for what they are, and not try to embellish the truth or cherry pick facts. The RIAA may resort to reality distortion, but that doesn't mean we should.
She's "obviously guilty" only if file-sharing is not fair use. And she's "obviously guilty" only if the RIAA truly owns those copyrights. If the copyrights were, in effect, extorted from the artists, falsely filed, then the RIAA is representing an industry who's claim of ownership is fraudulent.
This does not, by the way, under current US law, cheat the artists. You by default own copyright in your creative work, even without filing. Clearing the bogus recording industry copyrights off the federal register would, under our law, enable the true artists to file copyrights to their work in their own names. This would then open the opportunity for the true artists to recovery money properly owed them, from whoever has been commercially distributing their music - whether record companies or commercial online enterprises.
That would be a great boon for musicians. If file sharing is not fair use, but the copyrights properly belong to the creative artists rather than the recording companies, then it would be up to the artists to form a cooperative to claim money from file sharers. However, in this case it may well turn out that (1) file sharers are more willing to pay directly to the artists they love, and (2) artists are more willing to be generous to the fans who love them.
This ends up good all the way around. The file sharers, in defending themselves from the RIAA, can make the greatest gift back to the artists themselves - the true ownership of their own works.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
And here I thought the following was true:
http://digg.com/tech_news/RIAA_Keeps_Settlement_Money_Artists_May_Sue
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/02/riaa_what_settlement_money.html ...and there are more on this topic. And while it's unquestionably true that these articles are talking about the settlements from fileshare software companies and not settlements from individuals, I see no cause to believe that the money collected is passed on to the labels (or the artists) at all. Do you have any indication that the RIAA actually passes the money they collect on to the labels? You are aware of the RIAA collection web site yes? (https://www.p2plawsuits.com/) People have been known to use that site when paying their settlements. A single point of transaction for all settlements ostensibly run by the RIAA.
I can't claim to have absolute knowledge of the fact, but it would appear that the RIAA does indeed pocket the money taken ostensibly to fund additional litigation and other legal activities.
I don't boycott them. I haven't bought any music in the last decade because I haven't heard anything in the past decade worth downloading let alone buying!
Get off my lawn.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
It sometimes is, especially when dealing with tax law and the like.
I've been let off with warnings on speeding tickets because I didn't know that the speed limit of the area I was traveling in differed from the standards.
I've also, on more than one occasion, messed up on my taxes, for example taking deductions I thought I was entitled to but wasn't, and when the IRS caught it, I just had to re-file. The most recent time resulted in an in-person visit from an IRS agent. (Last year, dealing with a problem with my 2002 returns).
(While scary at first - "Oh my gods, there's an IRS Agent at my door!" - everything turned out well.
We got along great, too - turns out IRS agents are all a bunch of nerds. One explained to me that it works best to "think of it as a game, with lots of math and complex rules that at least once a year." "So, big Avalon Hill fans, then?" Yep. The office is a giant cube farm, and there was a Robo-Rally game set up in the break room.)
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
This stunt is dangerous. This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny. Remember he could lose and set more case precident in favor of the RIAA. This guy is gambling and the stakes are incredibly high. I am not amused at this, it's risking everyone rights and the future of fair use, by putting the case in his hands. He has noting to lose in this, he'll get his 15 minutes of fame either way. If he wins, great a blow to intellectual tyranny. If he loses, the law suit lottery flood gates are blown wide open. Going on the offense against an industry who is backed by both parties, who have pretty much hand picked damn near ever appeals judge out there, sounds like about the dumbest idea since the Sword-Chucks from 8 bit theatre. I'm not a fan of gambling with people's freedom. Yeah I said it. Mod me whatever, but this scares the hell out of me... IANALBMWIAPL and she's pretty spooked too.
I wouldn't worry about it. This firm has shown that they are (a) enthusiastic, (b) tech-savvy, (c) smart, (d) principled, and (e) hard working. Sure they're young, but that's okay. Win, lose, or draw, only good can come out of their being in the case and giving the RIAA a run for its money. I wish every case was litigated with this much dedication and "attitude". The RIAA's lawyers are so accustomed to having a walk through the park on almost every case, that they are probably in shock at the moment.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful