Slashdot Mirror
Tenenbaum Lawyers Now Passing the Hat
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Just when you think this case couldn't get any stranger, it now appears that the defendant's 'legal team' in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum is passing the hat, taking up a collection. Only the reason for the collection isn't to defray costs and expenses of further defending the action, but to pay the RIAA the amount of the judgment so that their client won't have to declare bankruptcy. I would suggest there might have been a much better way of avoiding bankruptcy. It's called 'handling the case competently.'"
Why does it seem that everybody involved in these cases is an idiot? The RIAA lawyers, the defendants and their representation, the judges, the juries...they all sound like total stooges. How has everything gone so completely wrong?
'New' RIAA overlords? Haven't they been around since 1952?
If you can't declare bankruptcy and escape the life-destroying debt it is time to go on the run. I would suggest Eastern Europe, it is not easy to make money doing TOEFL anymore but you can always sling hash and weed to the English-Speaking tourists. For some reason British/French/German tourists trust American tour guides/drug dealers more so than the average E. European.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
it's called handling the case competently, apparently they don't teach that at Harvard law school
Instead of pushing for a reasonable fine, they expect sympathy from the public?
I'm afraid they're getting neither in this case.
I know it's asking for a "troll" but another option to avoid the bankruptcy would have been to avoid downloading. The music companies are being dicks and the settlements are laughable but it's kind of like complaining about the price of a speeding ticket. It's steep to stop people from speeding. Granted he was caught doing 60 in a 55 zone and they are treating it as though he was nailed for topping 200 mph in a school zone.
The money is going directly to the RIAA pockets. Be a man, declare bankruptcy and fuck the RIAA.
The first problem here is his legal representation was a bunch of idiots. The second problem here is he admitted under oath that he did it, he did it repeatedly, he continued doing it after being warned not to, lied about it under oath, and said all this in front of the jury. And what his clown collection representation should be doing now is asking the RIAA if they could belatedly negotiate a more reasonable settlement, which is what the RIAA offered to do after the fact in the Jammie Dumbbitch case.
This case should have never gone to trial. He should have settled for a few thousand right at the start and called it a day and lesson learned.
And the community as a whole has made a mistake in two cases now. It rallies to the support of people who really did what they were accused by the RIAA of doing. Instead of finding a way to back those being attacked by the RIAA who are in fact completely innocent, everyone and their mother throws themselves behind the guilty ones. Neither of these cases was ever "fighting the good fight".
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
While we the people believe the principles involved are moot. The RIAA believes we the people should be mute.
ideopath @ play
$20 is too much for a CD of sub par music. Now you want me to pay the same people who already rip me off, and get nothing?
You want people to donate $600,000 to the RIAA?
Is this from the Onion?
How can one not suspect that the defense was bought off by the RIAA? I can't conceive of a team of lawyers who could be so utterly incompetent by accident.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
They pick and chose pretty carefully who they are gonna sue in order to gain the most publicity and spread FUD amongst the peons. And it seems to be working out just fine for them too.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
I think sometimes when someone is ordered to pay X dollars to the other party and they want to appeal the judgement, they first have to put the X dollars in escrow so the appellate court can release the money in the event that the appeal is unsuccessful.
Is that what is going on here?
So... to avoid life-destroying debt I should destroy my life? That makes a lot of sense! "I will kill you!" "Not if I kill me first! HAHA! Im a genious! *BLAM*"
Yeah. Pimp tactics. And pimps are the lowest of the low scum.
-- Cheers!
...you apparently are comfortable evaluating the competency of the handling of a legal case. It may not seem difficult, but we go to school for a long time to know what we're doing on these things.
IANAL so I was wondering does this set up a precedence that the RIAA can refer to when going after someone else? Is there anyone there who can say 'IAAL' who knows the answer to this?
Or are they dealt with on a case by case basis?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Destroy your life? Slinging drugs to tourists in Eastern Europe actually sounds like much more of a life than being a wage slave here trying to dig my way out of debt. Tourists + Drugs = $$$ and the exchange rate will mean that if you are taking in Euro or American and converting it to Crown (Czech currency) you will be living like a rock star. Imagine the women.
Of course, like most things, reality would probably suck all the fun out of this fantasy if I actually tried it.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be. -PF
Because with a competent defense, they have an almost unwinnable case. There are just so many areas to slam them on. One of the biggest I'd go for is proof of harm. While I wouldn't have the defense admit to anything, I'd slam them on the fact they have no proof of any harm. Currently, there's only been one scientific, peer reviewed study done on file sharing. It was done by UNC and Harvard (http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf). The result? File sharing has no statistically significant effect on sharing. Ok so you get that in to evidence. You can keep all their studies out on account of they paid for them (thus there's bias), there is no peer review, proper scientific method wasn't followed and so on.
At this point, the only piece of evidence on the harm of sharing, shows that there is none. So now you argue that it isn't even relevant if the sharing took place as it caused no harm. That wouldn't be your only argument, but would be a major one.
Another major one would be to attack the means of getting the information on what was shared and who shared it. There are so many problems with this, not the least of which that Media Sentry, the company that does the dirty work, is unlicensed as an investigator. So you can hammer them on their methods too.
In the end, what you'd likely have is no proof your client did it, just wild ass speculations, no proof of any harm, even if they did, and so on.
The defense was just amazingly incompetent. I mean they did stupid shit like wait too long to apply to have an expert witness speak, and thus got them excluded. That is pure amateur shit right that. "Oh duh we forgot there was a deadline." You aren't in high school, morons, you'd better be more competent than that.
Probably a drop in enrollments.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Ah, but they are new to this whole overlord thing. They've been underlords for so long that they're being a bit hamfisted about it too.
Can we have a list of names of the people on "the legal team" for the defendant?
From what we've seen it appears to that it may be prudent to avoid their legal counsel in the future.
You know... the way you might want to avoid a leper colony of HIV positive fans with gonorrhea who also happen to have both avian and swine flu.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The guy admitted guilt under oath, no? And further lying under oath?
There are laws against his actions that make them criminal/liable, and if he got off innocent just because this was an RIAA case with people backing his cause, then the justice system wouldn't be too stable now would it.
I don't see any good fights to be won at this level, especially in US courts. If file sharing is illegal in this country, then the law needs to be changed, and doesn't that happen somewhere else? By precedent, blurry lines get sharper, but lines are still lines, and if he admits he crossed it, then he's wasting all of our time. Courts don't make the law. They don't even attempt to interpret it. They are there to enforce it. This beef needs to be taken elsewhere.
And clearly the RIAA is picking their fights... I mean, come on.
If you are caught sharing files at this scale, bankruptcy is your best line of defense. I say put your financial dreams on hold for about 5 years and feed your passion or travel.
[undying optimism] Maybe this is just a diversion maneuver, to lull the RIAA into complacence and passivity, while the defense team prepares a cunning and unexpected twist for an appeal which will create a precedent to end all precedents, thus neutering any and all RIAA cases, current and future? It's possible, right? It's just a ruse...?! [/undying optimism]
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I recommend Estonia (great internet access, young president, etc.) or Switzerland (but I dunno if they would expel him).
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
What is your problem with Eastern Europe? You think that we are worse because we used to be commie states? We did not want communism in our countries, the Yalta conference decisions forced us into soviet hands. And who made the Yalta treaty? Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. They have decided about us, without us. If someone is guilty for lower development level of Easter Europe, comparing to western, it's the big three. Western Europe received the Marshall plan help, while Soviets forced us to refuse this help. Commie days were in fact Soviet occupation, allowed by western states during the Yalta conference.
excuse me. but there is NO other way of putting this. the reason for this shit is precisely american legal system's favoring the rich. got money ? you can outsue everyone even if you are higway bandits like riaa.
i know a lot of you americans will be bullshitting about how good a legal system it is because you people generally dont think a world outside usa-uk-australia axis exists. but, it isnt. actually you are being screwed over because more money means more rights in america. just because you embrace the philosophy with four arms. american dream is full of promises. yet i bet not even 1% of you reading this have 'made' it as to be as rich as any patron of riaa. yet you STILL keep hugging it despite there are people screwing you through it.
Read radical news here
Not into conspiracy theories but if i were the RIAA I would pay some guys to lose a high profile case so that a precedent was put in place making all future lawsuits much easier.
Something doesn't smell right in this case.
Why not leave a message supporting Tenenbaum at 202-775-0101 (stick 001 in front of that to dial from the UK). The RIAA probably don't read slashdot.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
I don't think they pick and choose who to sue so much as hoping that when they do sue the wrong people they can be intimidating enough to strongarm them into a settlement.
Usually I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but what if he was bribed to essentially throw his own case in order to set some kind of legal precedent? I mean, it takes a special, special brand of stupid to plead guilty in circumstances like these. I honestly wouldn't put it past the RIAA to pull something like that, considering their track record (MediaSentry's constant flouting of the law comes to mind).
Ray Beckerman probably has a multitude of reasons for choosing his nickname but it won't be for lack of a degree as you can see from his short biography he not only has a degree but cum laude acclamation as well. Also it indicates he did follow the path of Lincoln somewhat in that he worked his way through night school at a law firm, which might have a bit to do with his choosing that handle.
Oh and he has admitted in the past that he has gained a bit of an education here as he sought to learn more about computers and networking to improve his ability to defend his client via preventing the RIAA filling the court's ear with false and improper "facts" unchallenged. He has taught us many things as well.
Let's see, buy 30 songs, pay $29.70. Share 30 songs, pay $675,000. After, that is, they were already bought and paid for. Or didn't the defense have the RIAA prove otherwise?
The defense lawyers are not acting with a consistent philosophy. Just why ask the public with no desire to pay the RIAA to suddenly pay them? Bankruptcy, of course, stays litigation and a discharge in bankruptcy would make any appeal moot.
One point missed throughout is that copyright has historically protected publication, you can write a letter and copy a few lines, you can read it to your friends or colleagues, you can tear a page out of a book and send it around the world or put it in a window for all to see, but you just can't reprint the book and sell it as if it were the original. Is someone pretending to be selling something here without being licensed to do so?
If you buy a song, you buy the right to play it, otherwise it is useless. You have the right to put it in your car and crank up the volume, for all to hear, but according to the RIAA you can't play it for your online friends.
Okay, people, create your original music and video and put it on p2p, and when the RIAA downloads it, send them a bill.
Make them pay for snooping on you.
"Tenenbaum Now Eating His Hat "
Why? The lawyers get paid even if they lose, so where is the incentive?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It doesn't matter, they are still evil and should be rallied against and taken down.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...then I'd rather just use it to buy the songs legally, which makes the whole issue moot.
No it doesn't!
You are pressuming that everyone charged is guilty. Thats a pretty bad attitude!
Wait until someone cracks your network or computer to do something illegal and you'll think twice about statements like that.
This beeing slashdot you should know what the current state of computer and network security (especially wireless networks) is.
So he knows what to say to pretty much every question the other side is going to ask. The defendant shouldn't be thinking, he should just be repeating whatever pat answers his lawyer has worked with him to be the "proper" answer. (I'm not saying perjury but you can prep people to say stuff that wouldn't be that damaging while not actually lying.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Look, commodore64_love, NYCL maintains a fairly high-profile blog which includes a lot of "practice tips" for lawyers defending cases like this. I think it's silly that you're accusing him of being "silent", just because Joel's lawyer didn't feel like using the resources that NYCL is providing.
I have noticed that NYCL isn't posting/making the front page of Slashdot as much recently, but that I believe was because of backlash complaints about the volume of articles he had previously, when he would post about various legal happenings which sprang up in the running of these trials. The last one I remember was when he informed us that RIAA's lawyers were threatened with being sanctioned, which for him, as a lawyer, is a big, big deal --- but the reaction of most of the Slashdot geeks was, "yawn --- what's so important? stop bothering us about every little thing".
Don't give the RIAA a penny.
If you contribute you are just handing money to the wrong side that will be used to persecute (not prosecute) the next victim. NYCL is right the case could have been handled differently and while we don't know everything I do think we know enough to say it should have.
I feel for the defendants, I really do but bankruptcy law is there to protect them. Bankruptcy is something everyone naturally wants to avoid if they can but the rest of us need to keep in mind the bankruptcy is a way out of trouble for people that are already in too deep.
The defendants have already had their lives ruined by the RIAA, making theirs a little less sucky at the expense of helping the RIAA do it to someone else; is not noble cause.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Copyright reform is so badly in need of reform, and this is what we get?
I had high hopes for this case when I first heard of it, but it has turned out worse than I could have possibly imagined, with the Harvard lawyer stepping in to lend a hand pro bono, and all the talk of expert witnesses. But it seems that the judge had it in for the defense, and wouldn't allow them to present the case they wanted, disallowed most of the expert witnesses they talked about calling to the stand, and quashing the Fair Use argument. Then, the defendant commits legal suicide by admitting that he had done what he was accused of, AND admitted to lying about it.
Now he wants people to feel sorry enough to help him pay it off? After this case, it'll only be harder for someone with competent legal counsel to fight the law in the hopes of getting it changed.
To quote Jay and Silent Bob, Fuck Tenenbaum. Fuck him in his stupid ass. And fuck the lawyer he rode in on. Unless you actually downloaded a file for him, don't give this idiot a cent. He hasn't done a thing to earn it.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I think you're talking about SoundExchange, formerly a division of the RIAA. They collect fees for public performance of sound recordings, not from buying CDs or MP3s. The money is distributed to the copyright holders owners of those recordings (usually the record companies).
If they work things at SE like at ASCAP/BMI, then the total mass of income from payments to them is simply distributed percentage-wise based on some kind of statistical sampling. In a way which is not transparent to the artists. I rather doubt that "long-tail" RIAA artists see anything even if they get played O(1) times (and obviously, indie artists couldn't possibly receive anything).
Maybe someone should ask Janis Ian about it, though. Might be interesting to get at least one real data point.
Regardless of how incompetent the judge, jury, lawyers, witnesses and observant squirrels were, this outcome is what should have happened.
I'm sick to death of people feeling sorry for the stupid people who think they can go and illegally download music (knowing they do it) and then illegally make it available for anyone else to grab from their version of the illegally downloaded music. Just where do you get sympathy for this guy? What did he ever do that makes you feel sorry for him? Did he do something honorable by making it easier for everyone else to download his illegal music? I mean, MAYBE if he had actually PAID for something you could argue that he had the right to make the music available, but he didn't even pay anything for it.
My opinion is that right now, we all know what the terms and conditions are when we buy music. It's a license to use the music, it's not buying the music. If you don't like those terms, just don't buy it. But stop whining about how you're being wronged. You have a choice, but you're too damned cheap to make the right one.
It is my understanding that bankruptcy won't save you from punitive damages? If so (and assuming that there are punitive damages in this case which seems likely) doesn't that pretty much condemn him to life on the street if he doesn't find a way to vanish?
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Geeks are a relatively small percentage of all filesharers, so the GP is actually correct. Just for the wrong reason.
Although you have to admit that percentage-wise, there are more geeks capable of not getting caught than ordinary people. Unfortunately, this has insignificant effect compared to the reason I stated above.
> What other arguments did these lawyers miss that a "good lawyer" wouldn't
> have missed? None that would be outcome-determinative, as far as I can see.
I'm glad that you are such a good lawyer.
Frankly, I believe a lot of NYCL's legal points are substantive, and a lot more convincing than the far-out theories of Joel's lawyer, who wanted to rely on a fair-use defense.
On the other hand, I can't figure out how each judge seems more clueless than the previous one. They don't even seem to listen to each other's opinions. In Jammie Thomas's case, the first judge threw out the decision based on his improperly instructing the jury. But then the second trial's judge totally ignored the reasoning of the first trial judge when he instructed the jury in the second trial.
Which leads me to believe, that even if NYCL and Louis Nizer were defending you, it's largely a matter of luck what would happen. A great reflection on our legal system, eh?
It's funny to read all those law-experts here at Slashdot who think they are better at knowing/practising law... It's hard to defend someone if what he did is actually against the law.. You may not agree with it because of your own personal reasons (being that if they start going after fileshares in a big way you will be screwed too), but that doesn't mean all those people (judges and lawyers) are idiots, they know more about law than any of you..
*I would suggest there might have been a much better way of avoiding bankruptcy. It's called 'handling the case competently.'"*
Or...how about "don't pirate music in the first place, much less on P2P networks where you are sending it out, too, so then you don't need to worry about it. Songs only cost you 99 cents each if you buy them legally. If you buy them illegally, you deserve what you get"
Run? Why the hell run? If you are that screwed anyway you might as well become the monster they think you are. A few news stories about RIAA executives' or their lawyers' heads turning into a fine pink mist in broad daylight on a public street at least might bring some attention to the debate.
It's not like you'd be drowning a puppy or anything.
Or find defendants that are so stupid, ego centric and bald faced liars that the public starts to see them as the face of the "illegal downloaders" the RIAA is combating. Tenenbauam and his ass clown legal team fit that bill perfectly.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
IANAL, but I've been wondering. Say you download some music using BitTorrent and immediately after you've completed it, you close the software off. Assuming it wasn't on for long, you probably would not have shared enough data to even give a song to anyone.
With that in mind, can anyone tell me if you can still be considered guilty of sharing the music if you have not actually shared a single full song, only downloaded them? I mean, if you share 1% of a few songs, you've just sent out random data, you didn't technically share a song.
Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine!
... come up with teh money or themselves be exposed for their incompetency... and sued...
Don't you know man? It's 'i' before 'e' except after 'w'.
The CB App. What's your 20?
While we the people believe the principles involved are moot. The RIAA believes we the people should be mute.
I see what you did there...
I'm a big tall mofo.
The geek in court is out-brained and out-gunned.
1 Choose a lawyer as you would a oncologist -
what you need is an experienced and responsible advocate whose only interest is in seeing you through a very difficult time.
2 Even the very best can spend a lifetime in practice and get no closer to the Supreme Court than the Gray Line bus tour.
You need to think very, very hard before pinning all your hopes on the constitutional questions that seem so seductive - and so easily resolved - on Slashdot.
3 The calliope, brass band, elephants, clowns and dancing bear have no place in the federal courtroom.
It shows a fundamental disrespect for the setting and the legal process. It pisses off the judge and jury.
It buries your defense under a ton of shit.
4 The geek tends to construct over-elaborate and implausible scenarios that come across as the fast-talker's big con in court.
Many things are possible in this world, but some things are more likely than others - and that is all a civil jury has to decide.
4 Fair Use has a specific - statutory - definition. It can suggest an approach to questions like time-shifting. But there are limits:
If you are not a licensed distributor, you have no business feeding content to the P2P nets.
The geek's investment in hardware and a broadband connection does not give him the right to free digital download copies of everything Pixar.
40% of the jury pool may not even have a broadband connection - or will have opted out of the P2P culture for other reasons - and in a deep recession that number can easily grow much larger.
5 If an award of statutory damages is the most likely outcome in your case, the time to settle is now.
IANAL, but the damages amount seems disproportionate to the offense. Does this raise any additional prospect of constitutional appeal for a disproportionate penalty? (Not that the attorney in this case would be capable of mounting such an appeal pro bono...)
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
What'd you expect?
A competent legal defense? This isn't the movies. You want a real lawyer with real legal guns, you gotta pay real money.
Charles Nesson isn't a real lawyer. He's been a law school professor for 40 years with less litigation experience than the ambulance chasers on TV. You don't send Coach into the big game and expect him to make the big shot. He's a coach and not a player for a fucking reason.
lets see. modern societies are founded on the principle of equality. it is the VERY principle on which everything else is based upon.
lets see. there is a system that allows the wealthier to hire legal armies to negate equality for anyone who is less wealthy, and the less wealthy person loses the case not due to its merits, but due to less funds available. and even with 'competent, ethical counsel' is found, somehow, it still does not negate the fact that wealthy are able to hire much more competent lawyers to exploit the legal system to their end.
and you fail to see how this is a fundamental flaw.
please.
Read radical news here
Sorry, folks, but while legal action is necessary to stop the lawsuit campaign, Tenenbaum is about as far from the poster boy needed to stop the RIAA as you can get.
Regardless of whether the question should have been asked, the fact is that he admitted liability on the stand, and admitted that he had been perjuring himself to the court for the last eight months, right up to jury selection. The man is lucky he's not facing jail for perjury, which carries up to five years imprisonment - he certainly did everything in his power to make the court hostile to him at the last minute.
A test case to challenge statutory damages when it comes to individuals requires a sympathetic defendant - Tenenbaum seems to have done everything he can to appear to be a lying sociopath, up to and including giving a reason for lying under oath that amounts to "it seemed like a good idea at the time."
Slightly strange and loopy counsel aside, Tenenbaum wasted eight months of the court's time, committed a felony outside of what he was being sued for, and there is no way in hell that anybody should be paying his costs and his penalty for him. He stopped being able to play the "I'm being persecuted by a large organization" card the minute he lied under oath.
Do NOT send any money to this man and his family. Please.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
30 songs. The rest is conjectural and not proven
This sure as heck looks like proof to my eyes:
Tenenbaum admitted that the screenshots captured by MediaSentry in August 2004, showing over 800 song files in his KaZaA shared folder, were accurate representations of the contents of that folder. Tenenbaum takes the stand: I used P2P and lied about it
Important update: Mr. Tenenbaum has issued a statement changing course, and indicating that the contributions received will NOT go to the RIAA, but will instead be used to defray defense costs. He further states "If money remains beyond that, I am open to a discussion with Charlie, Ray Beckerman, and our supporters (you donated it, after all) as to what to do with the rest of it."
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I thought I'd put in a link to the statement, but I guess I hadn't. Here it is.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Oh please, this has nothing to do with lobbyists having more power that the people. The voters clearly do not care about this issue
How many of those voters are based in cities where "big media" is politically and economically significant?
The P2P community is dispersed. The lobbyist can focus on the power brokers in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Nashville, Orlando...
posting anonymously i might add.
you should learn to read first. what i typed does not say 'incorruptible'. it points out the stupidity of jury system, which fundamentally depends on making some bunch of randomly selected people believe what you say.
Read radical news here
There are 2 RIAA trolls who are 'up each other's a**es' agreeing with each other about how unkind I have been to criticize the work of the defendant's "legal team" in SONY v. Tenenbaum on my blog and on Slashdot. They're not attacking any of the other 25,000 or so Slashdotters who have also criticized the work of defendant's legal team.
Will someone please get them off my back?
Hello, any moderators out there by any chance?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I find all the discussion on RIAA cases totally useless. We have seen that in every case RIAA manages to have a pro copyright judge/jury and ensure a decision in lower court that will favor RIAA. The root cause for this is money, the greed that drives RIAA. When you buy music the artist gets only a tiny fraction and most goes into the pockets of those who are already rich. Who decides the cost of a music album ? Has RIAA published any mechanism to for deciding the price of music album ? RIAA knows that they can sell stuff at whatever price they want to with no one to question. Nothing wrong is charging a premium when you sell good stuff but the problem is most of the music sold by RIAA is sub standard. The real cause of falling sales is the bad quality of the music being produced by RIAA. We listen to the tacks once or twice and throw it away. The music doesnot have a shelf life anymore. Neither technology (DRM) not legal battles can improve the sales of the music industry as long as they are not producing good music. If we as consumers stop buying this sub standard music there is hardly anything RIAA can do, they will not be left with many options other than producing good music. All other things seems futile to me as RIAA has money and lawyer muscles to bend things the way they want to. Instead of fighting we can always ignore them and take them out by not buyng the crap shit they are selling...
If you can't declare bankruptcy and escape the life-destroying debt it is time to go on the run. I would suggest Eastern Europe,
It's not criminal, so they couldn't extradite you. So go wherever you like. I'm personally moving out of the USA. The $100k per household debt and $500k per household obligations are enough that I'm better off elsewhere. I'll become a dual citizen and if ever the USA gets its act together, I'll come back. If not, I'll just stay away. Either way, I'll be covered for life. I fly out of the US on August 21st. It's not Eastern Europe. But they speak English and it's a country that no one ever messes with. And no, I won't tell you, I don't want anyone else running to my country. The USA used to be the land of opportunity. Now, we are a protectionist cesspool descending to failure because of the inability of the people to vote their minds rather than the last soundbite they heard, and the politicians playing to the soundbites.
Learn to love Alaska
... because I want to help a criminal get out his punishment at my expense! Actually, I think I'll save my money for when the RIAA gets around to suing me for the files they can't really prove I shared.