Yes there are a bunch of things that happened during the last 24 hours that should have the RIAA worried. 1. They were smacked down by this outstanding Visalia, CA, lawyer, whose letter will become a model for lawyers all across the country. 2. They made our country an international laughing stock as they viciously fought to take a face-to-face deposition of a 10-year-old child in Atlantic v. Andersen, invoking revulsion and derision towards our justice system in places like Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, and Israel. 3.They were smacked down by the judge in that case who intervened to prevent them from getting it. 4. They were smacked down by the University of Maine, which followed the University of Wisconsin in refusing to act as the RIAA's collection agent. 5.Under court order they turned over their attorneys billing records in Capitol v. Foster to their adversary.
Under the federal rules, before the defendant has answered, a plaintiff can withdraw its case "without prejudice". That's the law. The RIAA is out thousands of dollars on this case at this point.
If the defendant moves for attorneys fees, I will post that on my blog.
That their "early settlement" plan is a dud? For a view contrary to the RIAA"s rosy press release, see this article, which points out that 116 settling means 284 not settling.
Meanwhile, this was only round 1. It had a deadline of March 20th.
116 settlements is nothing.
Let's see what happens after the initial shock reaction dies down, and students start talking to each other, to their student legal services offices, to lawyers, etc. After they start reading and seeing what their legal rights are. After their ISP's and colleges get to think through what is going on here.
Round 2's letters have just gone out, to 405 students at 23 universities just added to the RIAA hit list.
I'm betting that more people in this group, having had a time to do some research, are getting their act together to resist.
Unfortunately, you're not right about that. The RIAA keeps its cases against 100% innocent people open as long as it can... that way it has subpoena power for an investigation into trying to find out who, if anyone, it should have sued in the first place. This practice was described well by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma in the amicus curiae brief they submitted in Capitol v. Foster.
For a contrary view, let me remind you of the following facts:
1. The RIAA doesn't know who they are.
2. The RIAA may never find out who they are.
3. The RIAA's "settlements" are one-sided harmful documents that are nonnegotiable.
If I were a student receiving a letter, I would do the following:
-bring to the attention of the college's administration and legal counsel's office my Open Letter to Universities Targeted by the RIAA;
-band together with other students who've also received letters, pool our financial resources, and retain a lawyer to fight the RIAA's "discovery" proceeding against the John Does. If 10 students got together, and put in $500 each, $5000 would be enough to hire a lawyer to fight the discovery motion. If the discovery motion is defeated, case closed. The RIAA won't know who they are, and they will not be sued.
I'm just saying that to discuss 'prosecution' of children who did something wrong, in the context of this case, is misleading; in this case the RIAA is aware of no evidence whatsoever to suggest that 7-year-old Kylee Andersen did anything at all. Neither do they have any evidence that the mother did anything at all.
So in this case it's just pure terror + extortion.
The mother never downloaded any songs either. Even before they sued her she offered to turn over her hard drive for inspection. They wanted the money. (Money she doens't have.)
I do agree with Space6host's suggestion that I should try to start mentioning the actual record labels involved, so people will know who to boycottt, which artists to write to, etc. I don't know that Slashdot would want me to put in a list of 7 or 8 record labels, but I'm going to try to start working those names into my stories.
There's a lot of speculation here. I believe this is a child who COULD read when she was 7, but who did NOT 'point and click' her way to anything of the RIAA's. None of the allegedly offending software or song files or remnants thereof were found on the computer.
This is a stickup, pure and simple, by conscienceless ghouls.
You happen to be wrong about that. You won't find anything in the Copyright Act or applicable caselaw about parents being responsible for their offspring's copyright infringement. See, e.g. Capitol v. Foster, February 6, 2007
Also you happen to be offtopic. There isn't the slightest intimation that this child, who was 7 years old at the time of the alleged infringement, has any involvement whatsoever.
I'm not so sure I agree that the RIAA is made out of "real people". I'm starting to think that they're vampires, or some other kind of blood-sucking creature.
You are incorrect. She was 7 years old at the time of the alleged infringement, and has nothing to do with this case at all. Deposing her is just part of the RIAA's reign of terror.
You are right. The record labels who are demanding to take the deposition of a 10-year-old girl are identified in the answer and counterclaims. They are -Atlantic Recording -Priority Records -Capitol Records -UMG Music and -BMG Music.
Everyone out there, please boycott those labels.
And if you know of any recording artists on those labels, write to them and let them know what is going on.
Very interesting point, $space6host. I hope the/. moderators realize the worth of your thinking and mod it up there to +5.
It's really 4 big record companies, Universal, Warner, SONY, and EMI, who are doing this whole RIAA thing.
I have absolutely no conceptual problem with your idea.
Off the top of my head, some logistical problems present themselves to me: -there are also a number of other plaintiffs who are labels owned by those 4, -oftentimes the list would include 6,7,8, or more plaintiffs, -Slashdot allows very little space for headlines -the list would make boring reading to most.
But you make a very valid point. I should try to make sure that people do know which labels are behind each case, so they can know which labels not to buy from. And which artists need to fight on behalf of their fans.
Perhaps the answer is to name the first one in the headline. And to provide a list of labels at the end of each story.
Hmmmm.... you've really given me something to think about. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. Now if only the real Eliot Spitzer would go after them, too, that would be good.
1. They were smacked down by this outstanding Visalia, CA, lawyer, whose letter will become a model for lawyers all across the country.
2. They made our country an international laughing stock as they viciously fought to take a face-to-face deposition of a 10-year-old child in Atlantic v. Andersen, invoking revulsion and derision towards our justice system in places like Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, and Israel.
3.They were smacked down by the judge in that case who intervened to prevent them from getting it.
4. They were smacked down by the University of Maine, which followed the University of Wisconsin in refusing to act as the RIAA's collection agent.
5.Under court order they turned over their attorneys billing records in Capitol v. Foster to their adversary.
And this is only Tuesday.
If the defendant moves for attorneys fees, I will post that on my blog.
I respectfully disagree.
I'm not aware of them ever having won a fully contested case.
p2pnet.net
Ars Technica
The Inquirer
Don't worry, you're not alone in that.
Meanwhile, this was only round 1. It had a deadline of March 20th.
116 settlements is nothing.
Let's see what happens after the initial shock reaction dies down, and students start talking to each other, to their student legal services offices, to lawyers, etc. After they start reading and seeing what their legal rights are. After their ISP's and colleges get to think through what is going on here.
Round 2's letters have just gone out, to 405 students at 23 universities just added to the RIAA hit list.
I'm betting that more people in this group, having had a time to do some research, are getting their act together to resist.
Unfortunately, you're not right about that. The RIAA keeps its cases against 100% innocent people open as long as it can... that way it has subpoena power for an investigation into trying to find out who, if anyone, it should have sued in the first place. This practice was described well by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma in the amicus curiae brief they submitted in Capitol v. Foster.
1. The RIAA doesn't know who they are.
2. The RIAA may never find out who they are.
3. The RIAA's "settlements" are one-sided harmful documents that are nonnegotiable.
If I were a student receiving a letter, I would do the following:
-bring to the attention of the college's administration and legal counsel's office my Open Letter to Universities Targeted by the RIAA;
-band together with other students who've also received letters, pool our financial resources, and retain a lawyer to fight the RIAA's "discovery" proceeding against the John Does. If 10 students got together, and put in $500 each, $5000 would be enough to hire a lawyer to fight the discovery motion. If the discovery motion is defeated, case closed. The RIAA won't know who they are, and they will not be sued.
So in this case it's just pure terror + extortion.
It's $Space6host, not Space6host.
The names of the record labels who insist on deposing a 10 year old child are:
-Atlantic Recording
-Priority Records
-Capitol Records
-UMG Music and
-BMG Music.
Please be sure to
_boycott them, and
-write to their artists, telling them what is going on.
The mother never downloaded any songs either. Even before they sued her she offered to turn over her hard drive for inspection. They wanted the money. (Money she doens't have.)
I do agree with Space6host's suggestion that I should try to start mentioning the actual record labels involved, so people will know who to boycottt, which artists to write to, etc. I don't know that Slashdot would want me to put in a list of 7 or 8 record labels, but I'm going to try to start working those names into my stories.
I predict that you are going to get your wish, and soon, and that the University of Wisconsin is just the beginning. See my Open Letter to Universities for a simple plan of action.
This is a stickup, pure and simple, by conscienceless ghouls.
Do you actually think this child did anything at all? The RIAA has zero evidence that she did.
Also you happen to be offtopic. There isn't the slightest intimation that this child, who was 7 years old at the time of the alleged infringement, has any involvement whatsoever.
I'm not so sure I agree that the RIAA is made out of "real people". I'm starting to think that they're vampires, or some other kind of blood-sucking creature.
You are incorrect. She was 7 years old at the time of the alleged infringement, and has nothing to do with this case at all. Deposing her is just part of the RIAA's reign of terror.
Just want you to know I've credited your suggestion in my comments section.
-Atlantic Recording
-Priority Records
-Capitol Records
-UMG Music and
-BMG Music.
Everyone out there, please boycott those labels.
And if you know of any recording artists on those labels, write to them and let them know what is going on.
Thank you.
It's really 4 big record companies, Universal, Warner, SONY, and EMI, who are doing this whole RIAA thing.
I have absolutely no conceptual problem with your idea.
Off the top of my head, some logistical problems present themselves to me:
-there are also a number of other plaintiffs who are labels owned by those 4,
-oftentimes the list would include 6,7,8, or more plaintiffs,
-Slashdot allows very little space for headlines
-the list would make boring reading to most.
But you make a very valid point. I should try to make sure that people do know which labels are behind each case, so they can know which labels not to buy from. And which artists need to fight on behalf of their fans.
Perhaps the answer is to name the first one in the headline. And to provide a list of labels at the end of each story.
Hmmmm.... you've really given me something to think about. Thanks.
If you read their expert witness's deposition you'll see why it happens; it's because their "investigations" are a sham. See also commentary on Slashdot and Groklaw.
You are absolutely right, supersat. I'm glad you pointed that out.