Heh...there's a thin line between legitimate attempts to make use of the courts and abuse of the process. But again, in my opinion, the solution is for a "wrongly accused" party to file a counterclaim against them based on the supposed abuse, rather than to just make blanket suppositions that the riaa shouldn't be allowed to make use of the system b/c they've purportedly accused some people incorrectly. I notice that most people that have been sued don't bother with the "it wasn't me" claims, likely b/c the overwhelming majority know what they were doing. Most of the ones who argue that they aren't liable throw out ridiculous (read: generally legally irrelevant) arguments like, "it must have been my children, but i didnt know what they were up to"...
Lets say your neighbour is making drugs next door. You see crackheads walking in and out of the house. There is weird chemical smells, and empty bottles of chemicals around. Hell lets even say he tried to sell you some and have it on video tape. Can you go across the street, knock down his door, arrest and charge him with a crime?
of course you can't, b/c only the government can charge him with a crime. you could likely bring a civil action against him for any number of potential causes though, much like the recording industry has done...the copyright act contains both criminal and civil components, and quite frankly, criminal copyright actions aren't generally considered the highest priority...accordingly, it falls to the owner of the property rights to enforce them directly, which is why you hear about the riaa going after people a lot more frequently than you hear about the government criminally prosecuting a copyright infringement...
The person that said that the RIAA should be charged under the RICO Act is indeed onto something. It is a form of racketeering. Also the RIAA should have to be forced to show the actual loss in revenue from each song, and where do they come up with the numbers they sue people for.
as for the bit about the RICO Act, i'd be interested to hear an explanation about what criminal enterprise the RIAA is seeking to further by its use of the legal system...i think what most are really saying is that the RIAA should be held liable on claims for abuse of process, though quite frankly, considering the number of cases that have been filed (and in turn, the number of opportunities individuals have had to raise that kind of claim), the fact that i haven't heard of a single example where that argument has been successful makes me skeptical about its merits...in the overwhelming majority of instances, such a claim is likely to be viewed as sour grapes over getting caught doing something that everyone knows is illegal, but that no one thinks they're going to get called on...
with regard to "where they come up with the numbers", it's statutory, and one of the benefits granted upon registration of work...under the copyright act, the holder of a registration has a presumption of injury and can opt to receive damages in the amount provided in the statutes, without providing evidence of actual injury or the amount of the injury tied to the infringement (i.e., they only have to show that their work was infringed in some way)...it's intended to encourage registration and to deter infringement; whether it's successful in those regards, or the best way of achieving those ends is another discussion entirely, but that's the current state of the law...
Slashdot Mirror
Heh...there's a thin line between legitimate attempts to make use of the courts and abuse of the process. But again, in my opinion, the solution is for a "wrongly accused" party to file a counterclaim against them based on the supposed abuse, rather than to just make blanket suppositions that the riaa shouldn't be allowed to make use of the system b/c they've purportedly accused some people incorrectly. I notice that most people that have been sued don't bother with the "it wasn't me" claims, likely b/c the overwhelming majority know what they were doing. Most of the ones who argue that they aren't liable throw out ridiculous (read: generally legally irrelevant) arguments like, "it must have been my children, but i didnt know what they were up to"...
I saw the article you referred to...good read.
of course you can't, b/c only the government can charge him with a crime. you could likely bring a civil action against him for any number of potential causes though, much like the recording industry has done...the copyright act contains both criminal and civil components, and quite frankly, criminal copyright actions aren't generally considered the highest priority...accordingly, it falls to the owner of the property rights to enforce them directly, which is why you hear about the riaa going after people a lot more frequently than you hear about the government criminally prosecuting a copyright infringement...
as for the bit about the RICO Act, i'd be interested to hear an explanation about what criminal enterprise the RIAA is seeking to further by its use of the legal system...i think what most are really saying is that the RIAA should be held liable on claims for abuse of process, though quite frankly, considering the number of cases that have been filed (and in turn, the number of opportunities individuals have had to raise that kind of claim), the fact that i haven't heard of a single example where that argument has been successful makes me skeptical about its merits...in the overwhelming majority of instances, such a claim is likely to be viewed as sour grapes over getting caught doing something that everyone knows is illegal, but that no one thinks they're going to get called on...
with regard to "where they come up with the numbers", it's statutory, and one of the benefits granted upon registration of work...under the copyright act, the holder of a registration has a presumption of injury and can opt to receive damages in the amount provided in the statutes, without providing evidence of actual injury or the amount of the injury tied to the infringement (i.e., they only have to show that their work was infringed in some way)...it's intended to encourage registration and to deter infringement; whether it's successful in those regards, or the best way of achieving those ends is another discussion entirely, but that's the current state of the law...