FSF Reaches Out to RIAA Victims 329
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In what has been termed the ''RIAA's worst nightmare', the Free Software Foundation has announced that it is coming to the aid of the victims of RIAA lawsuits, by establishing an Expert Witness Defense Fund to assist defendants in RIAA cases. The purpose of the fund is 'to help provide computer expert witnesses to combat RIAA's ongoing lawsuits, and to defend against the RIAA's attempt to redefine copyright law.' The funds will be used to pay fees and/or expenses of technical expert witnesses, forensic examiners, and other technical consultants assisting individuals named as defendants in non-commercial, peer-to-peer file sharing cases brought by the RIAA, EMI, SONY BMG, Vivendi Universal, and Warner Bros. Records, and their affiliated companies, such as Interscope, Arista, UMG, Fonovisa, Motown, Atlantic, Priority, and others."
Too late (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
And what about? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do it as in Europe - losing side pays for everything, and they will stop pretty quick.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And what about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because when Grandma needs to seek justice against some large corporation that wronged her, she should definitely have to worry about paying their legal fees if she loses.
Re:And what about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And what about? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's done to an extent already. Legal fee awards in cases are normally capped to "reasonable" levels. When trying to determine what is reasonable, the opposing side's legal fees are considered directly relevant. If I'm asking for 50k in legal fees, you're going to have trouble complaining that my legal fees are unreasonable when you spent 100k on the same case. This was the direct cause of the interesting legal wrangling over whether or not the RIAA's legal billings would be revealed as part of the Foster case -- she was seeking legal fees, and the RIAA was contesting her fees as too high.
I'd much prefer to see it codified in a loser-pays system as you and the GP are suggesting, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Grandma sues MegaCorp with a single lawyer and looses then it only costs her twice whatever her lawyer charges.
Which is still more then many people can afford. I'm somewhat leery of doing anything that makes it harder to use the legal system. And how would your idea account for people whose lawyers take the cases on contingecy?
Perhaps what we need is some sort of public defender type system for people without the resources to defend themselves in civil court. Your idea of 'loser pays' does nothing to help the person facing the RIAA lawsuit if they don't already have the money they need to defend themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, that sounds great in theory. The problem comes when the better-represented party, rather than the party in the right, wins. Not that I disagree that an organisation pursuing frivolous lawsuits should foot the cost of those lawsuits when they're found wanting for whatever reason, but neither system is perfect.
On the other hand the only trial of multinational-vs-regular folks I could think of, outside the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI etc sphere, was the 'McLibel [mcspotlight.org]' case. In which the defendants won. Despite the litigio
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Expert witnesses bill out at a kilobuck per hour.
Your own experts are not cheap by any metric.
Even if you get your lawyers to work for free, your experts won't.
Re:And what about? (Score:5, Insightful)
How would one of those being sued in this case come up with the money if they lost? Being innocent of the charges isn't always enough to ensure that one wins the case. All that would do in these cases would be to encourage the RIAA to pay more and represent a larger incentive to settle out of court.
When it comes to the cost of lawyers, often times people with a strong case can gain an attorney on a contingency basis, meaning that they lawyer takes a larger slice of the award in exchange for potentially working for free if they lose the case.
Other times an attorney will do the work pro bono publico, although the practice can at times be shady, as sometimes the attorney will seek an award in addition to what the complainant is asking for anyways.
What I would like to see is for the court expenses be limited to what the less wealthy side can afford, and if the wealthier side wants to spend more, require them to cover the difference whether they win or lose. With the Judge in the case ruling whether the sums of money involved are reasonable.
Re:And what about? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And what about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please cite the studies that show that this is indeed the case. I could look at the people that settled and make an assertion that is equally valid that the settlements were simply extortion fees paid by people that didn't have the money to pursue a legal case, and not necessarily an admission of guilt.
I have seen claims made by the RIAA in reports of cases that they have made that were simply untenable—that an IP address uniquely identifies an individual, that a person that sent a laptop to be repaired and had the hard drive replaced was intentionally destroying evidence, and that a computer screenshot that shows an IP address is conclusive proof that a person was sharing files (I can construct a screenshot that shows any IP address and make any claim I want by those rules of evidence).
What I have NOT seen is any evidence offered that sharing files in any way hurts the RIAA, its member companies, or even the artists, performers, or composers. How much do radio stations pay to play a single recording and make it available to millions of potential listeners? And how much per song is the RIAA demanding for people that they claim are sharing files? How long will the courts allow the RIAA and its companies to claim damages anywhere near the amounts they are currently claiming? If the damages they claim are intentionally misleading, then isn't this perjury?
The RIAA can make up any "facts" it wants to support their cases and then pull damage amounts from their asses and present them to the courts with a straight face. This is simply ridiculous, and it is my earnest hope that they finally get called on it and be made to pay the piper.
Re:And what about? (Score:5, Interesting)
So when a single mother of 4 who works double shifts at walmart and can barely make ends meet gets sued by the RIAA the court costs become $0 ?
Sounds like a great way to screw the lawyers (and the RIAA).
Where do I sign up ?
Re:And what about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya know, my karma will probably get beat all to hell for this, but not all lawyers are bad.
Get charged with a crime you didn't commit and then tell me how you feel about defense attorneys. Get injured by someone whose insurance company refuses to pay for your treatment and tell me how you feel about them.
Do you have a negative opinion of the lawyers working for the FSF? How about the ACLU lawyers fighting for your civil liberties? How about this guy [wikipedia.org] or this guy [wikipedia.org], both of whom were lawyers.
Lawyers represent their clients. You'd be doing better to direct your anger at the RIAA for the lawsuits and not their lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
I can, easily. They stink. Mine rolled over and started pandering to the prosecution until I finally was tired of hearing his whiny ass tell me that my defense would do no good; after 2 months *MY* motions to dismiss, etc. had caused the prosecution to approach me with a plea bargain that was less than 1% of what I had been charged with initially. I imagine I'd still be in prison if I'd bothered to listen t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they are actually doing that (and I don't doubt you that they are) then it's obviously a different matter and they deserve to be punished harshly by the Court and the relevant Bar Associations.
Has anybody looked into this and sought sanctions against them?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Rich corp spends $50,000 suing poor single mom, who spends $1,000 defending herself. They win, she pays $1,000 of their expenses. They lose, they pay $1,000 of the mom's expenses.
Two Rich cops sue each other: They each spend $1,000,000. Loser pays full amount.
I think this would have the effect of making pen
But what about... (Score:2, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the corp has only spent $50k on the baseless accusations, as they get a bulk rate on their worthless experts and they used staff lawyers paid far less than partners (or some associates). After all, they didn't really care if they won *every* case, just some of them.
Anyway, the single mom is exonerated, but she is only paid $50k of her legal fees. The other $50k is her expense.
Re: (Score:2)
Have the state pay for everything - every last penny spent on the case. Anything else means that the citizens are not equal before law, which only serves to bring all law into contempt.
Not that that'll ever
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, the evidence establishes that the defendant's IP address was used to download a Britney Spears album on a P2P network. However, it still allows for the possibility that the *person* who downloaded it was a catburglar who snuck in at night without the defendant knowing, downloaded the files, and left. Therefore, IP logs should have no probative value in computer crime cases."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Losing side pays for everything and owes the defendant the amount initially requested by plaintiff.
You want to sue for excessive and crazy amounts? You lose you pay the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not good. (Score:3, Interesting)
for them to get involved in intellectual property disputes of this nature (I specify because
I could see reason to become involved in software patent IP issues). The last thing the free
software community needs is to be identified with people downloading illegally from the pirate's
bay, *nova, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I could see reason to become involved in software patent IP issues).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-mcg
Re: (Score:2)
*Why do they keep talking about "illegal downloads" when it's UPLOADING that is illegal?
Maybe because no one uploads in P2P. There is no push (upload); there is only pull (download). Serving and uploading are not the same thing.
The person making the copy is the one doing something illegal. Someone who downloads from a server is making the copy. If someone else was uploading to a server, that would be making a copy.
Something which is legal to possess isn't made illegal by making its location accessible to the public. It's a pie cooling on a windowsill.
Having something on a server makes no
Re:Not good. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not good. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not good. (Score:4, Informative)
Can you imagine... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be like a coupla NewYorkCityLawyers, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-mcgrew
(apologies to Arlo. The RIAA should be apologizing to Arlo's late father Woodie [slashdot.org], whose guitar sported the motto "this machine kills facists").
Re:Can you imagine... (Score:5, Funny)
:)
Bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
new. This is nothing that companies like Microsoft haven't already created
FUD about. This is pretty much business as normal.
Who "supports the FSF" anyways?
Companies buy support contracts from Novell or Redhat.
They may not even be aware of the whole "GNU/Linux" thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I support the FSF (member #4474).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought the EFF was the software equivalent of the ACLU?
--Rob
Re: (Score:2)
If people were concerned about who's doing illegal activities they may wonder about RIAA's activities against college students.
For example, a student at a local college got a nice letter from RIAA to settle with them for $3000 for the 87 songs she "illegally" downloaded, or go to court.
Now, if it hurts them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per each song, why are they willing to settle for a measly $3000?
How is that form of extortion legal?
People of the US. don't give
Re: (Score:2)
if you support this foundation you also support breaking the law?
That needs to read "changing the law". FSF needs to get the message out loudly and clearly that they support sane laws and are working to get them.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
Interestingly on-topic. See, laws are only enforceable when the governed allow them to be. People are coming around to the idea that they don't want pot smoking to be a felony, even if they don't want to do it themselves. You yourself are coming out pro-sanity without being pro-lawbreaking. Well, the FSF needs to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone is copying everything.
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember correctly it has been determined that _ANY_ small part of a composed music number used in another number constitutes infringement. Even resampled at different speeds.
So if music is digital the smallest part of a number would be a 0 or a 1 - just get hold of whoever made the first binary program and get him/her to sue everybody in the music industry.
Go FSF! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for using the acronym for "imaginary property" rather than pretending that anything that's only in your head bears any resemblance to actual, real, concrete property.
-mcgrew
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly doesn't intellectual property resemble "real" property? Certainly not legally, certainly not in terms of value and how it's traded, certainly not in terms of how it's earned (i.e. through working for it). So, how do they not resemble? Is it some reincarnation of the outdated "If I ain't able teh feel it, it don't exist" ar
Re:Go FSF! (Score:5, Informative)
Any other questions?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but it's devalued. You have it for free, I worked hard to create it. You can also steal from my bank account. I still have my bank account, it's just been devalued.
No, the value is shared. Look it up. In economics, you simply can't creat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely. So if you can create music more cheaply than an artist sells it, then you are invited to do so. You would be legitimately competing against the artist, and providing a similar contribution to our culture. If, however, you mean to say you don't need the artist to make a copy for you, then that's false. You still need the a
Re:Go FSF! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you are talking about, here, but it's not art. Maybe it's widgets. Widgets are not art - they are products designed to sell to some perceived or existing market.
Artists don't have to be paid to produce art, they produce it because the want to. Indeed, often because they have to. They have done it since the first cave man chiseled a bear on a cave wall, and they will continue to do it forever.
There have for a long time been people that valued art enough to ensure that the artist were paid for their work, and thus had more time for art instead of having to also perform other work to make a living. This is a good thing. Recently there have been whole corporations that hired artists to produce art works, then made money selling copies. Often huge amounts of money. Many artists got very rich.
Unfortunately, that kind of system also attracts the widget makers. Teams of widget makers often get together and produce something they call "art" (it's not) and make huge sums of money selling copies.
Good. If all you're doing it for is money, it's probably not very good anyway. Without all those widgety things crowding the ether, the truly insightful and inspiring art will flourish, enriching us and encouraging other would-be artists. I'd say it's more like "one supports our culture, the other corrupts it."Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Naturally not. Not everyone expects to be paid for their art. There will always be people who produce art for free. Just don't expect the same volume, the same time put in, the same attention to detail, the same instruments to be used, the same collaboration opportunities, the same talent pool, the same variety of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only in terms of popularity. Thus the more demanded art will be produced more. But that isn't really a problem since there is plenty of art production for all art forms, just some will be produced more than others, but still enough to satisfy anyone. Not so with no copyright. With an anaemic, underfunded culture, expensive artwork production will be slim to non-existent.
Besides, with copyright, artists have a choice of distribution method. There's noth
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Infringement is not theft (just like it's not larceny, robb
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for using the acronym for "imaginary property" rather than pretending that anything that's only in your head bears any resemblance to actual, real, concrete property.
The whole concept of property is imaginary. What's your point? The only reason the idea of property exists at all is because society set up a system of rules to decide what belongs to whom. By the same token, society can decide exactly what can be owned as well.
I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see the connection (Score:5, Insightful)
If the RIAA is able to effectively take advantage of non-tech savvy courts, it's not too much of a stretch for other IP related companies to start filing claims, infringement suits, etc. against open source applications that compete with theirs.
Maybe I'm off base, but that's a possible reason for the FSF to be taking this course. It's more of a message to the business community at large that you're not going to have it that easy strong arming the technology world.
What do I know though, I was a history major..
HARK! (Score:5, Funny)
The continued victimization of America (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But hey, I guess good old fashioned gumption, bootstrap-pulling, and moral fiber are all people need. Maybe there's a culture of victimhood because people are constantly getting fucked over with nothing they're legally allowed to do about it except whine.
I suppose we all get the system we deserve. Unfortunately, I also get the system we deserve. Add me to the victims.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly a nightmare... (Score:3, Interesting)
Its sloppy, its crappy, but when you have "Identify user's ip, user name, and the same username used on a bunch of legitimate sites", it becomes hard to contest the evidence sufficiently to establish nonresponsibility.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the way I interpret FSF's involvement. They're not arguing innocence or guilt, they're just making sure both sides have appropriate technical representation vs. the ridiculously one-sided "Grandma Jones and her AOL account vs. RIAA's team of electrical engineering PhDs".
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is most of these people are guilty. And when they're put on the stand and asked, "did you download this music" they have two choices: tell the truth and admit liability, or lie and commit perjury.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But expert testimony at the right stage about the right point might force the rest of the evidence to become inadmissible, or create justification for a solid countersuit against the RIAA
The problem isn't so much copyright law (Score:3, Insightful)
The big issue that has come into play is the RIAA's tactics in gathering evidence. Many times an IP address was proxied and the wrong person ends up on trial. The RIAA's biggest misstep comes into play when they search/seize without proof that the questionable internet activity came from the household they are searching.
There have been many trials which have gone very poorly for the individual even though the RIAA gathered evidence at an incorrect location and *happened* to stumble upon something questionable.
Don't get me wrong, it's still great that an individual has more resources when fighting an RIAA lawsuit, but many problems come up not because of the RIAA's loose definition of copyright, but because the individual defending them self doesn't know their rights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
I quote "The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs.". Thats computer programs, not MP3z. FFS, people donate money to the FSF for their work, if I had and found out they were spending it on this I'm be pretty miffed.
Right, tin hat on...
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a card carrying FSF member, and I fully support this sort of behavior on their part. The issue of file sharing is already threatening software freedom - if they can help to make it clear that the RIAA are just jerks trying to abuse the legal system, the RIAA will have less power to try to outlaw software. That's what this is really about - whether software that allows people to share arbitrary data with each other should be considered to be evidence of criminal activity.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an FSF member too (although I don't want to scratch my mini-CD by carrying it around with me ;) ) I but I have to wonder if this sort of thing isn't more appropriate for the EFF instead (of which I'm also a member). Don't get me wrong: I'm glad this sort of thing is getting done. I'm just not sure if the division of labor is quite right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA, on the other hand, is one of the primary promoters of DRM.
Their lawsuit circus is mostly for show. One, they use it to create ammo for their lobbyists ("look how many evil people are out there, we're suing in the thousands but we simply can't get them all, we need new laws, give us new laws, btw. how's the wife? how about a nice holiday with her to fix things up again? or a nice willing young lady
Re: (Score:2)
Because the FSF is first and foremost about Freedom, and very much against any kind of DRM-like crap.
While that's true, it's totally irrelevant to the central point. The RIAA has evidence of people engaged in an illegal activity. They are taking legal action against those people (or the people they identify). They are protecting their rights, whether you believe they should have those rights or not is not relevant. You can support independent music or buy things without DRM in an effort to drive th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it is very much in their interest to get involved with this before it starts to have direct effect on them, as by then it has gathered inertia and will be that much harder to reverse.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it doesn't sound like you donate to the FSF, so you don't have any right to be miffed. We all benefit from their work. You wouldn't have any reason to be miffed anyway, this is a separate fund created by the FSF and you donate money to.
Parent is trolling, but I'll answer anyway: (Score:2)
Why convict defendants in your posts when they haven't even been through trial?
It ought to be clear from RTFA that the FSF may not have much of a free software culture left to serve if a whole body of cases with twisted re-interpretations of copyright law become established precedent. That impacts redistribution of software ever so much, so they are rightfully against letting the technical misrepresentations themselves to stand irregardless of whether the defendants are innocent or guilty.
Right, tin hat on...
How f
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Because they are promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs, that's why. They see the connection between the shoddy evidence gathering of the RIAA and the possibility that merely possessing certain software programs will be considered as evidence of infringement.
The FSF has a policy against using proprietary software; it's not as if they are defending the illegal downloading of copyrighted material. Rather, it seems they are concerned, and rightly so, that a judicial precedent may establish the mere possession of file sharing programs as a de facto evidence of guilt, regardless of whether or not any infringement actually occurred.
Think about that for a moment. The whole Web is just one large, distributed, filesharing program. Imagine the consequences if everything was outlawed because of what it could be used for, rather than outlawing the specific act it might be used for. Even though the RIAA cases deal with copyright, it is more of a war on technology than anything else, and it has far-reaching implications for even those who do not infringe copyright. The real problem that the RIAA is fighting is filesharing itself - it could completely supplant them as the arbiter of music; their very survival depends on keeping individuals from sharing music - copyrighted or not - amongst themselves. The RIAA knows very well that once musicians discover publishing via filesharing, their stranglehold on the industry is over.
So what does the RIAA want? That's right - to control your computer, and dictate which software you are allowed to run. That's the only way to protect their content monopoly, and you can bet their going to try any means possible to accomplish it, consumer rights notwithstanding.
Good to see (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Donate (Score:5, Informative)
20 years from now (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Place your bets (Score:4, Funny)
The end of digital restrictions or the dominance of GNU HURD?
The right answer - starve them (Score:2, Insightful)
What about the EFF? (Score:2)
I would have thought the EFF [eff.org] ("Defending Freedom in the Digital Age") would be the more appropriate NGO to address this issue. I thought the FSF was just an organization promoting the GPL?
--Rob
Lunch with Ray Beckerman (Score:3, Interesting)
How about it Ray?
Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser (Score:5, Insightful)
I would think the best way to help the average Joe is to give his average lawyer a set of clearly-defined, well-argued precedents and examples to base the defense on. Having the precedents and example arguments be stronger will help more people in the long run than trying to help everyone at once.
There's no way the fund can help everyone directly; I imagine it will help more people in the long run by carefully choosing its battles and winning them well than by diluting its resources and helping lots of people who, while individually deserving, won't have the same multiplicative effect on the resources spent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think the best way to help the average Joe is to give his average lawyer a set of clearly-defined, well-argued precedents and examples to base the defense on. Having the precedents and example arguments be stronger will help more people in the long run than trying to help everyone at once. There's no way the fund can help everyone directly; I imagine it will help more people in the long run by carefully choosing its battles and winning them well than by diluting its resources and helping lots of people who, while individually deserving, won't have the same multiplicative effect on the resources spent.
Well spoken, evanbd. Couldn't have said it better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
who appointed Ray Beckerman the primary RIAA gestapo?
As far as I know, Ray Beckerman volunteered to help the cause. And it is indeed volunteering: he goes well beyond the normal call of duty for his pay/occupation. He pursues his cases with a diligence and excellence that is remarkable.
What about having a disinterested party as the fund adviser?
I understand the need for transparency, but if Ray is willing to undertake the task (and it will no doubt involve some tedious paperwork and such), then that's great. He is in a position to make informed choices, and to use this money to greatest effect.
Moreover it's not l
Re: (Score:2)
-mcgrew
Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser (Score:4, Insightful)
"What about having a disinterested party as the fund adviser?
I frankly don't understand your point (or why anyone modded you up), and if you RTFA you'd see that Ray Beckerman is not the "sole" advisor. "The Fund will be advised by Ray Beckerman, the author of Recording Industry vs. The People, along with a group of selected attorneys acting as advisors"
I also want a VERY interested party to decide where funds should go, and why wouldn't it go wherever it hits the RIAA the hardest? You do realize it is a common law system right? Court decisions are relied on by other courts, meaning that if you hit the RIAA hard, you might knock them out for all future lawsuits.
If the objective is to kill these RIAA lawsuits in the most efficient and effective manner, then why the hell wouldn't I want Ray Beckerman managing it?! Hell - I'm donating BECAUSE Ray is managing it, and being in Canada I don't even get a tax dedcution!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"What about having a disinterested party as the fund adviser?
I frankly don't understand your point (or why anyone modded you up), and if you RTFA you'd see that Ray Beckerman is not the "sole" advisor. "The Fund will be advised by Ray Beckerman, the author of Recording Industry vs. The People, along with a group of selected attorneys acting as advisors" I also want a VERY interested party to decide where funds should go, and why wouldn't it go wherever it hits the RIAA the hardest? You do realize it is a common law system right? Court decisions are relied on by other courts, meaning that if you hit the RIAA hard, you might knock them out for all future lawsuits. If the objective is to kill these RIAA lawsuits in the most efficient and effective manner, then why the hell wouldn't I want Ray Beckerman managing it?! Hell - I'm donating BECAUSE Ray is managing it, and being in Canada I don't even get a tax dedcution!
Thank you very much, kwandar.
I know most of my fellow Slashdotters don't like it when I say this, but I'm sure the guy who posted the parent post is an RIAA troll. He just joined, this was his first comment, he started out "I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy" (which is always a dead giveaway), and his profile is silent. Plus he made an asinine suggestion which would play right into his employer's -- I mean the RIAA's -- hands.
It's easy to complain (Score:5, Informative)
But hard to do anything about it. You have a complaint - do you have a solution? Who would you suggest if not Mr. Beckerman?
He's passionate about the topic, a lawyer, and has (IMHO) the correct views on the problem.
this money wont go to help the average Joe fighting the RIAA, it will go to whichever Ray thinks will hit the RIAA the hardest
That's called preventative medicine, and is further proof that his heart is in the right place on the issue. If all he wanted was to get paid, he could endlessly represent vanilla RIAA cases until retirement. He's actually trying to solve the problem.
Disclaimer: Not associated with Mr. Beckerman, just a fan. Go Ray!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ray Beckerman is the fund adviser (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I personally RTFA quite often, but I'm wierd even for a nerd. perhaps the AT (anonymous troll) couldn't RTFA; it's firewalled off at my workplace.
I would think that having their victims get a little ammo might be a nightmare for the RIAA, but I think an even worse nightmare is the fact that neither musicians nor fans need the major labels any more.
-mcgrew