RIAA Grinds Down Individuals in the Courtroom 680
Iphtashu Fitz writes "The Associated Press recently reviewed many of the copyright infringement lawsuits that the RIAA filed against individuals charged with illegally sharing songs on P2P networks. According to the article over 800 of the targeted individuals have settled for approx. $3000 in fines. One man in California had to refinance his house to pay his $11,000 settlement. Many of the defendants are unwilling to face the possibility of even higher fines by fighting the suits in court despite the fact that it could resolve important questions about copyrights and the industry's methods for tracing illegal downloads. It seems that even some of the judges presiding over these cases question the RIAA's tactics. 'I've never had a situation like this before, where there are powerful plaintiffs and powerful lawyers on one side and then a whole slew of ordinary folks on the other side,' said U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who blocked the movement of a number of these cases in her courtroom for months. She wanted 'to make sure that no one, frankly, is being ground up.'"
Class-Action Defense? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will of the People (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fear of standing up for one's self (Score:2, Interesting)
No, they're just doing their job. If you aren't happy with their ways, stop buying music. That's the ticket. Soon they'll be bankrupt and the world will be a much better place.
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:5, Interesting)
But fact of the matter is there are now absurd huge quantities of _really good_ stuff available perfectly legally for free on-line, often from bands in your locality that you can toddle on to live shows for too - there's simply no need to support the old monopolies by continuing to give them mindshare. This is a bit like with software - software piracy _helps_ microsoft and autodesk, because they stay as the "standard". Recirculating the crap that the old monopolies put out preserves their mindshare.
Stop listening to crap, download http://irate.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] and start rating. Pretty soon, you'll have a better and more novel and varied music collection than the old companies could hope to provide.
Case disclosure (Score:3, Interesting)
Better yet, go to a used record store and save some money in the process!
Re:Class-Action Defense? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RIAA targets... (Score:5, Interesting)
Horseshit, try again.
The person who has nothing but downloaded MP3s and CD-Rs burned from downloaded MP3s was NOT going to buy the album in the first place. Instead, the person would have bummed a copy off of a friend who had purchased it.
IMO, downloading MP3s is no different than when we used to trade tapes at the skating rink or youth center. These tapes were often made from the radio (remember sitting with your finger on the PAUSE button?)
The facts are that MP3s are LOW quality (completely horrid, as far as I am concerned,) and CD-R media has a finite life-span. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about their music is willing to buy the CD/tape/LP/8-track if only for the quality of the sound.
I started out in digital music back with the music rack that came with some sound card back in early days of Windows 95. I would use a friend's Win95 computer to sample a track mono, 8-bit at 11kHz, then upload that to my Amiga at 2400bps over the phone. I would convert it to IFF with Fibonacci-Delta compression and play the songs back later when I felt like it. I got about 1MB per 1 minute of music. The playback was usable, but still horrrible. To me, a 44kHz 16-bit MP3 at 192kb/s sounds just the same. I would rather buy the CD and listen to it in the CD player. Not quite as portable, but at least hi-hats are not turned into high-frequency slosh, and vocals do not sound as is sung through a fan.
One big question I have is, for the purpose of non-profitable distribution, can an MP3 even be considered the original product? Because that seems to be part of the argument.
More questions which could be asked in court, on the record, and give the US legal system a chance to decide once and for all what is allow, and where the limitations lie.
Equal Protection under the Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States or the amendments thereto is there a guarantee for health insurance. Or a guarantee that the government will take care of your doctor and drug bills when you get old. Nowhere. Go, read it, I'll wait.
Done? OK, but you'll notice in several places a reference to "equal protection under the law".
Don't socialize medicine. Socialize the legal profession. There's a constitutional basis for it, or at least more of a constitutional basis for it than socializing medicine. Give everyone equal protection in a court of law, something these people (and people accused of drug offenses) don't have.
Let's have lawyers like the Canadians have doctors. Let's have Johnnie Chochran representing some rich white kid who downloaded music from whatever kids are downloading with these days, and let's have it cost him absolutely nothing.
Re:Fear of standing up for one's self (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not saying for a minute that I have never done it, but I would know that if I got caught it would be because I was doing something wrong, not just because 'the man' is after me. Same with this DirecTV thing. Their were cheating them out of programming by getting a smart card that was illegal and getting them products for free. Why is it that people think stealing technology is fine? I still can't go to the store and grab some Twinkies off the shelf and it be ok. And please don't give me this 'it doesn't cost them any money for me to share songs or TV' stuff. 'I would have never bought the CD anyways'. Well I don't think the 'I wasn't going to buy that Twinkie anyways' would work in court. You buy the CD for entertainment, and now you are taking it for free.
Again, I have done it myself, but at least I can admit to myself that it is wrong and I could get caught. If I did it would be 100% my own fault.
The metacase revisited (Score:1, Interesting)
Copying music mp3 files of music you do not own and do not sell is also allowed uner the fair use guidelines for music..
Warning the 2nd fair use req stated above only applies to music..
Read the cases and law before you leap not after...
Someday they're gonna hit somebody... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Equal Protection under the Law (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, in 2004,the rule is that all criminal defendants are entitled to a trial by jury if they want one, and either side of a civil trial is entitled to get a trial by jury if they want one and more than $20 worth of property is in dispute.
Uhm... wait a second, I think a little inflation set in over the 200+ year span, yet the $20 value has been hard-coded into the Constitution and never revised. The point is that a jury trial is much more expensive for all involved partisipate in than a judge trial. "The People's Court" was a groundbreaking TV show because it showed a concept in courts that most people didn't know about, the Small Claims Court where both parties waive their right to a trial by jury and the entire case can fit into a short presentation to a single judge, with no lawyers allowed. The thing is, however, most businesses that can afford high-priced lawyers will always demand a trial by jury whenever being sued in order to stay out of such an environment... because that environment levels the playing field and makes unequal ability to afford a lawyer worthless.
It'd be interesting to see what would happen if that right to demand a civil trial by jury was moved from $20 to $20,000... if the RIAA didn't have their advantage-by-lawyer and had to prove each case one-by-one at appointed hours, would they still be able to do what they're doing?
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:3, Interesting)
> And do not download/share their songs on the Internet.
I've heard this many times before, but it's just not important enough to override my principles.
I share files to express my political support of free speech through cyber-anarchy. I am demonstrating to the world that file sharing is a totally inevitable and irresistable force that cannot be controlled.
In order to make my actions maximally effective, I must share popular material -- and that means, in some cases, that I end up sharing RIAA material.
I know that my actions have the unfortunate (and unintended) side-effect of giving free advertising to RIAA products. But I believe that my political agenda of promoting free speech through cyber-anarchy is more important.
Cyber-anarchy results in ALL material being free -- even material (such as advertising for the RIAA) that some people don't want disseminated.
You are calling for people to restrict what they share. Therefore, I must denounce that idea on principle, even though I suspect that your motives are pure and that your heart is in the right place.
If the RIAA is targeting poor people... (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's there, and can be statistically proven, the next step is to tell the media the RIAA is selectively targeting poor people. A good strong piece of evidence, like RIAA plantiffs averageing 20% below median income, deserves a nice simple "National Enquirer" type headline, like "RIAA out to crush the working class", don't you think? Offer the press a chance for one like that, and some of them will bite.
While you're at it you could analyze those plantiffs on ethnic lines if they are willing to share the data. If the RIAA has selectively targeted poor people, it would be very hard for them to avoid having selectively targeted minorities at the same time, although they could possibly have deliberately thrown out a percentage of minority cases to avoid the appearance. I'd suggest if this proves fruitful, rather than contacting the media directly with the allegation that the RIAA is selectively targeting black people, you let the NAACP bring the allegation, as in such case, there WILL be a class action countersuit filed, but it will have 22,000,000 members.
Of course, it's possible there is no consistant pattern. In this case, wait until a couple of months go by where the numbers of plantiffs that are poor or minority is statistically high, and then make the claim "In recent months, the RIAA has switched tactics, to selectively target poorer people."
Re:Fear of standing up for one's self (Score:4, Interesting)
When half the country is doing it, from politicians to lawyers to grannies to children, if the majority of people are now labelled criminals then possibly the law needs a rethink. After all the laws are there to serve the needs of the society it is protecting. Laws are not something handed down from God, they are a made-up set of rules which evolve to suit society. For instance, in the UK our society evolved and we decided to remove the law requiring the death penalty. The American economy didn't collapse when slavery was made illegal, despite the increased labour costs. It would be interesting if some people were to write a couple of theory articles on society in 5 years should P2P be made legal for all material today. The music industry wouldn't collapse, it would just adapt, but in which ways?
Phillip.
Is anyone here a lawyer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Question:
is there any such thing as a "reverse class-action"?
IOW, is there any way that multiple defendants can gather and force RIAA to pursue them all as one joint defendant, so that they could pool their defensive resources?
The RIAA is daring you to fight back (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't buy RIAA music, haven't since I noticed the price of CDs in the stores was getting intolerable, this was 15 years ago. Somehow though I don't think removing one customer from their market is going to make a big dent.
Look, they're asking for it. This wave of litigation against individuals seems like a first for the judge because usually, customers don't tolerate that kind of shit. The RIAA believes it can get away with it and continue to feed you shit at high prices and you will continue to buy it. They are DARING you to fight back. Think about it.
So what else can you do? Well, if you are in business you could financially support non-RIAA or anti-RIAA bands, stations, software, or organziations. If you are in the prime RIAA demographic you can work hard to get all of your friends to stop buying RIAA music (especially the ones who are visible about it).
Ad agencies are beginning to realize the P2P type social networking (not just Internet-based, think word of mouth) gets much higher quality candidates (potential customers) than ordinary advertising. This can be turned around on the RIAA and suitable software / funding could magnify it. I think the iPod thing at Duke is fantastic. Now think of how to ensure that those iPods could massively reduce the amount of income the RIAA would get from that University, think and do something about it.
I don't buy RIAA music. I do like to watch live concerts on TV, and sometimes like what I hear on the radio (though I don't hear much of that either these days). These days cellphone subscriptions are starting to have a very large effect on record companies by removing disposable income from young people that would have gone to the RIAA. I am not for promoting illegal activities. I do see though a very unsettling trend of corporations taking over America (and elsewhere) and believe that litigation by the RIAA against potential customers , and the media slant on the affair (well there is a law against it so..) is a symptom of that.
The RIAA is within its legal rights at the moment to take these kinds of actions. It think it will be interesting to see their response if their customers exercise their legal rights to not purchase, to publicize, to organize, and to legally foment discord and financial destruction in the RIAA. Perhaps a good first plan of attack is to create a fund to hire artists away from the RIAA.
Remember, it is a lot like smoking. Every time you buy an RIAA product, you are saying "Thank you, please hit me again" to these nasty people. But the RIAA is always looking for new customers and new artists, every year. There is no reason why we couldn't start to put the pressure on them. Food for thought.
Direct Payments (Score:3, Interesting)
If I have downloaded some live show that I will listen to and feel is worth money, I send the ARTIST some cash..
If it wasn't worth any money to me, then I don't
And if decide its worth buying an actual studio CD from the artist, I refuse to fund groups that are with the RIAA, as they have alternative options now, and I support the groups that choose 'plan B'.
Difference between RIAA and DirecTV (Score:2, Interesting)
With the RIAA suits, people are sued after someone allows pirated music to be downloaded from their computer.
With the DirecTV lawsuits, people are sued for merely possessing equipment that can be used for pirating DirecTV. Regardless of the spin DirecTV's lawyers like to put on it, the equipment people are being sued for truly has multiple purposes, some of which are legit. Rather than DirecTV being forced to prove you used it for piracy purposes, they drag you into court and you have to prove you didn't use it for piracy purposes.
The RIAA equivalent would be them sueing people who purchased DVD or CD burners stating the reason their lawsuit targets used them for piracy purposes. But with CD/DVD burners people, in general, understand them and know they have multiple purposes, many of which are legit. Judges/juries, in general, do not understand smartcard technology and DirecTV brings in dozens of "paid expert witnesses" who testify that the stuff is only good for pirating DirecTV. Sure, you can bring in your own expert witnesses who could show how full of crap DirecTV is, but it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars, at a minimum to get to that point. No wonder that people, even the few innocent ones (e.g., they bought it but never ended up using it for piracy purposes for whatever reason [e.g., changed their mind, too hard to figure out how to use, etc.]), settle for $5K instead of fighting it; it's a matter of simple economics.
Are most people who get sued by the RIAA guilty? I'd definitely say "Yes".
Are most people who get sued by DirecTV guilty? Again, I'd definitely say "Yes".
Have most people who have purchased DVD or CD burners used them to pirate a DVD-Video or a CD? I'd unquestionably say "Yes". So would it be fair for the MPAA or RIAA to just "carpet bomb" or "blanket sue" everyone who has purchased a CD or DVD burner because, in their opinion, 50, 60, or 90% of people who own them have used them at some point in the past to pirate music or a movie???
However, in the first case (RIAA), their is direct evidence you did it; they can download a song from you and verify it is actually copyrighted -- they actually "observe" you committing the illegal act. In the second case (DirecTV), there is normally no direct evidence you did it. And that's what makes what DirecTV does, de facto, illegal, but in civil court, the person with the biggest pockets always wins. And until DirecTV sues someone with big pockets, they'll continue to illegally sue people and there's not much anyone can do about it.
So what would I do? If I was going to buy a smartcard reader or a CD/DVD burner in 2004, I'd go down to the local store and pay cash for it. I wouldn't use anything like a credit card or my real name when I bought it. If I couldn't buy it local, I'd go to a WiFi hot-spot, sign up with a Hotmail account, use a fake name and have the stuff sent to a rented PO Box (signed up for using a fake name) and pay for the stuff with cash or a money order.
And if you are wondering why I'd do the above with a CD/DVD burner. It's because people, in general, aren't going ballistic at the methods DirecTV is using. People, in general, just sit their with their thumbs up their ass when they hear about this, shake their head at the bad satellite TV pirate, while they listen/watch to their pirate music/movie that's playing that they burned with their CD/DVD burner.
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:2, Interesting)
As another point, I thought the blank media tax was supposed to cover copying anyway, or maybe I am remembering that incorrectly.
These guys claimed reel to reel would wreck the industry, I read that way back real time when it was happening. Then cassettes would put them all into poverty, just like VCRs would put movies and television into poverty. Funny, it didn't happen, they make more than ever. Seems the courts always forget that.
anyway, I went from dropping a few hundred a year back in the 60's on concerts and records, to maybe 100 or so in the 70's, then when it hit the 80's I just *stopped*. I've bought some used since then,and some really reduced bargain bin tapes and CDs, and that's it. If I see something at a yardsale for a dollar I might buy it now, but zero new, movies or music. And last pay-to-see anything was girlfriend and made me take her to see Titanic, so that's what, two years now, since last movie at the theater and live concert...sheesh, can't remember, maybe 11 years ago now besides two I worked at, which was enough to make me not want to work them again. A rolling stones gig and a guns n roses gig. I saw what they spent money on, then compared it to what us grunts were getting...buncha elite hosers. screw 'em.
Re:RIAA targets... (Score:3, Interesting)
So.. lets say they might buy like 5 out of 1000 albums? That is a whopping 0.5%...
Don't forget that there are aslo peopel who only buy things after having heard them (due to downloading them).
So far NOONE has ever provided any proof of the recordign industry losing money or sales on downloads.
Untill there are reliable, INDEPENDENT studies to this, it is all guess work, and as a result, not soemthign that could serve as valid proof in court. Sadly, due to this all being handled in civil courts, such proof is not needed either.
> IMO, downloading MP3s is no different than when we used to trade tapes at the skating rink or youth center. These tapes were often made from the radio (remember sitting with your finger on the PAUSE button?)
> You don't see a difference between a degraded one-off versus hundreds of millions of 1:1 digital copies?
While there are some high quality mp3 files on sharign networks, most of them are horrible in uqality. Honestly, many of my 20 year old tapes sound better then many of the mp3s you get from hsaring networks (and just in case, where I live it is illegal to share, but perfectly legal to download, so yeah, I can check that legally)
> The facts are that MP3s are LOW quality (completely horrid, as far as I am concerned,)
320 kbps MP3's are completely acceptable, in my opinion.
Yeah, and 320kbit mp3s are not that easy to find on the sharing networks. Most is 128kbit or 192kbit. The later is acceptable for my portable mp3 player, but not for my home sound system really.
It is so easy to only look at the extremes and then draw a conclusion, but your conclusion is bound to be wrong.
Re:Stopping corporate terrorism in music (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't watch tv
Don't listen to the radio
Only listen to music you, yourself like (RIAA or otherwise)
Only get your news from NPR
You are _still_ bombared with crap whenever you go into your local store and when you go to work. God help you if you carpool.
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:3, Interesting)
While this might seem intuitively correct, I have found it to be largely untrue. Large populations centers have no real advantage when it comes to producing quality music. In fact, much development of style - "new sounds" - comes from rural areas and small towns. The big-city bands tend to re-hash existing styles and sounds, in my experience. There are exceptions, of course, but just because a town is small doesn't mean that the local musicians are not worth listening to. Quite the opposite, imo.
Also, the principle of boycotting RIAA-owned material remains the same regardless of whether the material you are getting local to you or to the other side of the world. If you like big city bands, you can get local music from NYC using trivially available software and search techniques...
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:1, Interesting)
Frankly, I don't care if your incentive is taken away. I think it's much more important that society be free than you make a profit. Artists often do well under fascist regimes...
Anyway, art for art's sake, not for money. We might get less art, but it would be better quality.
I also think that any "art" that advertises should not be subject to copyright even if copyright continues - e.g. music videos hyping pepsi & nike. THEY should be paying US to watch them!
Re:Stopping corporate terrorism in music (Score:3, Interesting)
However, NPR is contesting some of those accusations of bias [fair.org].