RIAA Now Targets Pirates' Parents 1098
cecil36 writes "In a follow-up to the subpoena silliness by the RIAA, the Associated Press is now reporting that the RIAA is now issuing subpoenas to family members of suspected online music swappers."
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence, in a legal sense (in the U.S., excluding military trials)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
In that situation you only need to refute the evidence. You still do not have to prove that you did NOT commit the crime, just find flaws in the argument that claims you definitely did.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
From dictionary.com:
liable \Li"a*ble\ (l[imac]"[.a]*b'l), a. [From F. lier to bind, L. ligare. Cf. Ally, v. t., Ligature.] 1. Bound or obliged in law or equity; responsible; answerable; as, the surety is liable for the debt of his principal.
-psxndc
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is enough evidence that says you did it, you have to prove that the evidence is incorrect. Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty, but enough circumstantial evidence can prove guilt incorrectly.
Technical differences make all the difference here.
To be convicted, iirc, a jury has to vote unanimously that you are guilty. In order to do that, every jurist is required to vote guilty only when they have absolutely no doubts that you did it. If they have any doubt at all, they are required to vote innocent.
Therefore, your defense only has to cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror. You do not have to prove innocence, you only have to show that there are other people who may be just as guilty with the same evidence, or something like that.
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that (because you loaned your weapon to someone during the time in question, even if they can't prove he did it), then you are acquitted.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Informative)
Not actually true. IANAL, but as I recall it, the burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt". Cases have been won or lost on the strength of circumstantial evidence, although direct evidence is, of course, considered good.
Incidentally, I seem to recall civil cases (like co
Re:Of course (Score:3, Informative)
This is really a red herring, if the person who was killed was in some way related to you, if you were seen threatening the person
RIAA contact info (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with the thread that the burden of proof should be on them to prove wrong doing, but knowing that people are not going to do it (en mass) they will just settle out of court rather than forcing the issue to court
here is the number
1 800 223-2328
1 800 bad-beat
Re:RIAA contact info (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Who needs to be proven guilty or liable when they can be tied up in pointless litigation?
What difference does it make if your guilty and pay $100,000 in fines and $100,000 in legal fees or if you are innocent and pay $200,000 in legal fees? The RIAA's point is still made.
This is all becoming irrelevant... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, getting back to my point, I know several people who keep a list of RIAA members and make a point of not buying their CDs.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Informative)
I actually attached this link to the parent article, but I think it fits here better.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
In a civil case, such as DRM and copyright cases, the case is brought because they already have circumstantial evidence, and both sides are equally required to prove/disprove said evidence.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
No it isn't. e.g. if my roommate is found murdered, it's more likely that I killed him than one of the random 6 billion people who _don't_ live with him, but that's pretty damned far from being sufficient cause to get an arrest warrant.
Probable cause is not just a greater possibility that someone could have committed a crime--e.g Lectlaw says "The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm
Sumner
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
Legally: We'll find out soon enough. The RIAA has gotten a lot farther than I thought they would.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, even the owner doesnt have the responsability to rescue. They just have to try. There is some assumption of risk on the part of the user.
Negligence generally gives weight to who can avoid the risk most easily. Also taken into account are cost to eliminate risk, vs damage if risk happens.
Therefore if it costs $1M to clean up my ice patch, but only $1K if someone slips, I am not negligent, even if I could have cleaned it up.
Of course, the opposite is true, it costs $5 to clean the patch, and $100k if someone slips, so in fact I am negligent.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need gun control, but we need to extend the circle of repsonsibility and impose severe punishements for gun mishanding. This would be a better way, me thinks.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone steals your cell phone and calls in a bomb threat to the whitehouse, are you responsible?
If you answer 'no' the above questions, then why are firearms any different?
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
If your car is stolen, it is your responsibility to report it stolen. Your cellpone as well (you can even get it cancelled, when you report it). This argument stands even more so for guns. If you don't know where your gun is, why do you have it the first place. Install trigger locks, and keep the key separately. Store them in l
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
It is your responsibility of locking up your guns, so that your kid does not take it to school and shoots the teacher. (Yes, this has happened)
It is your responsibility to report stolen firearms, after which you will be relived of your responsibility.
It is your responsibility to get trigger locks installed on your gun, and store them without bullets.
I am not opposed (nor frightened) you you owning and using a gun. But I am ter
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Torts primer:
All torts have five elements, a duty owed, a breach of the duty, causation between duty and harm, any harm caused, and any defenses.
A parent who owns a computer might have a duty to supervise her children to ensure that the child doesn't cause a harm (copyright infringement, harassment, etc.), in the same way that a parent who owns a gun might have a duty to superviser her children to ensure that they don't shoot someone in the face.
Now, where things get screwy is in the damages caused. If the negligently supervised kid shoots someone in the face, the survivors ("heirs", though that's not the right term) of the deceased might be able to sue for that negligence. Maybe they'd win $1,000,000 out of the negligent parent's homeowners insurance policy, or something of the sort. The problem is that even if you can show that the parent has a duty to the RIAA to ensure that the child doesn't use the instrumentality (computer) to cause harm, that the parent failed to do so, and that the failure to supervise then CAUSED (very important word) some quantifiable harm to the company/organization, it's hard for me to understand the dollar amounts attached to these lawsuits.
But that argument's been rehashed a thousand times. I just wanted to give a little primer on how the parents could be implicated in the wrongful acts of their children.
(IANAL...Y) (figure it out)
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
If the account holder (and not the perpetrator) is held accountable for all uses of the account, could this not potentially shut down public wireless hot spots for fear of liability? I suppose they could just close off the standard ports for filesharing, to cover their asses. But it would set a disturbing precedent, and likel
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if I go and download a bunch of songs, burn them to CD and then delete them off the machine.
If it's a truely anonymous system. Aka, no camera's, no logging in, no sign in at the desk, how do they know who did the downloading?
Tragically I think the answer is that they'll have to take the anonymous access away or limit access to content to protect themselves from liability.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but I think there's a lesser crime involving negligence, with which you should be charged... not the multiple murder raps the person doing the killing should get. Likewise, the RIAA shouldn't be able to sue you if someone else uses your computer to break the law... but since you are an unknowing accomplise, perhaps you should get a (smaller!) fine of some time?
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why you see these huge lawsuits in cases like drunk driving for example. They'll sue the driver,
The family that shares together stays together... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't make your kids angry... (Score:5, Funny)
It don't mean a thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
This just goes to show you that this has nothing to do with "intellectual property" and everything to do with money. Of course they can't go after kids, so they're going to go after their parents, who, in most cases, have no idea what their kids are doing on the Internet.
I'll offer up my family as an example. My parents are fairly clueless when it comes to anything remotely technological. My youngest sister, on the other hand, can find damned near any song she wants online. (Note: I'm not implying that this equals any level of computer competency, but not bad for a nine-year-old).
Last time I went home, my lil' sis had about 500 songs shared on Kazaa til I un-sharified them. I can guaran-damn-tee you that my parents have absolutely no idea about this, and now the R*AA is going to be suing folks like my parents?
Let the backlash begin. We'll be the whip.
Re:It don't mean a thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
The political reality is that this is legal harassment by the RIAA, but it's "legal" legal harassment, if you get my meaning, and while it may cost them a fair bit of money to get going, that (a) goes to show how much money they must believe they are losing, and (b) is probably going to be quite effecti
Re:It don't mean a thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Dad: (Slightly blanker stare)
Lawyer: "I'm sorry, it means your daughter is a terrorist... and will be shipped off to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as a Digital Combatant.
We'll be sending you the bill for our settlement and fees.
This is predicted in fictional writing (Score:3, Interesting)
With apologies to Spaceballs (Score:5, Funny)
Dude: What's that make me?
RIAA: Nothing, but we're suing you anyway.
3 Things (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, Pate is fully within his rights to videotape movies off cable! It's called Fair Use!
The fact that he 'zealously respects copyrights' only means that he is misinformed, and most likely has been taken in by **IA propaganda that would lead you to believe that there is no Fair Use.
Secondly, I am looking forward to several things: The death of CD sales and painful realization of the RIAA that they are going down. The explosion of indi artists and methods of distribution, and no more focus-group artists!
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, let the 80's die a noble quick death, not a lingering bedridden death like the 70's. Ironic that I would say that, as I played in a 80's cover band, friends don't let friends share Def Leppard.
Many Parents are Pirates (Score:3, Funny)
Suggestion for action... (Score:5, Interesting)
- Pick a day.
- On that day, everybody buys a CD. Doesn't matter which, though a newly released highly publiscized CD would be preferable. (Like the newest Spears album or something.)
- DO NOT OPEN THE CD.
- On the following day, return the CDs for a refund. Assuming the store will take back unopened CDs.
If a significant number of money is passed and then refunded, it'd be hard for the retailers not to take notice. I'd be surprised if that info didn't bubble up to the RIAA. If enough money moves, the RIAA will have a pretty good idea that this type of action will cause them to endure losses.
I personally have $100 I'd be willing to pump into this right now this second if I knew other people would be participating too.
Re:Suggestion for action...COPY PROTECTION (Score:5, Interesting)
Try your best to do this with a copy protected CD and maybe kill two birds with one stone in the process.
Re:Suggestion for action... (Score:3, Informative)
When people don't buy CDs, then the RIAA chalks it up to piracy. They won't even consider the idea that the people who give them money are angry at them. I think NG has a point, if they get $100,000 in revenue one day and then -$100,000 the next day, then they'll notice.
Re:Suggestion for action... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp
You could always buy korean music on yesasia.com! (I'm guessing most of it isn't covered by the RIAA)
Re:Suggestion for action... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't... Simply purchase on a credit card. Return unopened product to store. Insist on refund to your credit card. When store refuses, whip out cell phone and call in fraudulent charge on your credit card against the store since you have purchased nothing from them.
In spite of what they want you to believe, there are a few consumer protection laws around. :)
RIAA: You see, members of Congress, the huge drop we had in sales during this period. Also, look at the thousands of statements made on bulletin boards online about how people just 'download their music now'. Obviously file sharing is an even bigger problem than we thought. We need criminal laws to prevent this now.
Bad move, eh?
Instead, buy CDs, but buy them from indie artists, or buy them from the Apple Music Store (which will soon have indie artists on there). Show the RIAA that there IS a market there, and that money is being spent - and they're not just getting a share. If the RIAA has a $50 million drop in sales, they can claim a $50 million drop due to piracy... unless the indies can claim a $50 million increase in sales.
-T -T
War On Piracy? (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean there will be heavy civilian casualties, lots of property damage an eventually guerilla warfare with nothing much gained?
Re:War On Piracy? (Score:5, Funny)
sounding familiar (Score:3, Interesting)
i feel like this will never end, and there will never be any resolution with the current approach at stopping file sharing.
what's the classic line? "the tighter you grip the more that slips through your fingers"
Ack! (Score:5, Funny)
She shouldn't be fined for pirating music. She should be fined for her taste in music.
*sigh* I give up on RIAA music for good (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll be honest, it's gotten to the point where the alternative labels are putting out better music anyway.
I remember when music was fun. When music was an entertainment "entity". We made cassette tapes for each other profusely, and we loved it. We went to concerts, bought tapes by the trunk load, watched MTV, etc... it was pure entertainment... fun. It was as if the record companies knew that this was just "how it is". I bought more music during my Napster days that I had in the previous 7 years. It was like a re-introduction to the music "thang", the music "culture" if you will that seemed to become far less fun over the years
And then... *sigh*. The DMCA, the RIAA, attacking customers, bringing them to court, etc... I don't know about you, but to think this helps business you would have to be one of two things:
1. Completely disconnected with your customer base and what makes your business flourish, and will never entertain that the problems are due to their own shortcomings (bad music, horrible radio payoffs for even worse music, realizing that attacking your own customers is bad (sheesh, do I even have to say that?) etc...) or
2. A minion that is just giving us another example of greed run amok, plain to see by it's customers.
In either case, I think they are literally only going to make it worse for themselves.
Insensitive clods.
Re:*sigh* I give up on RIAA music for good (Score:3, Interesting)
1500 Records
333 Music
4AD Records
4th & Broadway
5 Minute Walk
510 Records
550 Music
550/Fox
57 Records
A Vision/Teldec
A&E Latin Music
(...rest cut to avoid lameness filter...)
so exactly, what is an indie label? Maybe they should start putting stickers on CDs that say: "NO RIAAA INSIDE"?
Once again, this shows that... (Score:5, Funny)
Missing quotes (Score:3, Insightful)
A father of a file-sharer said "I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."
They missed the rest of the quote "...without paying anyone for it, just, you know, for free, like when I go shopping at Target without paying. That's not illegal, right?"
"In Charleston, W.Va., college student Amy Boggs said she quickly deleted more than 1,400 music files on her computer after the AP told her she was the target of a subpoena. Boggs said she sometimes downloaded dozens of songs on any given day, including ones by Fleetwood Mac, Blondie, Incubus and Busta Rhymes."
missing the bit where she said "...But you won't tell anyone about that, right? Or that I was born on July 24th, 1981, OK?"
Cheers, Paul
A sad, sad site ... (Score:4, Funny)
Click Here [derekslager.com]
Some serious questions about the RIAA's laws... (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider: Even assuming that the RIAA proves some kid (or even his parents) has made one of their copyrighted songs available for download, how do they prove that anyone other than the copyright holder actually downloaded it?
Even assuming that they did, how do they then go show that the person who downloaded it actually turned the song into a sailable format? (MP3s are not the same quality as WAVs - how would this substandard quality be factored in?)
Even if someone did, presumably at most they'd be liable for the proportional cost of the song off the CD. Would the Judge give them credit for anyone who downloaded the song and then decided to buy the CD?
Understand that I am perfectly aware that the present U.S. political system has a strongly plutocratic component (e.g. the rich get to buy the laws they want), but I still think there are a lot more hurdles the RIAA most cross before they can start collecting that absurd "$15,000 per song" that's being bandied about in the articles about this.
Re:Some serious questions about the RIAA's laws... (Score:4, Insightful)
When the police do a sting operation with an undercover agent doing a buy, they do not have to prove that any sale was made to a non-police agent. The single sale is enough.
Neither do they care about the purity of drugs. It could be 99% ground glass. The copyinng of copyrighted music is forbidden, nothing said about the quality. Imagine of this held for other crimes. Yes youre honor I stole that car, but it was a piece of shit.
I am afraid that from there on youre arguments go into fantasy land. Courts are not nice places in wich you can ask the judge to play nice. Do they care that a drug dealer uses his earnings to support his family? No. Same with this. Amy arguments about the harms of filesharing must ultimatly made in two places, the supreme courts who would check it against the constitution or with the lawmakers who can change the laws.
BTW I am not at all behind the RIAA, I would like to see them killed by some crazy guntoting yanks but I feel it is important for people to face reality as it is now.
If they do sue you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If they do sue you (Score:4, Insightful)
First, the artists aren't the copyright holders. The labels are. If you put a record exec on the stand, he'll say he supports the RIAA's action, that's what he pays them for. Second, it's doubtful you can convince a judge that it's necessary to force these witnesses to appear in court in the 1st place, since they have no relevant testimony to the case.
The "I Don't Know" Defense? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you allowed to withhold evidence that would implicate another person in a civil trial? If the RIAA asked you, while you were on the stand, for a list of all the people who have been in your house in the past month, could you say, "blow me."? It would seem that these facts do not directly relate to the charge that you did or did not pirate the songs. Can you be forced to testify in a civil trial or only in criminal trials?
Thank God It's Not What I Thought (Score:5, Funny)
17-year-old-son: Some movies of barely legal teens doing everything with barnyard animals that I downloaded off the Internet.
Father: Thank God it's not MP3s. For a moment I'd thought you'd really gotten us in trouble there.
Check this site out (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Second of all, the parent who was notified that their child was subpoened was NOT notified by the RIAA. They were notified by the Associated Press.
It says right there in the article that the RIAA didn't even know that people like the AP could get hold of that type of information.
So yeah, the RIAA is bad and evil, and so is Microsoft, and SCO and the other flavors of the month, but at least read the article before you comment, so you can get your facts right.
What does RIAA want as the outcome of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does it make business sense to sue music downloaders (let alone their parents or roomates). One would assume that they are downloading music because they would like to hear the songs. Do you suppose they still would be so eager to hear the music once it has cost them $15,000 in fines?
The internet is a possible gold mine for the RIAA and the MPAA. iTunes has proven that, unlike the lies currently spread by RIAA, there are thousands of people eagerly awaiting a chance to legally download digital songs over the internet, and to pay for them to boot! Of course these people are going to turn to illegal methods to get what they want if there's no other way TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
Here's a little business tip for the RIAA member companies:
-- millions of people are downloading songs you hold the copyright to
-- most of them realize this is illegal
-- they want these songs bad enough that they are willing to overlook the illegality of what they are doing
-- they have shown that, when offered with reasonable alternatives (i.e. terms of use offered through iTunes), they are willing to shell out money to get what they are currently getting for free
GIVE THE CUSTOMERS WHAT THEY WANT!!
Instead, what do they do? Sue the users. Bravo.
Boycotting CDs? (Score:5, Insightful)
How You Can Change the Law (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright is not a Constitutional right - the Constitution gives Congress the power to create copyright but does not require it to do so. Copyright could be ended tomorrow if Congress just passed a bill that repealed it.
The following are links to sections of my new article that explains the steps you can take to make file sharing legal:
- Change the Law [goingware.com]
- Speak Out [goingware.com]
- Vote [goingware.com]
- Write to Your Elected Representatives [goingware.com]
- Donate Money to Political Campaigns [goingware.com]
- Support Campaign Finance Reform [goingware.com]
- Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation [goingware.com]
- Practice Civil Disobedience [goingware.com]
If you agree with what I have to say and feel as I do that it's important for others to hear it, please consider linking my article from your weblog or emailing the link to other people who might benefit from it.Re:How You Can Change the Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Average people (the ones who decide the election) usually don't give a shit about anything other than taxes a
Don't get fooled (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry. Did you have the misperception that people, like Britney Spears, who "create" music for a living actually own the copyright?
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but corporations like the ones represented by the RIAA, are the ones that own the artists, the music, the rights and make the bucks. Let's cut the bullshit. You w
Business Plan Time... (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Send letters to parents with check box mail order system, or maybe a list of local shops which sell the content.
3) Profit?
Smugness Factor (Score:5, Insightful)
So think about this the next time you're perusing your favorite porn site, or maybe if you don't do porn, a fan club site. Hell, it doesn't really matter: Any site will do, as long as you are downloading content.
Are you sure that content isn't copyright-protected? Are you sure that the content provider isn't sharing something (lesbo pictures, glamour shots, whatever) that they themselves don't have a right to share? What a surprise it will be when the local constable shows up at your door with a subpoena in hand, listing all the times you accessed www.analdestruction.com, how long you spent on the site, and what your browser downloaded, all courtesy of Comcast or some other ISP provider who really doesn't give a shit about your privacy. How will you explain that one to your wife? Or your buddies at work? Or the judge?
This "rape and plunder" tactic that the RIAA is taking is just the tip of the iceberg. As ISPs get jaded to serving up your IP/MAC information on a routine basis, your surfing habits will become easy prey for anyone with a grudge. Thanks to the RIAA, they are spending all the money necessary to establish legal precedence in this area, and to basically pave the way for anyone to start their own little money-making venture.
If you surf the web, you are vulnerable, because I seriously doubt you check the copyright status of each and every piece of content you download. So wipe that smug smile off your face, because it's just a matter of time before your IP shows up on a federal subpoena.
This isn't an issue of whether or not some morons sharing stuff that isn't theirs deserve what they get. Nor is it Someone Else's Problem. It's your problem, my problem, and everyone's problem. The madness needs to stop.
of course lets put.. (Score:3, Informative)
So what happens when all the music buyers are in jail to RIAA profits?
give u a hint..your in the jungle baby and you're goin' to dieeee....
Let The Backlash Begin (Score:5, Interesting)
As the article states:
"If they end up picking on individuals who are perceived to be grandmothers or junior high students who have only downloaded in isolated incidents, they run the risk of a backlash."
Run the risk? I'm sorry, but they just created even more backlash by mearly mentioning the POSSIBILITY of going after these individuals.
How can they possibly go after the parents of children who are downloading music illegally? Most parents have no clue what P2P applications are, what they do, and what kids are using them for. If your son or daughter steals a CD from a store, you don't get fined for it, your child takes the blame. And even then, in most cases, the child involved pays a small fine and are left up to the parent's discipline. Sometimes the penalty can be community service, or juvinial court. At this point it's less risky to steal physical media than it is to steal digital work from the comfort of your own home....
Once again the RIAA is throwing their weight around, and once again the DMCA is burning people who don't deserve the law on their backs. I'm sure this type of action scares some, but it also makes many others want to buy less and share more just to stick it to "the man."
The Revolution is BaaaaaacccCCK (Score:5, Insightful)
written with a little poetic licence - maybe this will be a catharisis, and I will feel much better after all the emotional dump is made ....
I think this is one of the watershed moments of our generation, and these moments seem to come in cycles. A lot of forces are converging that shall give our generation a chance to have a revolution of its own - rather than just reading about the old ones in history or seeing them on TV. We must heed the bugle and assemble of our own accord, to wage a war, and the side we choose shall decide our fate, as the wheels of excess come crashing down on the unreasonable. So, be reasonable, and look at what your side is asking in sacrifice and compare it to what they provide in return.
And when you look at the other side and see the lawmakers and the Corporations lined up against you, don't be surprised. The lawmakers are in the pockets of the corporations that line their pockets. Campaign Donations Sway Lawmakers' Votes [yahoo.com] So, the adversary is definitely formidable. And there is no other choice but to uproot them completely and totally, for their nexus has corrupted the system down to its core.
Some have already sold their soul, and for them the choice no longer exists. For the millions of others the day to make the choice is approaching soon. For about a 1000 the day of making the choice has approached. Will all of them be divided and individually be chopped to pieces, or will they recognize that providence has brought them together under a single banner - and now they must stick together, serve as the nucleus of this revolution, and even as the coalesce together, pull in together the millions of others who when presented with two choices will choose to join the "1000 Nodes of Light."
If the 1000 start by contributing 10 cents for each song on their harddrive today (instead of the $750 to $150,000 that they may be liable to pay the RIAA some sunny day) I am sure enough money can be collected to buy the materials like server space, paper, printing, postage needed to run their war. Then what is needed is time from volunteers which can be solicited from some in the 1000. If this movement has sticking power, then I am sure people like slashdotters would not mind volunteering. And then if there are enough volunteers, the broader population might even choose to support with their cents and dollars.
The money should be spread out to counterattack all the 12-24 lawyers of the RIAA, and drag them into a battle over the very nature of copyright and how their compensation should be calculated. It just needs a focus of a good case, and I am sure there are some in the 1000 that would just from the odds of it - qualify to be that Test case. And with a broad support of the other 999, and of the (23 million -1) people, some sanity can be injected into this whole issue. What the RIAA is demanding for one song is 150000 times what the song actually costs. Even if I pay 1 dollar a day to listen to the song, it will be 410 years of paying a dollar EVERYDAY, before listening to the song costs me $150,000. What sane mind could deem this arrangement reasonable ? Something is out of whack, and it needs to be whacked back into place.
And I think, just like Bush might have bitten off a little too much in Iraq, RIAA might have bitten off a little too much of the "Illegal" File-Sharers universe. The war has been started based on a deliberate misinterpretation of archaic data, and RIAA's assualt was started based on a jaundiced interpretation of archaic laws. Laws are being twisted to the word, even as the spirit is raped and pillaged. But, the hands of the masses will grasp these lying Boosies and rip them from their priviledged and ivory tower havens, and plunge them in the depths of Dante's inferno. And all this will be done electronically. Communication will be electronic revolution.
One of these "targets" has got to be an RIAA plant (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who were quoted in this article seem more like stereotypes than actual people. I mean, just take a look at this quote:
[Bob Barnes] said he used the Internet to download hard-to-find recordings of European artists because he was unsatisfied with modern American artists and grew tired of buying CDs without the chance to listen to them first.
"If you don't like it, you can't take it back," said Barnes, who runs a small video production company with his wife from their three-bedroom home. "You have all your little blonde, blue-eyed clones. There's no originality."
So there's your halo-wearing "I only wanted to preview songs or download songs I couldn't buy" downloader, which, if some people around here are to be believed, accounts for roughly 100% of the music downloaders on the internet.
On the other end of the spectrum is Gordon Pate, who seems to be reading from a script provided by Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen:
Pate was wavering whether to call the RIAA to negotiate a settlement. "Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered.
Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he does not videotape movies off cable television channels.
Is this guy for real? And just what does denying yourself your fair use rights have to do with respecting copyrights?
In addition to the "honest downloader" and "Valenti's bitch," we are also shown a model of the RIAA's ideal downloader:
"This scares me so bad I never want to download anything again," said Boggs, who turned 22 on Thursday. "I never thought this would happen. There are millions of people out there doing this."
The only thing missing was the disenfranchised ex-customer, which would look something like this:
"This blows. It's bad enough that most music these days is crap, but now you can get your ass sued for listening to it. That's it, I'm not just going to stop buying music, I'm not listening to it anymore either. Screw those jerks at the record companies, it's comic books for me from here on out."
Get four second-rate washed-up stand-up comics to act out the parts and you'll have a mediocre bit on Tough Crowd with Colin "I used to be funny, really!" Quinn. Add two more and you'll have next week's "What Do You Think?" in The Onion. I sincerely hope the people in that article aren't for real...
Fight for your rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Although you put this is a nice and beautifully romantic light I can tell you right now that these people will fold like a deck of cards. They will be the equivalent of a "rat" in the mob. When you have companies of this size it comes down to self-preservation and lving to fight another day.
I don't see how joining together will help their cause although some kind of class action suit might be in order as long as the proper angle is chosen.
Speaking for myself I'd fight it but if I couldn't find a great lawyer then it'd be pointless. If I could get a big name lawyer pro-bon then it'd be on and we'd put the whole system on trial.
If you are to fight this battle then it has to be more than a P2P vs RIAA. Is has to stretch into rights guaranteed by the constitution and fair use of purchased products. I'd also mention law makers having a certain industry flooding them with massive amounts of cash. There really is plenty here to debate and go to war about but it's going to take the right set of circumstances to pull it off. I'm down.
This is really a revolution of epic proportion no matter what one thinks. We're not talking P2P only. We're talking about our rights more than anything else here and that's the genesis of the argument IMHFO!
Through the war on terrorism we are giving up certain rights and now with P2P we are giving up further rights. How many rights do we have to give up for people to get it?
Search warrants with no reason?
Subpoenas by the recording association with no judicial oversight?
Email monitoring?
Wake the fuck up people and fight this shit with all you've got or the "big brother" days will be here sooner than you think and then you can forget about the freedoms you used to have.
This goes against fair use liberty (Score:3, Insightful)
What if your own kid went to the neighboor and installed those software? Who's to blame? You? Them? Both?
I think fair use/knowledge is at risk. It's like leaving a shovel in the backyard. If someone takes it and kills someone, who's to blame? You can't ignore the law but can't you defend yourself by saying that it's fair use to leave a shovel in the backyard?
What if your 16 years old kid kills someone while driving? I've never seen any parent go to jail for that. Even cold blooded murder! (well unless there is clearly wrong down from them like leaving an unlocked and loaded weapon).
Let's say I steal something and have it delivered. Will the RIAA go against the postal office because I used that medium to steal something? No.
Why would they go against parents in *that* case?
What about kidnappers, are the kidnapper's parents bothered? Not a single bit. They probably have to move out of state due to shame but that's another story.
Same with a computer. It's fair to have a computer and use it. You can't be responsible for other people's actions to a certain degree. You can setup URL filters and stuff like that but I think the judge will agree that you can't "lock down" a computer and monitor each and every actions.
Interesting question (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider this (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, I know, arson is a poor comparison to music piracy.
The point is that the child is the responsibility of the parents, and it is as such completely up to the parents to take that responsibility. As such, I hate to say it, but RIAA is within rights to do this to the parents of kids.
Needs to be compiled (Score:3, Interesting)
Reasonable-ness (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA is trying to find and get relief from misappropriation of protected property (ie, the copyrighted songs) that people neither need (in the survival sense) nor have any intrinsic right to. They are going about it in a very poor way, granted, but, there is nothing wrong with trying to defend your property. After all, at night, if I forget to lock the door on my house, I still don't think anyone has the right to barge in and use it. Its my property, and I get to decide how it is used.
I think everyone knows the spirit of this. The RIAA does not want to sue people who have not infringed their copyrights. If they issue subenpoes for the wrong people, they want it corrected. No purpose is served for any party if the wrong people are punished. Their intention is to only go after people that have actually participated in infringed copyrights.
For that matter, they aren't really after song-swappers or P2P networks, at least in a purist sense. If I record a song (which I won't, becuse, like many very popular singers, I can't sing) and people trade it, the RIAA doesn't care. They only care about trading of songs where the copyright owner does not wish his property to be used in that manner (and, of course, said owner is a member of the RIAA... I doubt they care about non-members).
If you put your "reasonable, common-sense, business-thinking" hat on, I think it is easy to see what the RIAA is doing and why they are doing it. Disagreeing with them is one thing, but trying to pick away on technicalaities is just not a useful excersice.
Oh well, back to stealth mode (Score:5, Insightful)
So I was reading the paper... (Score:3, Informative)
Pirates Patents Interview.. (Score:3, Funny)
PIRATE DAD: YARR!!! He is such a little scallywag YARRR.... I'll have to make him walk the plank!
Well, thats what I thought when I saw the title.....
No Info Available? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are there any laws that require ISP's to keep track users & IP's? From the laws that I have looked over (without doing any real research) it looks like the law only requires them to turn over any relevant info availble.
With what has to be mounting cost I can imagine that small ISP's are dumping this info so when the request comes in they say- "Got nothing". How much longer before the cost gets to high for the larger ones?
Just a thought
Bring it on! (Score:4, Interesting)
I have over 100 GB of commercial works by many of the companies you represent on my network. Two computers my roomates use run Kazaa and Winmx non-stop sharing from the network drive. LimeWire runs on the server itself. We share over a cable connection, and I recently had DSL installed. Typically during the day there are thousands of uploads, so many sometimes LimeWire crashes.
And guess what? I have the money to fight you. The fact is folks, that if the information on illegal acts was obtained illegally and unconstitutionally, the evidence cannot be admitted into court and without evidence there is no case. It is unconstitional for private companies to issue subponeas because due process is not observed and there is no legal forward.
Sorry, but I am just begging they come after me. I have the cash ready and I come from a family (yes, it's sad I know) of very sucessful lawyers.
How about a CD party? (Score:5, Funny)
We can throw our CDs into the habor!
Re:Question. (Score:3, Informative)
(e) Copyright is meaningless to me at this point.
Nothing created during my lifetime will ever be in the public domain. That public domain is MINE and YOURS! The media companies have stolen it from us with their hired guns (congress) and society as a whole is lessened because of it.
Due to that, I have no respect for copyright law anymore.
Re:Question. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question. (Score:3, Insightful)
e) I download, but I also pay for CDs when an artist is worth it; in fact, I'll often download a few songs, and then pay up for the CD. That is, until the RIAA started to wage warfare on P2P.
Re:Question. (Score:3)
They are certainly ripping off the artists but it does not make getting unpaid or bootleg copies legal. "(b) I'm not really 'stealing' it because it's still 'there' after I have taken it;"
You're not really stealing because copyright infringement != theft regardless of what the thought police try to coerce you into believing.
"(c) Music and movies suck nowadays anyway so I sho
Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued? (Score:5, Funny)
What happens when the RIAA tries to sue a relative of some crime family? Someone wake up next to a decapitated horses head.
Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its simple, they won't. They would have their lawyers do the research and find out who the people being subpoened (sp?) were and if it comes up as GW, guess what, they won't say a damned thing about it.
For this attack plan to be a big success for them, they need to either have these people settle, or take them to court and destroy them. The LAST thing they want is some politcally/legally connected child/family to be dragged into this because it complicates the matter and would make the other people they're taking action against think otherwise.
Business-wise, the RIAA are morons, but PR-wise, they are wise beyond belief and you can be DAMN SURE they are aware of this possibility and are doing everything in their power to avoid it.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said
[RANT]
I hate the RIAA. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I haven't bought an album, CD, or tape produced by an RIAA member in over 8 years, and I have no future plans to, either. I have won a few off the radio. Bought some second hand (off of friends or used
Re:My take on this... (Score:3, Informative)
What do you trolls get out of this stuff, anyway?
Re:Misleading at best (Score:3, Interesting)
What really scares me is that, honestly, there is no defense that anyone will believe. The RIAA could just pick someone at random - someone who never shared any music at all - and present a made up dir list to the court. The person will say "hey, you've made a mistake!" and the judge will say "do you expect me to believe that?" and t
Re:responses from file traders (Score:3, Informative)
I can't believe you confront them on the legality of it all. If you tried that with me I'd tell you to stfu and mind your own business but I fix my own boxes so I won't be seeing you anytime soon.
I am not ashamed nor do I feel guilty. Most of all I won't repent so save your b.s
Re:responses from file traders (Score:5, Insightful)
Butt out of other peoples business and just do your damn job! I'd sue your ass if you installed something on my PC without telling me about it and it broke an application that was working when my PC arrived at your shop.
Re:any wifi owners contacted? (Score:3, Funny)
Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
Lastly, to those who say the RIAA is 100% pure evil and I should boycott them, don't forget that the RIAA includes a lot of great labels/artists/music in my opinion. I'm not talking about BoyBand Du Jour, but rather Count Baise, John Coltraine, Thelonious Monk, Duke Ellington, Gershwin, Louis Armstrong, Nora Jones, Kurt Elling, Max Roach, Charlie Mingus, pretty much anything from Blue Note Records... You get the idea (and I'm just using Jazz artists as an example). I will continue to support the recording