Variety Says Class Action May Stop RIAA Suits 133
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Variety reports that Andersen v. Atlantic, the class action which has been brought against the RIAA in Oregon may 'ultimately force the organization to drop or dramatically change the way it uses its principal weapon in the fight against online piracy"'. The RIAA responded to Variety saying that 'We are confident that (Andersen's) claims have no merit....We look forward to presenting our arguments in the next few weeks to the court about why this case should be dismissed. In all our cases, we seek to follow the facts and be fair and reasonable in resolving pending claims.' p2pnet opines that Hollywood's interest in the suit bodes ill for the RIAA."
oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, but I'll photocopy the pages from the dictionary containing those words, and mail them to the RIAA.
The attached note would read:
Yeah! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, wouldn't just this issue alone be enough to sue those companies? harrasing a minor or something like that? I am sure you guys have some kind of law that punishes that ("think of the children").
Also, I found the following quote funny:
Ray Beckerman, an attorney who has represented defendants in illegal downloading lawsuits filed by the RIAA.
As I am not a native English speaker, I read that as "The illegal lawsuits, with the subject of downloading" or, illegal downloading-lawsuits and my first thought was, yeah, they surely are illegal indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, wouldn't just this issue alone be enough to sue those companies? harrasing a minor or something like that? I am sure you guys have some kind of law that punishes that ("think of the children").
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This passage might explain why: "In May 2004, for health reasons, Ms Andersen had been forced to leave her position as case manager for the Department of Justice" (p.12)
If I were a RIAA lawyer, I would probably think thrice and most likely decide to forget about about filing a lawsuit based on flawed and illegally acquired evidence against someone who worked for the D
Backfire (Score:1)
All of these lawsuits... (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, forget making an Association!
Re:All of these lawsuits... (Score:5, Funny)
well... (Score:1)
Principal Weapon being (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lawsuits (Score:1)
Copyright the papers and evidence (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Two conditions.
1. All available money has been funneled into *IAA to cover 'lost sales' of shit we were never gonna buy, but were sued into paying for anyways.
2. There are no places on Earth where *IAA whims do not hold force of law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What a stupid argument. How do you know if he was going to buy it? Once you give him a copy it is impossible to know if he would ever have bought it.
Yes, and before you give him the copy, it's also impossible to know if he would ever have bought it. That's the problem with the RIAA's claims of "lost sales": The numbers they quote are based on the assumption that every single download corresponds to a lost sale, i.e., they assume that he definitely would have bought it. The truth is obviously somewhere in between.
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but the point is moot afterward.
"The numbers they quote are based on the assumption that every single download corresponds to a lost sale"
But, they are correct: Every single illegal download corresponds directly to lost revenue for the copyright holder, whoever that may be - whether or not the person that did so *would* have purchased it beforehand doesn't matter any longer, since they now have the benefit of it after having done so without having paid the copyright holder for it, thus depriving the copyright holder of the remuneration to which they are entitled.
The fact that the person might never have bought it anyway doesn't enter into it at all, so far as I can see, not after the fact.
Now, lest I get modbombed into the nether regions for having said all of the previous, let me state my personal stance on this:
I don't believe in copyright infringement for my own personal gain/entertainment: If I want something, I buy it under the terms offered. If I can't afford it, then I wait until I can, or, if I don't think that it is worth it, I give up on it, and look elsewhere for something else - there's no shortage of "stuff" by which to be entertained, after all.
Now, *why* I do this: I'm a competent computer technician, more or less
However, I have next to *no* artistic talent, in general. I enjoy music, movies, books, etc., and appreciate and admire the skill, knowledge, talent, intelligence and effort that must go into their creation, all the more because I cannot do so myself.
If I were to obtain that illegally, I'd be cheating those that can, and I equate it to someone refusing to pay me for a service call on their computer, after I fixed it, when they themselves could not do so: It's unfair, and wrong.
But, that's just me
The 'net has made many things possible which were not before. With regards to copyrighted works, it has created much conflict, and that conflict is all about money, as most things are when dealing with things of value, because money is the way (for better or worse), that such is measured.
I'd say that it will all work out in time, and it *will*, only I understand something that hampers that, being someone that "grew up" (as much as I ever did so) with the growth of the Internet, and the technology that it encompasses: Time is different on the Internet. Internet time is fast-paced, almost frenetic, while "real life" passes at almost glacial speeds by comparison, especially to those that have grown up with access to it, and are used to its pace.
Those that are not, for whatever reason, resist it: It's a natural reaction, I think, though it frustrates and angers those that don't understand it.
I was going to go on and finish this, tie up the loose ends, etc., but, I don't have the time *grin* - I want to go, play my favorite MMORPG for awhile, as *my* time is what matters most to me, always, both here and in the real world
Maybe later
Regards,
dj
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:1)
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
fwiw. (
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I even saw a guy post on a previous article that it was alright to copy (and listen to) an album because he would never buy it, so the artist/company didn't lose any money on it. The fact is that if buying were the only option, he might well have bought it. He has no way of knowing if he would have bought it, because he can rationaliz
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just Collateral damage. It sucks, but in the real world people only respond to severe efforts.
So, in other words, the ends justify the means?
I disagree. One of the central principles behind our system of justice is that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". The burden is on the RIAA to collect sufficient evidence in a legal fashion to show that I was sharing copyrighted material. It is not my responsibility to show that my computer is free of unauthorized content.
I don't agree with or like their methods, but they are working.
If their methods are working so well, then why has file sharing traffic, as a proportion of total internet traffic gone up consistently since the shutdown of the original Napster?
Re: (Score:2)
The real question would be has illegal file sharing traffic gone up consistently since then, although you're probably still exactly correct. I sure do not have any sources to cite though that differentiate between illegal and legal file sharing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At least average Joe is no longer sharing his entire catalog like many people were a few years ago.
Joe User is not sharing his entire music collection on Kazaa anymore, but that does not mean that he is not uploading. As more file-sharing goes to bittorrent-like systems, Joe User will be sharing what he is currently downloading. It makes little difference in the eyes of the RIAA, if one is uploading pieces of the file that one has a full download of, or if one is uploading pieces from a partial downloa
statistics lesson: anecdotal evidence != data set (Score:2)
You just admitted repeatedly that your entire argument that the RIAA lawsuits are reducing copyright infringement from filesharing is based wholly on nothing more than observation of a few friends' actions. Do any of your friends sky dive? No? Then I guess no one else must either.
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money?
How do you know if you like a CD, if you haven't listened to it? Many people buy CDs to support artists they like, after listening to unlicensed downloads of their songs.
I also think this is a case of car manufacturers vs. the buggy whip industry. IMHO, it's environmentally irresponsible to haul CDs around the globe, when we have a better technological alternative. I'd pay for lossless downloads at guaranteed speeds, if the alternative is mp3s at questionable quality and availability.
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:2)
If there was no copyright then there would be no need for the GPL.
The GPL violators are in fact the hypocrites here. They copyright their own work whilst using works which have been freely given to the public domain.
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:4, Interesting)
DRM would be even more prevalent and probably more effective, it would be seen as the only way to make money from any idea (software, artistic work etc..), Oh and that GPL material that had been closed sourced? that would be sat under layers of DRM too. Arguing for the total abolition of copyright is not a good and positive thing, not unless you could provide some other legislative or social mechanism to address the damage done.
The problem with current copyright legislation is the length of copyright and the terms associated with it - see one of my previous posts [slashdot.org] for more,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but if there was no copyright, it would be entirely legal to reverse engineer, disassemble, & decompile any closed source software. I imagine we would
Re: (Score:2)
As for DRM, no its not likely to become perfect, but once again you end up with the hassle of having to break it.
Your last paragraph
Re: (Score:2)
"Clean room" reverse engineering is allowed, but I don't know of anywhere that allows you to disassemble or decompile a program, edi
Re: (Score:2)
And all the code that is closed source would be leaked, modified, and redistributed in 'free form', and be nearly impossible to sell because everyone wanted a copy would just make one. DRM and encryption would be toothless deterrents, because it would be hacked put up on a torrent, and there is nothing anyone could do about it.
But, I agre
Re: (Score:2)
Cracking DRM, and having to wade through reverse engineered code (when have you seen source code leaked for a major application (Windows source code rumours excepted as I haven't actually seen any of it)) is a hassle, abolishing copyright would be a disaster for the open source community, maybe not from a continuation perspective, but certainly in terms of future expansion.
Your other points are essentially sound and are similar
Re: (Score:2)
Cracking DRM, and having to wade through reverse engineered code (when have you seen source code leaked for a major application (Windows source code rumours excepted as I haven't actually seen any of it)) is a hassle, abolishing copyright would be a disaster for the open source community, maybe not from a continuation perspective, but certainly in terms of future expansion.
By leaked, I meant the application leaked to torrent sites already hacked (not leaked). My editing was not so good there.
Corporations wo
Re: (Score:2)
With regard to the term, its quite interesting that you think 5 or 6 years is unreasonable for a book or a Movie. 100 years ago I would have agreed with you, but in this wonderfully modern world communication is so rapid that the exploitation of any work of art seems to happen fairly quickly (assuming copyright starts at the point of publishing rather than at the end of production). Hit films, books and music will make their outlay back in a short time and leave the owner a tidy profit over a period of a
Re: (Score:2)
5 years is enough to get past the hey-its-new-hype but consider what it will do to derivative product:
Sure, maybe the nutjob writing Harry Potter books will get paid for the rights to the movie, but most of the time they'll just get the shaft as the studio will wait out the 5 years to
Re: (Score:2)
I am not saying that works would be l
Re: (Score:2)
A film adaptation of a book is a derivative work, yes, and the author should benefit from its creation while the book is copyprotected. And that protection should last more than a couple years. (Which is all a 5 year term effectively does, as by year 4 the product is virtually unsellable anyway because everyone knows it will free in just a few more months.
and derivative works, extensions and improvements should
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes.
If you do agree do you not further agree that a work should leave copyright whilst it is still to some degree useful as a work from which further works can be derived, moreover shouldn't the work lose its copyright status whilst it is still relevant?
on the former yes (but I think even a 100 year term satisfies that for most works). on the latter 'relevancy' is un
Re: (Score:2)
However I have a problem with:
I suggested a solution to that. Short copyright, but extendable by the author, per work, for a price.
Primarily as it leads to people without capital being left out, or worse having to sell all or part of their rights on order to get funding to secure their rights for a longer period.
Not sure how to address that though, maybe a single extension should be possible based upon some sort of criteria being met.
Anyway, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the presumption was largely that people making money from their work wouldn't have to release it so quickly if they didn't want to. So the capital to protect the work is coming from selling/licensing the work itself.
I agree that leaves a gap where an author with an unprofitable work can't prevent it from becoming public d
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, this is a problem. Copyright must be abolished totally. Sounds strict? Sounds crazy? Maybe, but all alternatives are unacceptable. With the internet exists a method for the great masses to violate copyrights. The problem is that this can only be prevented with police state methods made in china. Even today my civil rights get more and more restricted. I live in Germany and many so called measurements against terrorism make absolutely no sense a
rtfa.... (Score:5, Informative)
Whether or not you approve of file-sharing, I'd imagine it's in your best interest to uphold the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty. =P
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately (or not, depending on which side of the lawsuit you're on), that's only true for criminal cases. The burden of proof in a civil case is only "a preponderance of evidence" i.e. enough evidence to convince a judge/jury you're probably at fault.
Re: (Score:2)
This is something of a concern to me. I am at one of the universities targeted by the RIAA this year. I've been somewhat concerned that they would send settlement letters to random students. If I refused to settle, they'd get a chance to look at my computer. Now, I haven't partaken in file sharing since napster got shut down by the 9th circuit court, but I do hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did TFA also mention the fact that the case was dropped because the next step was a jury trial and the RIAA had no evidence? Did it also mention that "the lady" was a case manager for the DOJ and knows exactly what is involved in proving the kind of action she filed?
The RIAA is going to get nailed to the wall by Tanya Andersen and I, for one, will laugh mockingly at the rotting corpse.
Re: (Score:2)
I am working to get you that last laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are, and many of us greatly appreciate it. But you've gotta admit, your job would be a lot tougher if anyone at the RIAA or MediaSentry had a technological clue or, heaven forbid, any actual evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mac, if you think representing people with no money against a cartel of multinational corporations with money coming out of its ears, using lawyers who have no scruples, is easy .... ask any of the other lawyers representing defendants in these cases and ask them how 'easy' it is. If you can get us a grant of a couple of million dollars it will be a lot 'easier'.
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes down to other IP rights, why should those be sacred? It doesn't bother me at all when the latest GPL violation is posted on Slashdot. In fact, I say that the rights of developers working under the GPL should be totally ignored as long as we're going to cheer on people who are getting sued for downloading music they didn't buy. Both are copyright violations, and neither is more sacred than the other.
We also do not agree that simply making a copy of works we own physical media to are in fact copy right infringements. Even more organizations like the Sound Exchange or acts like the Canadian media levy where a agencies is granted rights to collect monies for artists but in turn do not turn it over to the artists is unethical. If my unsigned band allows Digital imports to distribute our works via streaming radio the SoundExchange has no rights to charge any fee for this.
We protest these not the right to steal music, but the ethics and actions of the various agencies representing DISTRIBUTORS. As the members of the RIAA are not artists themselves but the distributing agent (Sony, EMI, Virgin etc..).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slimy reason: The software copyright thefts Slashdoters attack are done by larger corporations (i.e. "the bad guys"). The Music copyright thefts are done by individuals.
Honorable reason: Creators of Software art tend to actually get reasonable contracts. They are designed to pay a fair percentage, based on the value of their work. As a result there is a clear bellcurve effect with a a huge number of people making a living wage, and a small number of ho
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:1)
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious, would th
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA's investigators and attorneys ought to be doing jail time over this one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The RIAA's "expert" has admitted [blogspot.com] that he doesn't have a clue as to what 'individual' may have been doing the file sharing, and that his methods and MediaSentry's methods haven't been subjected [blogspot.com] to any of the testing that is required for them to be usable as evidence in Court, yet in my presence, a couple of months ago, an RIAA lawyer stood up in court and said to the judge that MediaSentry's investigator "detected an individual downloading and uploading".
I'm curious, would this not open that lawyer up to a contempt of court or perjury charge for lying to the judge?
Perjury? No.
Contempt? Yes.
Rule 11 sanctions? Yes.
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Insightful)
- If people decide to just stop buying the good, than the market completely collapses. No demand and no buyers means that all of the providers go out of business.
- However, if people decide that they need the good, then a second market will appear, providing lower prices and filling demand. The first market's providers get choked out from the undercuts, and die unless they stop fixing prices.
So, what we have in this case is a second market. It is a black market, a market that is not legally sanctioned. The cost of goods on this market is effectively zero, making it a free good. The RIAA can't possibly undercut or fairly compete with a free good like pirated music, so instead they resort to these lawsuits to try and scare people away from the black market. Does it work? Not really.So, what should the RIAA do? They should stop fixing prices and let the market sort itself out. There are two types of participants in the black market: People who want the good, but don't want to pay for it; and people who would pay for the good if it were a bit less expensive. The former will never leave the black market, but the RIAA could court the latter if they would only stop fixing their goddamn prices.
That's the economics of it, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem: The RIAA has never allowed itself to work outside of a price fixed market. Even before they grouped together, the various companies didn't allow a non-price fixed market.
At points they undercut their markets like the Mafia - break legs, etc. - and then moved more towards monetary. They've always corned out people they didn't want, and promoted those they did. Didn't like their game? Ok - but you won't
Re: (Score:2)
A couple more factors... (Score:3, Insightful)
The black market actually offers a superior product right now, ignoring price.
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:2, Insightful)
The Bush admin is considering a $15 tax on orgasms. Why is it too much to ask if
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefor, violating copyright when it restricts freedom == GOOD.
violating copyright when it is a tool to forbid restriction of freedoms == BAD.
The Pro-File Sharing Argument (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, most people are far more excited to see the monopoly/monoculture fall then we ever were with what is actually being shared/downloaded. We came *this* close to being sucker punched for *generations* by DRM. And it still might happen if you don't do your part.
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:2)
Is it too much to ask that if you pay $50+ for a concert ticket that you get a free CD (free music)?
It is my thoughts that music is a service, not a product, and that artists should be payed to perform these services, not to create false products.
Why not get robbed instead ? (Score:2)
riaa sells extravagantly priced products, with 50 cents cost per piece but $15 price per piece.
then giving out say, $5 every 2-3 days to a robber wouldnt hurt any people with $200 disposable income either. this way the money would get in circulation, physical assault during robbery cases would go down, and it would be a safer place. small price to pay for less violent crime dont you think ? it can even be made official and 'robbing' might be taken out of the scene altogether. just 'donate' $5 eve
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:2)
Because humans dont think that casual stealing is very wrong. Thats why we put very weak locks on all our stuff. The locks in my car, home, etc will absolutely not stop a determined person, but it stops all the 'social stealing.' Thats human nature. Everything else is rationalizations for theft.
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Interesting)
It's simple. I'm out of money. Instead of $15 for a 40 minute CD, I bought 4 120 minute DVDs for $20 at Blockbuster.
It is a matter of value. I don't have tons of money to buy both the value products and the expensive low value products. DRM on many CDs has lowered their value even further. If you can't put it on your MP3 player, it's useless. If you find this out ofter the sale, opened items are not returnable. I learned early on to not buy a pig in a poke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke [wikipedia.org]
Many Jewel cases on retail shelves don't contain a real Phillips standard CD and are not clearly labeled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design [wikipedia.org]
For a prime example of overpricing the easy to duplicate back catalog music is still at high prices as though they are still paying for production costs which were paid for long ago.
http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-White-Album/dp/B000
The outrageous price is simply from created shortage, not by any costs of production.
Instead of buying this overpriced item, I can buy 4 movies that took orders of magnitude more to produce.
Care to do a cost of production comparison for the Beatles White Album and the movies Monsters Inc, Cars, Toy Story, Fiddler on the Roof, Finding Nemo, and other large cast or high tech creations.
When comparing value, the White Album costs more and has a much less talent and production complexity. At the current value/price points, I'm simply buying movies instead of albums. They don't have the value.
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Company KNOWS it is illegal and is intentionally violating the law. Frequently does any number of actions to hide the fact they are stealing code, which further acknowledges that they are breaking the law. When legal issues do come out of this it usually boils down to "you hafta give the code away!"
2.
Off topic. (Score:2)
Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:2)
The purpose of copyright is to encourage artists to produce work which will fall into public domain. Not to "make artists (and everyone associated with them) richer than the queen of england for a few years work.
Let me put it this way..
The minimum wage person has about $50 "free" money. Is it fairer to have a system where that money goes to make one or two artists (and their distributers) rich or to make 100 a
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Jury Nullification [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True for federal judges. For states, it varies by state.
Re: (Score:2)
Two words that don't go together. (Score:5, Funny)
Why settle? (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope Variety is right based on one thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it -- because many of these suits have a high number of defendants based on digitally obtained lists that may or may not be accurate based on the tool used to auto-generate the list. I can just about guarantee that another program took their lists and auto-generated many of the filings. [because I don't see the RIAA hiring masses of para-legal qualified folks to type up their legal filings....]. So at the minimum there is a
- software list "maker" generating a list connected to
- a software file-creator for that fills up the postal or other mail services for
- the purposes of ostensibly extorting legal settlements,
- and yet another set of programs filling up the legal system with cases based on program talking to program talking to program.
Anybody else have a problem with corporate law being conducted like that? To my way of thinking every filing should have to be done without the intervention of a software list generator, wouldn't you think? That way a corporation must risk the cost of the data entry and hand operations to generate their filings, just like the rest of us would. Seems fair enough, doesn't it?Re: (Score:2)
Bald faced lies (Score:5, Insightful)
No you do not! You demand outrageously overinflated damages and target people with all the accuracy of a drunk stumbling out of a bar. Most importantly, you are extorting money from people who have never used p2p file sharing and violated NONE of your copyrights. You then proceed to rely on scare tactics realizing most of these lawsuits will be settled out of court because the prospect of going toe to toe with a major corporation in the court room is downright terrifying and can financially ruin an individual of far lesser means than you.
You have every right to protect your member organizations' copyrights via the court system. You *do not* have the right to pick people at random, bring financial ruin down on them, and harras them and their families.
I don't have a huge amount of faith in the court systems these days, but you really need to lose. And badly. I'm not talking about $5.00 coupon-for-a-CD settlements. I'd really like to see a judgement so harsh that some of your member organizations are driven to bankruptcy. After all, it's what you've been using the courts to do to people these past few years. Turnabout's fair play.
Had to be said. (Score:3, Funny)
(Apologies in advance)
Most effective way to stop RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
If the numbers were big enough, literally millions, preferably concentrated in a local area (let's say New York City or New York State), where the court system would suddenly face prosecuting millions of people, sending them to jail (since all consumers would refuse to pay fine, they would insist on going to jail) - sudde
Re: (Score:2)
Equating filesharing with enslavement of an entire nation is about as related as setting your glass on the table is to landing a rover on Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
can you say DIRE- (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose they use the word "piracy" because it sounds more evil than "data duplication."
Ye gods and little fishes, I'd settle for them using "copyright infringement" instead of "piracy." If they need it to sound more evil, they could hire one of those deep-voiced announcer guys that does the voice-overs for MPAA previews.
Prosecutor: "Your honor, we intend to prove that the defendant is guilty of..." *snaps fingers*
Announcer Guy: COPYRIGHT... INFRINGMENT
Juror: Oooh... That sounds evil.
If you think sharing is caring (Score:2)