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.'"
Once again, protest with your money (Score:5, Insightful)
Go on and protest their actions. The louder, the better. But stop supporting them, or your cries will fall on deaf ears.
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.
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:4, Informative)
1) There appears to be no main site where you can submit possible new download places, such as MachinaeSupremacy.com (hint hint)
2) There is no "more from this author" button, just a search that types the artist and title in Google. When I listened to Beth Quist I immediately wanted to buy her album, but couldn't, unless I did research.
3) Not really irate's fault, but I want the music on CD as well as a download. Fair enough, you can burn your own etc, but it would be nice if they could send you a CD for an extra GBP 5 (about $10) or something. Even if it is a CD-R with a printed cover and track list... Or have I missed the point?
So essentially, irate radio is a really good idea, needs a lot of work on the interface etc, preferably a Winamp plugin or something, and needs our support!
BTW, Beth Quist (one of the MP3's I downloaded was from her) is on Magnatune (the non-evil people). If we could only get message out to kids about Magnatune, as I think it's a good lesson to be learnt. The "Why I set up Magnatune" section made me not want to buy any more commercial CD's that have touched the hands of the RIAA ever again...
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, I have a thesis to write so my contributions have slowed down a lot recently, and I think similar real-life interferences have hit the other devs lately.
I suggest that you don't try the stable version, but get the CVS or unstable versions. A lot has happened since the last stable release. There is also a new server under development, which will allow a few things such as submissions. Hopefully also a search and queue for next downloading function e
Stopping corporate terrorism in music (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be a perfectly viable way of ending the reign of RIAA-led corporate terrorism in music, if a majority of music listeners were to join in and stop listening to the crap. As things stand though, 99% of the audience consists of musical sheep, ie. people who despite their good intentions follow exactly the instructions of the music industry in deciding what music is "good" at any given time. The vast majority simply don't realize what's being done to them. Brainwashing is not too strong a term.
It's pretty inevitable. Unless you shut yourself off totally from the media, you get enveloped in the utterly pervasive music machine's output of not just music and video, but celebrity, hype and buzz. You literally cannot avoid it, it's as sticky as napalm. Face it, there is no future in asking the 99% of musically non-militant people to cut themselves off from the media, not even to enter the shopping malls where that sticky music is playing. The brainwashing is everywhere.
That public rating idea is great, and if it were to catch on then it might even improve the quality of "big business music" through perceived audience pressure. But meanwhile, music downloaders are being crucified, and leaving them to it in the hope that a long-term strategy might prevail is less than charitable. Some sort of direct legal action or preventative technical solution offers better prospects for the short term.
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:Stopping corporate terrorism in music (Score:3, Interesting)
However, NPR is contesting some of those accusations of bias [fair.org].
Re:Stopping corporate terrorism in music (Score:4, Insightful)
They would like other stuff too, if it got a reasonable amount of exposure. It doesn't get that exposure because of the way things are. Granted, this is a more complicated concept than the one you believe, but maybe if you "Take your time", you'll be able to "wrap your brain around it".
It seems to me that you are the one who needs to "can the arrogance".
Popular Music (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason popular music is popular is because people have already heard it and are comfortable with repetition. Classical, Musicals, Big Band, Swing, Gospel, Rock, Punk, Metal, BoyBands: each generation did not morph into a new type of human being preferring a new type of music; each generation was indoctrinated by the music aimed at them during their formative years.
Today's popular music is simplistic compared to music before the rise of the guitar. Modern music is complex when it has 2 vocal melodies, 1 instrumental chord pattern, 1 instrumental melody, and a beat limited to what one person can create (hands doing one pattern and a single-note bass drum line.) Songs are limited to 3 minutes because there is not enough content to keep anybody interested longer. (I enjoy LinkinPark, but they usually turn off the music when they sing, and much of the "singing" does not have a melody.)
Today's music is not "better" than older material because it is more popular. It is popular because we hear it more often.
---
Please refrain from poorly written personal attacks. I do not know Morgaine, but the post was not "self-involved" and does not exclude Morgaine from the sheep category.
Re:I have never disagreed more in my entire life (Score:3, Insightful)
I am looking at art as something that can contain merit in and of itself. There is something that can constitute good art, and a person can spend their entire life just trying figure that out. Those persons get degrees in Literature, Music Theory,
It appears as though we have a difference of definitions. No conclusion can be reached in thi
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:5, Insightful)
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 be
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:3, Informative)
The MacOS GUI (at least, I don't have Windows or Linux) is abysmally terrible. All windows open in the upper left, ignoring the OSes location for new windows. The window contains terribly ugly icons, but no tooltips. The help item in the menu bar does jack crap... of course a confusing GUI wouldn't have any help! It doesn't work together with iTunes at all. It's not smart enough to figure out it's running on OS X and change its default
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:4, Insightful)
I own a small publishing company that produces learning materials for Japanese language learners. Our customers praise our products, and it is very rewarding to know that we are helping people, but I also need to make a living.
I recently created an audio companion, which can be paid for and downloaded, to complement a japanese flashcard product of ours. I spent over $1000 for the studio time and voice actress' time. If I sell one for $12, and everyone else SHARES it, then I just threw away about $1000 and wasted a lot of my time.
A copyright grants legal entitlement by which the owner derives the fruits of her labor in connection with her literary, dramatic, pictorial, and or other graphic creations, etc. The artist labors to create a copyrightable work and then he or she receives a paycheck for such work by exploiting that work under copyright. If someone else derives monies or rewards from that work, without the copyright owners permission, he has unlawfully violated the copyright owners rights and actually, in essence, stolen a portion of or all of the copyright owners paycheck.
Why would you vociferously opposed to that? Don't you think abolishing copyright law would stifle software, music, and printing industries, as well as artistic creativity, by taking away much of the incentive for producing a work? Don't film makers like Errol Morris deserve to be compensated for their documentary? Don't I? Please explain.
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:4, Funny)
No, just makes you honest. I used to wonder why my friends' kids loved to listen to my music collection so much. Then I heard the current chart-toppers.
I stopped wondering.
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:5, Funny)
Yes dad.
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the correct approach.
The Grokster ruling basically reinforces the notion that the only people that rightsholders can sue at this point are the endusers.
Personally, I agree that you shouldn't generally hold a technology accountable for how some may misuse it. Along those lines, the EFF themselves used to suggest that the RIAA should be suing infringers [com.com].
On the other hand, I think Kazaa is just a scuzzy operation, and I'd rather see them get sued than a bunch of end-users. But the Grokster ruling means that's not going to be the way it works, at least not for now.
If you don't like the RIAA, don't buy their stuff, and don't copy it. Go find new independent artists, and support them directly.
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:5, Insightful)
(I feel better now. ;-> )
I think you're missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been doing this for some time now, and there's quite a bit of non-RIAA music well worth listening to. Metropolis Records [industrial-music.com] is a good place to start for industrial/EBM fans.
This already has started... (Score:5, Insightful)
The cat is out of the bag...the horse has left the barn....the _________(insert favorite metaphor here). The MP3 Genie is out and they can't put it back in. Sorry, but it's a losing battle.
The industry will change...this is a fact. The RIAA doesn't like this because they're basically going to stop making the huge mark-up on the CD/Record Market they had cornered. But their monopoly is crumbling, and it's crumbling more and more as the day wears on. Their trying to plug the leaks but the whole dam is falling all around them.
Is this good or bad? I honestly don't know, but it's going to be an interesting thing to witness! We've seen it many times in the past here, when a business is failing, the last-ditch effort is to issue lawsuits.
Want to support a band/artist? Go see them in concert OR send money to them directly...and I mean directly TO them...not to the management/record company. Will people send off a check to Chili-Peppers? Don't know, stranger things have happened.
Are CD Sales Really Down? Is P2P the Cause? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a report that says "Nielsen Rating System At Odds With RIAA's Claim Of Lost Sales" [kensei-news.com].
Here's a report that states "downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero" [unc.edu].
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'.
Re:Direct Payments (Score:4, Insightful)
If so, have you ever actually verified that the group is getting the funds? I mean, for all you know, their manager or whoever is responsible for handling incoming fan mail might just be pocketing the cash themselves.
I guess what I'm asking is, is there any indication that performers are even aware that folks like you exist? Because if not, you aren't having much of an effect. It seems we would need to raise awareness to the bands directly.
Now, what if someone were to create the proverbial tip jar, but this time, with available options to tip any band or performer you choose who has listed themselves with the service. The money would go directly to the performer's bank account without suffering the middle man. By requiring the bands to sign up, you could at least try to screen them to make sure they understand the money is to go directly to them. Fat chance actually talking to them directly, but you never know.
And I imagine it would have to be in the form of a tip jar or donation or somesuch because of contractual requirements for profit sharing based on sales and such. Better than a "Screw-The-RIAA" jar, legally speaking.
Re:This already has started... (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps. Though in at least one case, the figures that the RIAA was using to show that `CD sales were down' was actually that the sale of CD *singles* was down -- which is a format that few people ever cared about enough to buy in the first place. Of course, the RIAA press releases and such didn't quite explicitly state that they were only looking at CD singles
Can I mod this +6? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't like the RIAA's tactics? Don't like how they rip off artists and sue their customers? Then don't buy from them. It's simply not that hard- buy used CDs if you must, get freely downloadable music from any of a dozen sources, go listen to a local unsigned band and buy their CDs. I've bought exactly one RIAA album in the last three years, and that was because
Re:Can I mod this +6? (Score:4, Insightful)
That people who downloaded or shared music that they had no right to are wrong is not being questioned at all here. WHat is beign questioned is how that is dealt with by RIAA and the legal system.
By going through civil court the RIAA has to comply wuith a much lower standard of proof, and by their tactics they more or less ensure that people will not ghet a fair trial.
Imho they are definitely right to pursue the people who infringe their rights, but things like proof for that should be held to proper legal standards.
Saying how people should not be sharing music is not contributing to that discussion, it is redundant, and in fact, off-topic.
Re:Can I mod this +6? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes I do. They should be brought to justice in criminal court, not civil court. Once that has happened, it can happen that victims use civil court to get compensation, but that has nothign whatsoever to do with pubishing a crime, and it si extremely exceptional that such a thing stands a chance when someone has been found not guilty in criminal court. (exceptions exist, but like I s
Re:What proof? (Re:Can I mod this +6?) (Score:3, Informative)
Accused, when found guilty, are responsible for what they did. Untill they are found guilty, they are accused of, suspected of, but NOT GUILTY.
This is fundamental to how law and justice work.
You still have to prove an accusation, AND IF IT IS TRUE, you can hold the person responsible for it.
Those are really 2 independant things.
> Or do
Re:Can I mod this +6? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, why must people be forced to abide by this "rule" that civil disobedience means you have to accept the punishment for some bogus crime? Would it have been more noble or correct if George Washington et al. had meekly submitted themselves to be executed for treason? Should all those slaves who escaped from their plantations have wi
Re:Can I mod this +6? (Score:4, Insightful)
???? That basically is the Ghandi model. "We're just not going to listen to what you tell us to do. Go ahead, arrest all of us- you'll run out of jails before we run out of protestors."
Of course, jail construction is a huge growth industry in the US- we jail more citizens per capita than any other democracy.
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
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason they do this is to deter other people from sharing music. I don't think they really care about the awards here...just the publicity.
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'm curious about though, is that all the cases I've read about do seem to be very much canted in favour of the RIAA. The defendents are almost always financial unable to fight the case and there is also almost always clear cut copyright infringement. Is this merely media bias, or does the RIAA get to pick and choose its cases once they know who the mark is to better meet their goals of deterrence?
As I understand it, the RIAA usually files a John/Jane Doe case to subpoena the evidence needed to establish their victim's identity. Supposing that J. Doe turns out to be a very wealthy and outspoken proponent of fair use and realistic copyright laws who quite probably would be prepared to fight them in court. Issues of whether they would or not aside, could the RIAA make some excuses and "opt out" of the case at that point, or not?
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:5, Insightful)
Same reason the IRS tends not to audit the high-end white-collar criminals with tax shelters in Barbados as much as Joe Sixpack, who may have done some work on a freind's room addition in trade for some cash under the table.
Same reason you get your ass handed to you if you drive with a straight-pipe welded in place of your catalytic converter, while the power company belches filth all over your neighborhood.
The little-guy is always the easier target. It's called "going after the low-hanging fruit".
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't want to have your life destroyed, don't allow strangers to download works you don't have the copyright for.
Seriously, I have no pity at all for these immensely stupid people who broke the law and now are being punished financially. I think it's fantastic. I can't wait for them to ramp it up further. Because if the RIAA can stop file sharing, i mean really stop it, without having to lobby to make copyright infringement a federal crime, we all prosper. This isn'
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Once again, protest with your money (Score:3, Insightful)
Class-Action Defense? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Class-Action Defense? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Class-Action Defense? (Score:2)
This is an excellent idea. Unfortunately, I've never seen legal precedent for large scale defense in this case.
It would probably take one of the defendents to get a clever lawyer first, and have the lawyer file a motion that all the RIAA lawsuits get combined into one. Not sure if that is really possible, though.
The RIAA would fight tooth and nail to prevent it, even if it is possible, however. If "class action" defense could happen, it would probably spell the end of their lawsuit campaign.
Re:Class-Action Defense? Class-Action Defeat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that the sort of "class defense" you had in mind?
Re:Class-Action Defense? Class-Action Defeat. (Score:3)
Fantastic... settle with coupons (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA targets... (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing, I think, is that those of us who would be brave enough to stand up in court aren't participating in the types of activities likely to get them targeted.
A lot of the people who are doing this probably don't own copies of the songs to begin with, which makes it tough for them to stand up for themselves.
What really needs to happen is that someone with an extensive music collection, and the desire to fight this, needs to leave various P2P applications open 24/7 with access to their vast, legal music collection, so that someone will notice.
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.
Re:RIAA targets... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just silly. A person who has a 1000 downloaded albums clearly loves music and would have VERY PROBABLY bought at least a few of them if that was the only way to get them. And when the users of P2P are calculated in millions, that amounts to a HUGE amount of albums, even if there are some who indeed wouldn't have bought any.
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?
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.
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
Re:RIAA targets... (Score:4, Insightful)
The size of a collection acquired at essentialy zero marginal cost has no bearing on the size of the collection that would be acquired at substantial marginal cost.
For example, consider the stereotypical college kid with little free spending money, aka broke, but lots of free time on his hands. He may spend plemnty of hours acquiring music for "free" through his "free" school internet connection. Yet, if the school cuts him off and stops him from using the "free" connection to acquire music, he still won't have any more money to spend on purchasing music. Instead he will seek alternate zero-cost routes, like borrowing CDs from people in the dorm and ripping them. Still zero marginal dollar cost, just less time-efficient. But he's got plenty of time, and no dollars, so its obvious he won't paying money for music anytime soon.
Re:RIAA targets... (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things:
(1) There is no Constitutional guarantee for profit; and
(2) There is no Constitutional clause protecting failing business models under assault from technological chan
Re:RIAA targets... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only "a person", but probably multiple people. Why is it that the RIAA only targets the "a person" who has limited financial resources for legal backing? Why don't they go after the yuppie daughter of a rich CEO who, typically, has ten times as many mp3s as any of her threadbare peers?
The answer to my question is 1) obvious a
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
the honourable Nancy Gertner has presided over, by her own admission, numerous drug related trials. US government vs crack addicts seems pretty similar to me.
re: huh? (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to make a statement on her credibility or lack there of, how about saying something about her behavior when presented with such cases in her court...
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The context is different. The RIAA cases are civil - drug cases are criminal. A destitute defendant in a criminal case is provided a public defender. A destitute defendant in a civil case is provided jack. This is rooted in a principle that government threats to one's liberty (jail) are more dangerous than the threat posed by plaintiffs seeking nothing but money from a defendant.
Make a reality show out of this... (Score:5, Funny)
Blech, never mind. It's the diet pepsi talking.
Fear of standing up for one's self (Score:5, Insightful)
If people would take a stand against the RIAA/MPAA when it comes a-knocking, a lot of light would be shed on their lair of demons. As said by the original poster, this would be a great chance to publically question the (RI|MP)AA about their calculations and figured, and tactics, and have the answers on record. Even if the individual being sued had a judgement made against him/her, I do not believe it would be anywhere near what the desired settlement would be, and it would finally set a precedence for limiting what could be sought in future cases.
If no one stands up against them, they will continue to rape and pillage the consumer. Think about "A Bug's Life,"; the RIAA/MPAA grasshoppers NEED us ants, and they KNOW we are strong and outnumber them, but somehow they are able to bully us into submission.
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: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.
Re:Fear of standing up for one's self (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? Because it's a perfectly valid refutation of your argument?
Copying is not theft. Yes, it's illegal. Nobody disagrees with you on that. Law is Law. But it's also illegal in Maryland to drive your car at night without a horse preceeding it by at least 90 feet carrying a lantern.
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.
Re:Fear of standing up for one's self (Score:5, Insightful)
Tyranny? Are you out of your mind?
Tyranny is jamming a spear up your ass and then planting the other end in the ground and leaving you to die (cf: Vlad the Impaler)
Tyranny is torturing a confession out of you because "we know you're guilty, so just admit to it."
Tyranny is taxation without representation and quartering soldiers in private homes against the owners' wishes.
Tyranny is not saying "we can prove you were complicit in violating our IP and we'll sue to recover damages."
For goodness sake, people die because of true tyranny and you're whining because you can't get free tunes!
Look, I'm all in favor of slapping the RIAA down when they go after people who haven't done anything, but for the rest of them, well, you play with fire, you burn your fingers.
If you're so in favor of standing up to them why don't you go share a few million songs and send the RIAA anonymous emails about your activity. Then you can have your chance to stand up for the poor oppressed music listeners.
Re:Fear of standing up for one's self (Score:4, Insightful)
People aren't "whining" because they can't get free tunes. People are whining because a multi-billion dollar media conglomorate group are targeting and suing everyday people who cannot affor to fight back, even if they are innocent. So through "threatening", they extort what in comparison ios a smaller amount of money as opposed to the amount of money it would take for someone to hire a lawyer and fight them.
In the US legal system, you don't necesarily have to win, you just have to last the longest.
~X~
Re:Fear of standing up for one's self (Score:4, Insightful)
No, and let me tell you why... At the moment they are only prosecuting people who they believe have copied thier music, or so they say, but imagine, just imagine, that one day they realize how easy it is to get people to cough up money when threatened and start to file suits against anyone, regardless of guilt.
Could YOU defend yourself if a multinational corporation decided to sue your for whatever? Even if you are GUARANTEED to win, you'd still end up paying tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Even if you are GUARANTEED to win, you could eat months, even years, of your life in the court room. Do you have that much money under your mattress? Does your job let you take off years of time to prepare a case to defend yourself against false allegations? Does your wife/girlfriend mind being penniless, homeless, probably living with your parents, racking up debt on your credit cards, having the negative stigma of a long, drawn-out legal battl eover your head, for a couple of years while you sort this mess out becuase she knows eventually you'll win and then be free to retrain your skills, find a new job and start your life over from the bottom again?
Tyranny comes in many forms.
Re:Fear of standing up for one's self (Score:3, Insightful)
You think so? A lawyer showing up one day and saying "We think you did something illegal, so give us 10,000 today or we'll take everything from you tomorrow." when you don't even own a computer and clearly didn't do it (as many of them didn't) doesn't qualify as tyrrany?
At the very least it's racketeering and extortion. Start just randomly demanding 1/2 a year's wage from random people many of whome never did anything like what you claim, and yet you can force them to pay it because they can't take 6 month
Will of the People (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Will of the People (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I call BS on you. Within "the general population" there isn't even understanding of intellectual property, much less "widespread support". Ask your friends: How many of them realize they're criminals for taping the last episode of Friends and lending it to a friend? How many even know that you have to pay royalties for singing "Happy Birthday" in public, and how many of them think that's a good thing? How many understand that when their high school teacher photocopied articles for them to read, it was illegal? How many think "As long as I don't charge for it, copying is legal?"
If you're honest in the survey, you're going to find the answer is "a lot" -- indeed, probably most of them.
I'm a fan of the general population and, unlike a lot, I don't think they're intrinsically stupid or unfit to govern -- indeed, they probably are better than anyone we've got actually doing it. But on this issue, the public is woefully under-, mis-, and ill-informed.
Case disclosure (Score:3, Interesting)
Better yet, go to a used record store and save some money in the process!
Re:Case disclosure (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article: "lawsuits that the RIAA filed against individuals charged with illegally sharing songs" (emphasis mine)
Wow (Score:2, Funny)
I guess she's never worked in criminal court.
Bout time (Score:5, Funny)
I am so happy to see that fine, upstanding corporate citizens such as the RIAA, are finally having their day in court. Our society will never be able to progress and move forward until the plebeian consumers finally understand their proper place in society. This example serves to prove why corporations should finally be given the right to vote in elections, according to how much money they attribute to the economy. Only when the corporations move forward, can the rest of our society follow.
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:Equal Protection under the Law (Score:3, Funny)
Still, it's fun to dream about
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:Equal Protection under the Law (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the nifty calculator that I used: http://eh.net/hmit/ppowerusd/ [eh.net]
Re:Equal Protection under the Law (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm vastly more ignorant of Canadian healthcare, but I was under the impression that when they say "socialized medicine" up there, they aren't pussy-footing around like John Kerry--the fees a doctor can charge are set by the goverment. So "socialized law" would mean all lawyers charge the same rates and serve all clients equally, I suppose.
Re:Equal Protection under the Law (Score:3, Informative)
You have a right to legal council in a criminal trial. You are on your on own in a civil trial.
Adrian
Re:Equal Protection under the Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to take the other side:
Why should you be entitled to a better defense simply because you have more money? What about "equal protection under the law"? And it's very convenient to say, "Oh, but the poor don't produce enough... it's their fault." But maybe you got your money through unscrupulous or even illegal means. Being rich or being poor doesn't really say anyth
Gee (Score:4, Insightful)
Bring it on mods.
Legal defence insurance? (Score:5, Informative)
The Insurance might decline certain cases for example for gross misconduct but usually you've got some support when needed, typically for less than 50 Euros per year.
In cases like this it is not uncommon for such insurances to bundle their efforts, sometimes including consumer organisations, to get a more fundamental ruling.
Of course littigation on the scale we now see in the USofA is not (yet) as common/rampant in Europe.
Someday they're gonna hit somebody... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Someday they're gonna hit somebody... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Someday they're gonna hit somebody... (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the US Legal System (Score:3, Insightful)
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:If the RIAA is targeting poor people... (Score:3, Insightful)
A product is sold. Ownership is transferred. Mumbling and complaining about abstractions such as copyright amount to little more than crossing fingers at the point of sale. The court should hang the vendors from a clothesline and beat them with wooden breadboards for being so childish and naive.
The seller knows that the medium was easily copyable. The seller knows that the copies are easily distributable. There is n
Music Industry Their Own Worst Enemy (Score:5, Informative)
So at a time when they're suing thousands of their own customers...not a good business strategy IMHO...they're also cranking out really boring, insanely depressing music that all sounds like it was stamped out with an audio cookie cutter.
If this keeps up they'll have to give up the cocaine, private jets and porn star girlfriends! I'm having a hard time working up any sympathy for them.
So, yeah, hit them back in the wallet. Go out and sample free downloads, there are thousands of legal songs you can check out. Here are a couple links to get you started:
You can also shop at used CD stores. The only way you're going to get them to change is to stop buying their crap.
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.
My ? is - would /. help .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we just talkers or can we each put a dollar where our mouths are?
I would think a donation thread and an advice thread WOULD help win a case against them.
Re:My ? is - would /. help .... (Score:3, Funny)
You admit you were sharing 'Now That's What I Call Music #23' and you can kiss your legal defense fund goodbye.
Alas... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem goes much further than this specific case--the legal system is broken and needs fixing. We've created this zero-sum game, forcing people to either settle early and choose their own destiny, or go to court and leave it up to no more than a coin flip.
Thing is, under the current system, I'd advise my clients to do the same thing. Settle and get on with their lives. Yes, we need a test case to set some precedent here, but I would not put any of my clients in that position unless they were adamant about it.
There's just too much risk and money involved with going to court, and, so, settlements are creating a practically private legal system with often confidential terms. What to do, what to do...
RIAA radar (Score:3, Informative)
Enjoy!
dear plagiarising bastard. (Score:5, Informative)
Against Intellectual Property, Chapter 3 of Information Liberation by Brian Martin [uow.edu.au]
Re:Dumbass -MOD DOWN! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop listening to music, addicts! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stop listening to music, addicts! (Score:2)
Re:Stop listening to music, addicts! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just deserts (Score:3, Funny)