Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act 621
devnulljapan is one of many users to let us know that another single mother is taking the fight to the RIAA. More than just standing up to them however, Tanya Anderson has decided to go on the offensive and countersue. In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate the suit identifies violations of the Oregon RICO Act in addition to 'fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.' Ms. Anderson has also demanded a trial by jury.
Boo! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Boo! (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how much money the RIAA has made off of this for the labels. They seem to be police, judge, jury, and collections for profit. I wonder how much of their record profits are from these lawsuits.
Well, I know the RIAA has helped me. I have purchased no new media in over a year now (never downloaded it). And it has helped the local band scene as many people I know go watch the bands and purchase the CDs where the bands play rather than feed the beast. Overall it is less expensive and I have made more friends.
My kids, and many of their friends are growing up on live performances from local artists. We have been to Beef and Board (a very *nice* playhouse), the local small playhouses, the parks, ethnic presentations, and much more. I never could have forced them to go to these things until the RIAA (and now MPAA) stepped in. I never thought I would live to see the day where the labels would make that happen.
InnerWeb
Entrepeneurial Warfare against the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
But let's get serious about this and make some money.
The law firm sets up an web bank account and links to PayPal or some other global small payment funds transfer provider. People who hate the RIAA put up a $1 to this firm's defense fund related to the case. If a million people send a $1 to destroy the RIAA, then there is a million dollars to fight the RIAA. Then the firm countersues for $10,000,000 in damages. If they win and collect, then each person who put in $1 to the defense fund gets $5 from the settlement minus expenses. If the countersuit loses, everyone loses a dollar. But the RIAA is now going up against an organized force that has millions of dollars and a serious desire to destroy them and take their money (and the money of their corporate sponsors). The RIAA will think twice about just randomly selecting people to fuck with.
In the real world, there is no justice and fairness. The only thing that works against a large corporation with a lot of money is an large organization of people who each contribute a small amount of money with the specific purpose of forcing the corporation to back off. (and pay them back for the trouble). Get used to it.
Re:Entrepeneurial Warfare against the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
You are the one! (Score:5, Funny)
Now it makes sense! Ms. Andersen is THE ONE!
Re:You are the one! (Score:4, Funny)
Oh I had to do it...
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure whether or not you mean to imply that illegal file sharing=artists not getting paid, but this does open the door to an interesting conversation I had recently with the former president of a prominent record company (retired about a year and a half ago). He told me several interesting things:
1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.
2) File sharing isn't damaging the record companies. This fact is also borne out by the record profits record companies are now reporting, despite the fact that file sharing has increased substantially over the last couple of years, and the fact that record companies are actually releasing fewer records.
3) Record companies could be making use of file sharing as part of major new business models. The biggest problem, though, is that most heads of record companies are out-of-touch old men who not only don't have a clue about the technology, but they barely have a clue about music in the first place.
To sum up, I'm not sure where you were going with your comment, and I'm also unsure as to why you think it's "biased" to claim the record companies' actions amount to legalized extortion, especially when it appears they may have been going after people with very little, if any, evidence of actual infringement. But I'll leave elaboration on those points to you.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
And look at what the record companies are trying to do... control the retail price and threaten this new business model by pulling out.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
When we don't buy because they are too expensive, and sales inevitably slump, we get blamed for pirating. If we buy their CD's yet don't buy all the crap they shovel out, we get blamed for not buying enough. And of course, they say piracy is at the root. (Their numbers at the RIAA website are very different from their "poor-me" press releases most of the time.) We use iTunes and buy online... they want to raise prices. It is as if the RIAA is never happy.
It's a lose-lose situation. The RIAA will find a way to demonize their base.
That doesn't mean I defend infringement. It just means that not buying to the RIAA _is_ "piracy."
If even the MPAA can realize that crappy movies == fewer ticket sales.... why can't the RIAA stop blaming "pirates" every time their sales dip? They would rather invent a buzzword du-jour to exclaim how they are being robbed of their very shirts by that "evil" internet.
Bah. It's enough to turn your stomach sometimes.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, actually, it doesn't. At least, if you believe someone who used to run a record company. Call me crazy, but that's where I put my faith.
Those contracts are willingly signed, and it varies between record labels. Nobody's holding a gun to people's heads to sign up with record labels, but they seem to keep doing it.
First you say the money does actually go to the artists, then you make an excuse for why it doesn't. To me, that's not b
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've voluntarily opted to give up all credibility with this comment. Typical preaching from the top of the mountain bunk.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then... how do you explain artists (successful ones) that re-sign with record companies? Or successful artists that, at the end of their contract term, shop around, and sign up with yet another record company. I'm not talking about starving bar bands, either.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:4, Informative)
So artists that make it big only deal with record companies once they have enough clout to deal as equals.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:3, Insightful)
Individuals have no bargaining power against a company and companies are fleecing individuals blind. At least admit that.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:5, Informative)
Please note that record companies != artists
Don't assume that the RIAA represents the interests of artists - it quite clearly does not.
Worse yet (Score:3, Insightful)
I also get sick of the "new business model crap", unless it is explicitly followed by a suggestion of what business model is going to compete with free music. iTunes et al are drops in an
Re:Worse yet (Score:5, Insightful)
There are quite literally millions of people who would buy them. iTunes would have a serious run for its money (at the same pricepoint)for remaining the top site in internet music.
The record companies could do this and they would earn BILLIONS of dollars.
There are millions of people out there who will buy the music. There are millions of file sharers who will actually start buying the music.
All the RIAA needs to be is reasonable, but they're not. All they have to do is make it so easy and reasonably affordable (read same price as iTunes or less) and they can sit back and real in billions of dollars. And there are quite likely millions of people sitting on the sidlines right now, like me, who aren't downloading anything, but also aren't buying CDs.
But they won't do that.....
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently you haven't done your research either. Touring was, until recently, a way for artists to raise money that was entirely their own (which then, paradoxically, often went to pay off their debts to the record companies). Clear Channel Communications has been working with at least one of the record companies to change this practice--so the artist is getting screwed three times and not just twice (one:royalties,two:debts for publ
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. You too. The moment I hear this a little light goes on which reads,"Trolling". No one who's ever seen an employment or recording contract could maintain that they're a fair deal and keep a straight face. Either you've never had to sign one or you're financially wealthy enough where you can afford to turn them down.
You're obviously baiting an argument, nothing more.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you even employed in an industry which has an employee agreement? If not then you've instantly lost all credibility in this thread.
Even 9-to-5 jobs require an employee agreement and, unless you're financially wealthy enough to be able to afford to turn them down, there's nothing you can do but accept an unfair agreement.
I'm not a bleeding heart for the artists. I do recognize that the media industry, as a general rule, is fleecing the artists blind and deserve none of the protections warranted by a responsible member of society.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Checkmate.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be fine, if the artist actually wants it that way. But if you like the artist and say you respect them, why not do business with them in a way that they personally have asked you to? No artists wants to have to deal with what amounts to thousands or millions of transactions directly with them. That's exactly why they get in business with a company that deals with that for them.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Despite Slashdot calling for the RIAA to go after individual infringers back during the Napster lawsuit, Slashdot has done a 180 and is against that now, using anti-capitalist rhetoric to avoid discussing the issues of music piracy."
The point was that suing and in any way bothering ISPs with these RIAA lawsuits was a bogus approach because ISPs should have "common carrier" status. Just as people can carry out illegal activities on phone lines while the phone companies are held to be legally without liability, so too should it be the case for ISPs who are mere carriers for the information being sent and retrieved by their customers.
No one advocated bogus lawsuits against individuals. No one suggested abuse of process (because this is more a scare campaign than anything else, let's face it). No one supported the RIAA going after people without even the ability to state a valid claim. In this case (the one under discussion) they weren't able to state an actual damage, just the potential of one - and even that might have been based on erroneous information.
Seriously, get your shit together first before coming here to talk utter nonsense.
BTW, you know who cares about Music Piracy? Maybe the RIAA and no one else. Why should our government be wasting resources for the benefit of so few? Why even discuss it? If someone infringes your rights and you can claim a damage - Great! Sue them in court. Leave everyone else alone. The courts are not there for the exclusive use of the RIAA and all of their thousands of bullshit lawsuits.
"This is the kicker. "Average organized crime syndicate" is so blatantly over the top that the obvious intent is to stir the hornet's next of pro-piracy advocates on Slashdot (which has become P2P piracy central in the past couple of years) to generate page hits."
Um...okay. May I ask if you even know what RICO stands for? It's an acronym for: "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." The history of RICO law in the U.S. follows closely with government attempts to squash the activities of organized criminal organizations (i.e. the Mafia, gangs, etc). So yeah, if it happens to be the case that you can hit an organization with a RICO lawsuit chances are at least even money that they are on the same legal footing as mobsters or your "Average organized crime syndicate." And you have a problem with that why? If it's proven out in court, the RIAA will be seen to have been using the courts to pursue an illegal agenda that was abusive of court processes and infringing upon the rights of individuals to boot. I can't condone that.
It seems to me that whomever modded your comment as insightful is as ignorant as you are. Your comments are barely coherent and you appear to be poorly informed.
FWIW, I guess it's kinda cool how I predicted this RICO move a couple of weeks back: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162628&ci
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
The linked article (a piece of legitimate journalism) should be unbiased, the headline need not be. Perspective is important as it creates an environment in which intelligent discussion can gestate. Rather than merely squelching what you perceive as bias with a random slew of generalizations, perhaps you should understand the issue at hand:
P2P filesharing. The two stances? Copyright infringement vs. legitimate music acquisition.
Why isn't it a big deal? The smaller labels aren't complaining about filesharing...independent artists aren't complaining...it seems only major labels care. Most artists on those labels make only 7 to 8 points on CD sales anyway, so they don't profit. If music sales decline (and a number of studies have shown that P2P does not harm, and may even boost sales, as shown here [boingboing.net], here (PDF) [unc.edu], and here [washingtonpost.com], just to name a few) then the artists really don't feel the hurt, as they profit mostly from merchandising and live shows. Both of those require fans. Thus, the more people to hear their music, the more likely they'll sell out a show, or sell more merchandise, and thus profit. This is why more and more artists are endorsing file sharing. If you understand the real issue of corporate control (Infinity, Clearchannel, and Viacom control the vast majority of radio in America, as well as venues, and where I live in Cleveland, Clearchannel owns all of the billboards), then you will notice that a bias here isn't so bad.
Arists need an audience to exist. If they are not on a major label and thus can't get airplay, how can they find an audience? (hint, the answer is filesharing).
Rash generalizations and non-sequitors do little to address the issues and, rather than bias, are what paints Slashdot in a poor light and keeps it from being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy.
Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Victim does not imply innocence. If the RIAA sued her, then she is their victim, regardless of whether the RIAA's suit was valid or not.
from the racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations dept.
The RIAA was convicted of price-fixing. Racketeering and corruption are fairly valid adjectives in that context.
This is the kicker. "Average organized crime syndicate" is so blatantly over the top that the obvious intent is to stir the hornet's next of pro-piracy advocates on Slashdot (which has become P2P piracy central in the past couple of years) to generate page hits.
RICO was originally set up to attack organized crime. That's where the parallel to organized crime comes in. Not that the RIAA is putting out hits and charging protection money, but that the laws set up to catch organized crime is catching them too.
The RIAA did what it is legally entitled to do; go after infringers of its copyright that it found on the P2P networks.
Except that it has a history of getting the wrong people with it's scatter-shot lawsuits. If this person turns out to be one of those people, then no, the RIAA is not doing what it is legally entitled to.
No, slashdot isn't POV neutral, but when was the last time you saw a neutral mainstream news report? At least their editorializing is in some sense justifiable.
recordable media (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean at least that's how it is here in canada, every godamn cd we buy there's a charge on for the nice music/movie industry
It's the same in the US, all recordable media that's sold blank has a charge or tax that's supposed to go to entertainment companies. Cassette and vhs tapes as well as cds and I wouldn't be supprised if blank dvds are included. This brings up a question I have. What if you are an artist yourself and you produce all your own stuff, I've met some people that do this, how do you bu
Introductory sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this really true? If you use P2P to share original works of art (nothing is stopping you from doing it) - for instance a personal flickr - or to share legitimate files like Linux distros, why would you really care about someone fighting the RIAA regarding copyright issues? This doesn't really seem like a P2P issue, but rather a copyright infringement issue.
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you are sharing legal items, RIAA is making it harder to do so on p2p networks.
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:5, Interesting)
You are wrong about mp3.com (Score:5, Informative)
Usurper_ii
MP3.com sues lawfirm over "bad advice" (Score:5, Interesting)
Law.com [law.com] is reporting that MP3.com [mp3.com] has filed a malpractice lawsuit again Cooley Godward [cooley.com] , a law firm, alleging that it was responsible for allowing MP3.com to launch and subsequently be sued for copyright infringement by giving bad advice on the legality of My.MP3.Com ( MP3.com Sues Cooley Over Legal Advice [law.com] ). The charges are quite loaded, alleging that Cooley was basically inept their legal analysis of fair use and other copyright doctrines, and perhaps even misrepresented to MP3.com about expert testimony the Cooley firm had secured.
This isn't a small lawsuit either. MP3.com wants $175
Re:MP3.com sues lawfirm over "bad advice" (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a small lawsuit either. MP3.com wants $175 million.
Here's the relavent quote from the original article:
The suit, MP3.com Inc. v. Cooley Godward, 266625, says MP3.com has paid out in excess of $175 million in settlements, judgments and legal fees.
I thought the same things probably everyone else did, wondering if that was sarcasm or MP3.com being silly; so I actually looked (holy shit someone RTFLink on
~Rebecca
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm more wondering about the "slippery slope" of this approach by Limewire. There is nothing in any law, copyright or otherwise, that requires you to provide a license to share your own works. In fact, this action tends to remove rights from copyright owners, who will now be forced to provide some license with their works if they want to distribute their works this way. Granted, they can chose not to use Limewire, but if this catches on in P2P in general then there is little choice left (hence the "slippery slope). I hope it doesn't catch on.
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not quite correct. Technically, copyright law does impose a default license on the use, copying and distribution of any protected work. That license is: none at all.
Copyright law also grants creators the right to choose some other, less restrictive license if they want to. It doesn't say they have to choose a less restrictive license, and unless someone can prove that they do have a
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:4, Insightful)
All works are copyrighted the moment they are created, and the copyright lasts until the world ends or Disney stops extending them, whichever happens first or until the author gives up his copyrights by placing the work in public domain. Simply because I happen to be the copyright holder to a piece of work I'm sharing, doesn't mean it wouldn't be copyrighted; also, simply because you happen to have a license (GPL, for example) from the copyright holder to share a copyrighted work, doesn't make that work not copyrighted. For this reason, I'm going to assume that by "copyrighted work" you mean "work that is copyrighted by someone other than you who hasn't given you a license to distribute it".
The users sharing files are most certainly not making it any harder to share works that you have a legal right to distribute on P2P networks. RIAA's constant abuse of power is what makes it harder to share such works. RIAA might be provoked to such actions by the copyright infringers, but that does not make those copyright infringers guilty of actions taken by the RIAA. The RIAA is presumably lead by human beings, and human beings are responsible for their own actions even when provoked. Nor can the RIAA leadership claim self-defense as justification for their actions, since the RIAA is not suffering any measurable harm from copyright infringment - no, claiming that each illegally downloaded song is a lost sale is not evidence of this actually being so.
So, the ones harming P2P networks are the RIAA and its kind, not users of said networks.
Finally, did you just make up the 95% figure or do you have any sources backing that up ?
Actually, there is quite a bit of question whether those copyrights rightfully belong to the RIAA. After all, quite a bit of older music would have fallen into the public domain had the period of copyright not been extended; was that extension legitimate ?
Furthermore, the RIAA is basically engaging in blackmail - threatening to sue people and drive them to banckrupty with legal fees whether they are guilty or not if they don't pay a settlement to the RIAA. This is unacceptable behaviour; it essentially makes the RIAA a protection racket.
Finally, the RIAA is trying to force all consumer electronics to have DRM by law. I, for one, find it completely unacceptable that my computer would accept commands from the RIAA and let the RIAA intercept and prevent my commands from taking effect, nor do I like the idea that a document cannot be opened anymore when its publishers take their license verification servers offline. When one also remembers that it is already illegal to break copy prevention systems, it seems to me that the RIAA is fast pushing us towards a digital Dark Age, where information is only given to those who absolutely must have it to serve their corporate overlords, and can be made to disappear like it never had existed in the first place.
The RIAA is pure black nasty evil with absolutely no redeeming qualities. It is trying to crush entire Western civilization, nay, the entire world between its slavering jaws of DRM and DMCA, and swallow the shattered remains to be digested in its guts of
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, don't you think that's a bit of an exaggeration?
Nah, it sounds pretty much on the mark to me, too. Other than that, though, they're not so bad...
Way to pull stuff out of your ass (Score:4, Informative)
From www.copyright.gov
"Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration."
and if you look at www.copyright.gov/register you'll see that you don't need a laywer, don't need to file a petition, and costs between $30 and $70, depending on what form the work takes. But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of your comments you stupid twatwaffle.
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:4, Interesting)
Insanity would require my post to have some factual errors; otherwise it is perfectly in harmony with reality, after all. Perhaps you might show some of them, since you've obviously noticed some; after all, why else would you speak about insanity ?
Everyone once knew that Earth was flat, Sun orbited the Earth and nothing ever changed in the spheres higher than Moon. Just because they hadn't done a formal study didn't invalidate that. Only it turned out to be a load of bullshit.
Since we are talkng about P2P filesharing networks, like Gnutella and Kazaa, here, would you please clarify what you mean by "P2P sites" ?
No, my argument is that
I'm sure this would make a lot more sense if I was trying to rally the simple minded or knew Kool-Aid.
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
No, as you correctly note it isn't really true. Reading the article shows that Ms. Anderson is stating she has never been a file sharer and has never used P2P software. By definition then, this case is not "the case P2P file sharers have been waiting for" as it is not involving the rights and wrongs of P2P.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe.
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:3, Insightful)
I bring this up because imprecisely stating that "sharing mp3s are illegal" instead of "sharing copyrighted mp3s for which you don't have distribution rights are illegal" helps the RIAA win!
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Downloading copyrighted material from P2P is a vastly different issue from ripping a CD that you own, or taping a television/radio/cable/satellite/Etc. broadcast. The the latter is explicitly permitted by the law under the home taping act, and the precedent of the Betamax Supreme court decision. Time shifting, (the ability to watch/hear a program when you want rather then live as it airs) transfering to new media, (Eg, making tapes for your car from LP's, CD's or even 8-track cassettes, as well as recording and encoding to MP3/AAC/Ogg Vorbis for use on your PC or other portable media device, (iPod, Creative Nomad or Zen, PSP, Yada yada...) and making working copies, to protect the original) are all accepted rights of consumers under the doctrines of fair use, and home taping act.
point is:
Having MP3's is not illegal
ripping your CD's is not illegal
P2P file sharing of copyrighted material has not yet been fully tested by the courts yet, so your guess is as good as mine.
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, it would appear from the counterclaims that MediaSentry may have been engaged in some highly shady and legally dubious behavior of its own (e.g. perhaps browsing people's computers without permission and using what they find, even if its non-p2p related, to "encourage" settlement. Maybe they've been doing so using default Windows shares, rather than Kazaa or other p2p sharing features. Who knows?). If this is the case, then many of the RIAA's claims about p2p filesharing may themselves be called into doubt. Again: something from which P2P users would benefit.
Ultimately, P2P users will benefit if the RIAA's terror campaign gets shut down. Ironically, given the fact that the record companies are seeing some record profits even as filesharing goes up, so may the record companies.
RIAA vs. P2P ... (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA wants P2P networks shutdown due to these copyright issues.
Universities and other organizations block P2P because of these same copyright issues, under pressure from lawsuit threats by the RIAA.
===
The RIAA is a threat to P2P, even if you are just sharing original works of art.
Legal users may not have as much of an interest in seeing RIAA get a punch to the kidneys, but there is still some cause for interest, I'd say.
[Legal uses of P2P filesharing are an innocent bystander, but they still will get gunned down with illegals]
(( this coming from someone who had his access removed at a university for sharing the Project Gutenberg DVD on eDonkey ))
Re:RIAA vs. P2P ... (Score:5, Insightful)
even if they were broadcasting ORIGINAL music, they still have to pay the RIAA. (or some copyright cartel front group).
no music has fallen back into the public domain in over a century and even if some do (like some of elvis' songs in Europe) they won't allow people in other countries to obtain that music.
a big F U to the aholes in the RIAA/MPAA/Software cartels.
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't care if you have all of the wrong assumptions. You would not care if you presumed the woman guilty, as you and the RIAA have. The criminal justice system is not supposed to work that way, copyright is not a part of criminal law and a single mom and the RIAA are not the ideal equal oponents required to gain justice in a civil case. Most importantly, you would not care if your were naive enough to believe these cases were about copyright infingment rather than shutting down an alternate source of legal distribtuion like mp3.com.
Does that clear things up for you?
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this is I personally like bittorrent (just one P2P method) and hope to see it incorporated into many other programs, particularly online gaming. This would make downloading the typical 150mb patches much easier than "waiting in line 20 minutes" at the typical gamer site, while being pounding about subscribing.
I also use it to download Linux and BSD distributions, as well as other software, legally. There are often bittorrent links here on slashdot for videos, etc. from sites who don't have the bandwidth to stand a slashdotting.
The real pisser is they are using flatly illegal tactics to do this, first by spying on people, second by extortion. Copyright infrincement isn't a crime, it's a matter for the civil courts. What the RIAA is doing, however, IS criminal in all 50 states.
They are wholesale extorting money from people, with no physical evidence, and using a threat of litigation to make them give money. An amount that is cheaper than a retainer for a lawyer, I might add, to insure it is "in their best interest" to just comply and fork over a few thousand to make the problem go away. This is akin to the mob selling you "insurance, so no one will burn your house down". If the FIAA was actually interested in justice, they would allow the cases to actually go to court, instead of hiring some collection agency goons.
Saying the RIAA is worried about the musicians being denied royalties is like saying SCO wants to protect their intellectual property. Yes, you can say it, but we both know its a load of crap. Like SCO, they just see this as both a way to prevent people from competing with thier distribution, and make a few bucks on the side.
Re:Introductory sentence (Score:4, Insightful)
Put them??? (Score:5, Funny)
How can you 'put' something where it already is?
It only takes a few... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It only takes a few... (Score:5, Insightful)
If any of these cases against the RIAA are successful... I think we'll see many more people standing up to them.
Once you can prove that Goliath can be felled with just a sling, everyone wants to be David.
Re:It only takes a few... (Score:5, Insightful)
As overrated as your comment is, I will bite:
So they should go after Bram Cohen, the creator of bittorrent, because "everyone knows there is no legitimate use for bittorrent", right? Or go after eDonkey creator Jed McCaleb. After all, it's not the users responsibility, its the creator. Just like if you shoot me with a
Of course, there are more than a few legitimate uses for P2P software. This is like going after Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Bill Gates, because they created and contributed to the operating systems that allow computer crimes to happen in the first place.
I mean, if there was no operating systems, there would be no computer crime, right? Just like if no author made P2P software, no one would illegally share files. (um, I am being sarcastic if you haven't caught up yet...)
They can go after the people who are infringing their copyrights, but they are currently breaking more laws than the users by intentionally breaking and entering into their computers (and perfectly innocent people's computers) and using extortion against people who think may have infringed, without providing any proof.
If you people learn one thing today, make it this: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A CRIME. Spying on people and extorsion, however, IS a crime.
You go girl! (Score:5, Interesting)
Reason: I really don't like Metallica, at all. (simple!)
There is still an outstanding debt to these people, and it's still in collections. I hope she sets a precedent (which involves tying several statutes together) by winning.
In recent weeks I've read more and more about the RIAA and the MPAA. I think they should help the tobacco industry run new campaigns... the tobacco guys could learn a thing or two from these greedies...
Re:You go girl! (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, if it's that easy, I'm going to go get collection action started against a few hundred people and make some quick cash. Who needs a job.
Re:You go girl! (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you have agreed to a settlement, or a court has entered a judgment against you, you have no outstanding debt. The RIAA at best has an outstanding claim against you.
This is an important distinction. If the claim has been reported to Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, etc., you can have it erased by following the dispute procedure outlined in sec. 1681(i) [cornell.edu] of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Remember, this is not a disputed commercial transaction where someone can even allege the existence of a contract -- this is a private attempt to collect a penalty in the form of a 'settlement'. If neither you nor a judge says that the 'debt' exists, it does not exist.
Re:You go girl! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You go girl! (Score:3, Interesting)
It turns out that the phone company don't actually inform the collection agency what they're collecting for, just the total outstanding debt. The agency had
Re:You go girl! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh no. It's really quite simple. First of all, we have to determine how many equilivent tracks you have. To play a MP3 file back on a PC, you need atleast a Pentium 75Mhz. The typical home computer is about 2400Mhz. 2400 divided by 75 is 32. That means when you listen to a MP3 file on a typical home computer, it is equilivent to listening to it 32 times. Now, the Black album by Metallica has 12 tracks, and we have to assume you have all 12 tracks on your computer, so 32 times 12 is 384 equilvent tracks. Now, it is common for a computer to have two optical drives, so we must double that to 768 equilivent tracks because it is possible to have two burned copies of the song in the computer at the same time! But that's not all, surround sound setups are becoming more common. Most surround sound setups are 5.1 - that means whenever you play back the MP3 file it is coming out of no less than 6 speakers, so we have to multiply 768 by 6 to get 4608 equilivent tracks. Now, to convert those equilivent tracks to a dollar amount, we have to determine the market value of an equilivent track. Luckily, that is easy, as iTunes sells that very track for $0.99. $0.99*4608 is $4562. Now, we have to add in the retail value of the CD ($18), and the retail value of the CD single for the track ($3) - which brings the total up to $4583. I hope this clears things up a little.
Make the records open! (Score:5, Insightful)
In an age when the common people are routinely intimidated and threatened by corporations whom they cannot possibly afford to face in a court of law, one can't help but believe that justice is dead.
Re:Make the records open! (Score:5, Informative)
Tresspass? Don't thinks so. (Score:4, Informative)
However, I have some serious doubts about the accusation of invasion of privacy and computer tresspass standing up in court... From what I understand, the RIAA isnt actually hacking into your computer to see what you sharing, they are simply using the same filesharing tools you are using to check out what your sharing. There is no tresspass involved, as far as I can see. And the privacy charge goes out the window because you are openely sharing the files for anybody who wants to see them, including the RIAA.
Actually, it's not Oregon (Score:5, Informative)
"Under RICO [wikipedia.org]", a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes--27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes--within a 10-year period and (in the opinion of the U. S. Attorney bringing the case) has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages."
So for everyone in every other state in the Union, sue away!
Re:Actually, it's not Oregon (Score:3, Informative)
There is a federal RICO act ( (R)acketeering (I)nfluenced (C)orrupt (O)rganizations ), as wells as many state acts that cover similar areas of laws. There are a few practical differences. Most signifigantly, it is typically much cheaper to sue in state court as opposed to federal court.
Re:Actually, it's not Oregon (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not a very big deal to the RIAA because:
a. 25,000 isn't much to them
b. you can't send an organization to prison. Even if someone did go to prison, it probably wouldn't be anyone very high up.
c. The most important reason? I think racketeering is too creative a charge in this case. I am NOT a legal expert, so this is just a guess and I may be wrong. Yes, the RIAA uses the courts to intimidate people, but so do plenty of organizations and people. It's not what I think of when I hear the word racketeering however. I think of someone in the mob or a corrupt businessman threatening your well-being. Not someone taking you to court for potentially stealing from them (and breaking the law).
I hate what what the RIAA is doing - they are esentially using tax payer money to attack the typical tax payer. Everybody I know and their mom has downloaded an MP3. But I don't think racketeering charges are the answer.
Re:Actually, it's not Oregon (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the effect that losing this case will have on all the RIAA's other current and future lawsuits against other hypothetical file sharers.
Right now the RIAA files lawsuits with basically the same mindset spammers use: the cost is so low, and the potential benefits are so high, that there's no reason not to give it a whirl. Losing this case, having to pay damages, and getting a precedent that allows other people to sue for more damages will rais
As you can see Ms. Anderson (Score:3, Funny)
Some of this is Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
may be true - it may be a genuine mistake, but the second argument I really doubt. I believe that the RIAA does not do any more than search public P2P search engines for their copyrighted content, and her argument that this searching is trespass to chattels is nonsense.
That being said, I would blame her lawyer, not her personally. But still, it's hard to know how seriously the RICO allegations should be taken, or whether they're just a way to make the case a pain for the RIAA.
Re:Some of this is Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Some of this is Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
If I say "I just killed your Father, John Doe, and now I shall kill you if you don't do what I want." and your father is actually missing, then I am in a pretty bad legal position even if I didn't actually kill your father.
Re:Some of this is Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
As technical people, we know that many of the allegations in this case might be bogus, but that is
Shots Across the Bow (Score:5, Insightful)
While we may all feel that the RIAA has all all the trappings and actions of the Soprano crew, somehow I don't think that particular claim is going to wash with the the courts. On the other hand, it is out of the books of law enforcement in terms of hitting the accused with a large number of charges, most of which get thrown out, but some stick. Enough to make it worthwhile to go to court. This is a civil case, but the idea is the same.
The interesting thing to me is that is a sign of the RIAA cases startng to get out-of-hand from the RIAA's point of view. People are counter-suing, and now with omnibus claims. Rather than backing down against their legal might, some people are starting to fight back and they run the case of making sympathetic figures of those they are going after and making themselves out to be bad guys to the general public. Up to now, all the publicity in the mainstream has gone for the most part, the RIAA's way. This type of thing if it continues can harden the general public against the RIAA making their present tactics counter-productive. And as a by-product, can make it harder to find sympathetic jurors and judges to their cause.
The big fear I would have if I were the RIAA, is that sooner or later unless they change tactics, they could face class action lawsuits.
This is a nice shot across the bow of the RIAA.
RIAA violating DMCA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Couldn't that be construed as a violation of DMCA? And while we're at it, who gave MediaSentry the authority to conduct an electronic wiretap?
I sincerely hope that Ms. Andersen's countersuit is successful and MediaSentry is forced out of business as a result of the damages awarded.
No (Score:5, Informative)
Breaking into computers in order to spy on people is not a violation of the DMCA; it's a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (as it says right in the article).
And while we're at it, who gave MediaSentry the authority to conduct an electronic wiretap?
There's no evidence that they conducted anything resembling a wiretap, nor is there evidence that they broke into any computer. That's not how these P2P monitoring companies generally work (since it's so obviously illegal). They just observe which IP addresses are sharing which files. That's not a wiretap.
The RIAA's lawsuits are bad, but this countersuit appears to be overreaching in the opposite direction.
Knuth, Justice and the American Way (Score:5, Funny)
Ouch. (Score:5, Funny)
Like there's a GOOD week to be an RIAA exec. :)
Might be something (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully the industry will get bitch-slapped by this. If this lady were to win, then people the RIAA has "successfully sued" might ban together and sue the RIAA. It could potentially get really messy for the RIAA.
The industry basically needs to realize that their products are too expensive, and that the quality is not as good. They need to really get behind the legal download model, such as iTunes rather than making innuendos about "decapiting" it.
Re:Might be something (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, industry does not want *any* downloadable music model, regarless of the price.
Why? Because it cuts into their business, which is selling shiny discs.
When people become accustomed to downloading music (and doing it legally), then the RIAA no longer has their distribution stranglehold. If you're a musician, there used to be only one way to reach a global audience - with the advent of P2P, that's no longer the case, and the RIAA is dancing as fast as they can to distract people from the truth.
They want people to think "downloading==illegal", because it opens them up to competition.
Not Fraud? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes I called it. It has ALL the attributes of RICO (Score:3, Interesting)
Next step is to send them a letter... (Score:5, Funny)
And the biggest Irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the biggest Irony... (Score:3, Informative)
They're probably guilty of a host of other things, but not copyright infringement.
Re:And the biggest Irony... (Score:4, Insightful)
Any document that she created on that machine that they looked at, emails, photos, letter, little notes, whatever (possibly even the file structure, assuming she didn't just use the system defaults but made her own), are owned by HER...
Oy, Neo! (Score:4, Funny)
//had to. shoot me now.
The recording industry and RICO (Score:5, Funny)
- Well documented widespread use of drugs among execs and performers
- Alleged extensive use of bribery to ensure air time
- Women singers expected to look like prostitutes
- Male performers expected to look like and behave like violent criminals
- Large output of music advocating abuse of women, carrying and use of guns to settle disputes, drug taking and attacks on police.
In what way are the members of the RIAA NOT like organised criminal and racketeers?Re:The recording industry and RICO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The recording industry and RICO (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a few very high-profile celebrities, generally rappers and pop divas, who fit your descriptions, but they make up for a tiny percentage of music released. It's unfair to stereotype even all rap as, say, misogynistic, let alone
Just to give myself credit... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77984&cid=692
I should be a lawyer.
A little background on her case... (Score:4, Informative)
From the article:
"I have the least expensive computer system you can buy from Dell. The type you order off television for $499.00. It was purchased in the summer of 2002 and has the smallest hard drive they make. I have no cd writer on it and the cd-rom that I do have, does not even work correctly.
"I live alone with my 8-year-old daughter (who would have been seven at the time the alleged occurrence took place). I am a single mom who is disabled and unable to work. I live on Social Security disability and struggle to support my daughter and myself. If I am put in a position where I need to defend myself regarding this situation, it would create extreme financial hardship on me. I have no money and did not do what is being said. I also must admit that all this stuff that has been occurring with this whole ordeal has triggered my medical condition to flare lately.
"I have always been against music downloading. In fact, I have been a member of BMG's music club for quite some time and I purchase my music either from there or from Target. When I first got my computer set up almost three years ago, I had a friend set it up for me since I did not know how to do it. She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check
of my computer and it is no where on there.
"These files you are speaking accusing me of sharing (which Mr. Eiler told me about), are not and never have been on my computer system. Several of those artists, I have never even heard of! One, I understand, is a rap song. I am 42-years-old and do not even like rap music. The login that this person who did this apparently used, which Mr. Eiler told me of, is not a login name I have ever used or heard of.
"There is no one at my household who could have done what is being said at all. Mr. Eiler had brought up the fact that maybe a babysitter could have done it and that is impossible because I seldom have a sitter since I can't afford to pay one and am usually home."
the other side (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying that this particular woman is wrong. I'm not saying that I like current copyright law. (The terms should not be effectively permanent, and the rights of first use, personal use, and first sale have been eroded way too much.) I just think it's way too easy to go with the Slashdot groupthink effect and say "RIAA sucks."
RIAA spyware (Score:5, Interesting)
"10. When Ms. Andersen contacted Settlement Support Center, she was advised that her personal home computer had been secretly entered by the record companies' agents, MediaSentry."
15. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies' claims.
This is assuming all her statements are true and what she claims the RIAA agents said is also true.
It would be nice for her if she recorded her calls, after telling them she was recording it, to the RIAA Collection Center, I mean "Settlement Support Center" and getting their statements in writing couldn't hurt.
She claims to not like "gangster rap" and that MediaSentry, oh look we finally have a name for the IP bounty hunters, hacked/secretly entered her computer. So do the files exist on her computer or not? If she has no interest in it then the files should not be there unless downloaded by some spyware they infected her with or the files don't exist and MediaSentry lied and made up the list. And they tell her that even though they believe she is innocent they cannot drop the case because it would be an admission of error, either way it doesn't look good for the RIAA.
And what's with IP address being IPA? IP=Internet Protocol NOT Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property = Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property != IP! greedy bastards
Re:RIAA spyware (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, but the 8 year old was up at 4 pm, and left the computer on all night sharing files
Re:As one of the comments said... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:nine-digit IPs (Score:3, Informative)
For example, slashdot.org is 4223FA96.
Re:Can You Say Settlement? (Score:4, Informative)