Music Publishers Sue Cox Communications Over Piracy 187
wabrandsma (2551008) writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica:
BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music have sued Cox Communications for copyright infringement, arguing that the Internet service provider doesn't do enough to punish those who download music illegally.
Both BMG and Round Hill are clients of Rightscorp, a copyright enforcement agent whose business is based on threatening ISPs with a high-stakes lawsuit if they don't forward settlement notices to users that Rightscorp believes are "repeat infringers" of copyright. In their complaint (PDF), the music publishers also decided to publicly post IP addresses.
I wonder.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, from what I read recently at EFF "Rightscorp" probably has little to do with IP "rights" at all... it is just another copyright troll looking to scare money out of Mom and Pop.
But they haven't been very successful at that game. My guess is that this is a last-gasp effort to make some money before it goes under.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I tell them we will roll a truck to serve their paper for fifty bucks a letter. They think thats crazy, that we should be their process server for free. To date not one of them have agreed to pay us to roll a truck and hand people the letter.
Re: (Score:2)
your company should make that public info by commenting on some legislation or another.
why? it's evidence that the damages per user are less than fifty bucks.
anyways, how the fuck do they even know it's the same users at the same ip address, with isp's rolling the dhcp leases pretty short nowadays..
Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Informative)
My guess is that this is a last-gasp effort to make some money before it goes under.
...using pages straight from the SCO playbook.....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The lawsuit filed against rightscorp by the Pietz lawfirm reads very convincingly, and if successful will hold rightscorp's customers, officers, shareholders, etc personally liable for their illegal actions as a debt collection agency not following the rules of debt collection and going after debts that never existed.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/247788809/1-Class-Action-Complaint-and-Jury-Demand
https://www.scribd.com/doc/247788798/1-1-Exhibits-a-to-E-to-Class-Action-Complaint
Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Informative)
ISPs are required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") to implement and maintain a policy that provides for the termination of subscribers and account holders that are repeat copyright infnngers in order to maintain the safe harbor protection afforded by the DMCA from copyright infringement claims that the ISPs otherwise would enjoy.
This is just plain false. The DMCA contains no language calling for ISPs to "terminate" their subscribers over copyright claims. It's a lie.
Perhaps that's why Rightscorp is going bankrupt. Judges don't like to be lied to. A good defense attorney (and my guess is they have one) will tear that to shreds.
They also say, in point 4:
Despite these notices and its actual knowledge of repeat infringements...
How do they know Cox "has actual knowledge"? Because they notified Cox? That's not "actual knowledge", that's just an allegation. A very different thing.
All in all, I think I see why Rightscorp and its clients have not been very successful at these suits. Hell, *I* could probably rip them to shreds in court... if it weren't for the fact that IANAL and so I don't know proper court procedure.
Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Make threats to intimidate and milk them for money (extortion) and not actually go to court. I know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith, but I've no idea what it is right now.
I suspect they are betting that Cox would rather fork over dough than actually go to court for anything if it's not too high of a cost, and that's what they are betting on. If Cox is dumb enough to do that, then they can use that for additional leverage to force other companies to pony up instead of going to court. Remember, often companies don't care if they are guilty or not, they just choose the cheaper method of resolution.
Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Business As Usual."
Re: (Score:3)
know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith, but I've no idea what it is right now.
Haha. Business as usual. :)
Actually, I think it IS extortion. Normally, telling somebody you're going to sue them is not considered a "threat"... as long as you actually have a reasonable basis to sue and you really intend to do it.
But telling somebody "pay up or we'll sue", when you don't have any actual intention to sue (and they don't... because judges don't allow those mass suits anymore, and individual suits would be way too expensive) you are just plain lying. And I think -- I don't know for sur
Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're probably thinking of barratry [wikipedia.org], although strictly speaking what Rightscorp is doing seems more along the lines of simple extortion.
17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) (Score:5, Informative)
The DMCA contains no language calling for ISPs to "terminate" their subscribers over copyright claims. It's a lie.
I don't know if you're reading the same DMCA I'm reading [copyright.gov], but 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) applies the safe harbor only to service providers with "a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers".
Re:17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) (Score:4, Insightful)
I was going to say the same thing but the point remains that Rightscorp would have to overcome the wide open ""in appropriate circumstances" clause in the DMCA as well as be able to prove that a particular IP in a dynamic IP block constitutes a "repeat offender". Good luck with that...
Define "appropriate circumstances" (Score:2)
Rightscorp would have to overcome the wide open ""in appropriate circumstances" clause in the DMCA
Due to the "case or controversy" limit in the Constitution, U.S. federal courts do not issue advisory opinions. This means you can't just ask a judge what "appropriate" or "reasonable" means under a hypothetical set of facts; you have to sue someone. Perhaps getting a definition of "appropriate circumstances" on the case law books is Rightscorp's strategy with this lawsuit so that it can build a set of best practices for its publisher clients. Righthaven already got "Copyright owner must be named as a plain
Re: (Score:3)
Re:17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) (Score:5, Informative)
So if someone is found guilty of copyright infringement twice Cox may need to terminate their account.
Who's been found guilty so far?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you're reading the same DMCA I'm reading, but 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) applies the safe harbor only to service providers with "a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers".
I was quoting EFF. Strange that they might have gotten it wrong, but it may be that, as others suggested, the circumstances here aren't appropriate for that.
Word games with the form of "terminate" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to go with "force them to listen to the 'music' produced by this generation's music industry."
That should be punishment enough for most crimes (even imaginary ones.)
Re: (Score:3)
With that, complete control over the message, and with that, complete unwaiving control of what people believe in, as part of complete compliance to all advertising and messages espoused by partners, as sold to the
Re: (Score:2)
It also explains why the recording industry is in the toilet.
All of this is extralegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is supposed to be a first-party concern and rightsholders seem uniformly determined to make other people do their dirty work (without even getting paid).
Re:All of this is extralegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All of this is extralegal (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope it goes forward.
Not because I want the recording industry to shut them down, but because common carriers are exempt from the responsibility over their traffic. That is really the best solution for ISPs so they are no longer liable for the content that travels over the wire.
ISPs getting reclassified as common carriers is a major step toward net neutrality, as common carriers are not allowed to discriminate over what they carry.
Re:All of this is extralegal (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. Common carriers can be held repsonsible [cnn.com] for turning a blind eye to illegal traffic.
Re:All of this is extralegal (Score:4, Insightful)
But of course! In the new America, law enforcement is *everyone's* responsibility. You know, if you see something, say something! There's a multibillion dollar prison-industrial complex that isn't going to sustain itself, somebody's gotta feed the monkey. When having an army of jackbooted thugs and ravenous lawyers just isn't keeping you in your fix, you'll shift the responsibility onto someone else and legislate that they do your job for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Indictment != Conviction
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to fail to grasp the difference between innocent before being guilty and the corrupt nature of modern 'US' law enforcement using charges as extortion and using the prosecutorial process as punishment to force certain kinds of 'ILLEGAL' behaviour. So net neutrality goes hand in hand with common carrier status and is required just like the favourite slashdot analogy road and no local government, state and federal government should not be prosecuted for all the illegal actions on public roads and the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Common law"? Federal copyright is based on statute, not common law. You mean civil law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All of this is extralegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Because reelection campaigns cost a lot of money these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah.. They have staff lawyers who are sitting around too much and were tasked with trying to extort more money. A lot of the litigious crap going on in the world comes from staff lawyers.
Re: All of this is extralegal (Score:3)
Any story about 'rightsholders' who are not the creators of work evokes my automatic Big Fat Don't Care response. Go, torrenters!
Authors who choose to sell their copyrights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the term is "forced to sell their work for peanuts on what it will eventually make"
You keep using that word "forced". What coercion is present in the author-publisher relationship, especially in the era of Internet self-publication?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You keep using that word "forced". What coercion is present in the author-publisher relationship, especially in the era of Internet self-publication?
Because most media requires things that the artist either does not want to do or isn't suited to do or doesn't have time to do. Mostly, promotion and distribution. They are necessary, and Youtube is full of "self-publishers" who aren't going anywhere because no one knows their work exists (And of course, many of them may be no good in the first place).
The real reason? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The real reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. They are "like a common carrier". And too often we think of them as common carriers. But they have fought tooth and nail to have their cake and eat it too... the providers want all the common carrier exemptions but none of the restrictions, and they are NOT common carriers.
As you say, anything that pushes them over the hump would be a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
The legal definition of Common Carrier is A carrier who accepts to transport goods or passengers indiscriminately.
They just don't want to be subject to the rules [arstechnica.com], but the times, they are a'changin'.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
WTF are you going on about? Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Common Carrier.
Nope, they have fought for decades to avoid that label. The were given the label "Information Service" and that makes all the difference in the world. That enables them to issue poison packets when they suspect things they don't like, to cancel services to people, to double-dip and sometimes triple-dip for communications as seen in cases like Netflix, and more. It has helped them evade lawsuits about discriminatory service on the basis of customers potentially being slightly more expensive, and being able t
Re:The real reason? The ISPs want court orders (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The real reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
They're not a common carrier, they got something in many ways better: USC 17512 [cornell.edu]. Being an ISP is under section (a):
(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the providerâ(TM)s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if -
(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.
Notice anything in particular missing from this section? No DMCA notice, that only applies to (b) Caching, (c) Hosting and (d) Searching. They can send all those DMCA notices to /dev/null and it's legally kosher and they got full immunity. I expect Cox Communications will have this case thrown out quickly assuming they have a competent lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice anything in particular missing from this section? No DMCA notice, that only applies to (b) Caching, (c) Hosting and (d) Searching. They can send all those DMCA notices to /dev/null and it's legally kosher and they got full immunity. I expect Cox Communications will have this case thrown out quickly assuming they have a competent lawyer.
It's not just enough to have no legal obligations, you have to make sure you do not take any actions that could be construed as accepting an obligation.
The exact term escapes me at the moment, but I'll bet Cox created itself some legal issues when it partially went along with the various copyright enforcers.
No proof (Score:5, Interesting)
Rightscorp can't claim the subscriber is actually infringing their customers copyright, as their software tool can simply see if the information is available from the host in question but it cannot tell anything else about it. They have no way to know that anyone other than their self has actually downloaded the information in question. They can only guess and I hate to say it but you can't sue over speculation.
54,000 claimed infringements over 64 days sounds like a lot, but it's basically just under once per second, and claiming each time is another incident of infringement. So basically their software is constantly checking the ip, and this could be argued constitutes theft of service since both Cox and the customer in question pays for the bandwidth.
As for them downloading the information themselves, since the tool and the company that runs it is authorized by the copyright holder to search for and access their copyrighted files one could easily argue that no actual infringement taking place.
I also think Cox should establish a reasonable handling charge for investigating and dealing with these automated complaints, I think 10$ per complaint sounds about right. So 54,000 x $10 = $540,000. Plus attorney fees and costs for this frivolous lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3)
Your proposed charge for complaints is too low by at least an order of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
That's for one ip. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm probably too nice for my own good.
Re: (Score:2)
I also think Cox should establish a reasonable handling charge for investigating and dealing with these automated complaints
Whoa - you don't want to go there! Cox treats Rightscorp's settlement notices to users as spam, which is exactly how they should be dealt with, but turns out many other ISPs are going along with this bullshit from Rightscorp. That got me thinking - why? My guess is that maybe they are getting paid - maybe in some cases, well paid. Seems logical to me that would make a good strategy
Re:No proof (Score:5, Interesting)
So my IP was listed in a swarm for 5 minutes and didn't upload a single byte of their content, and my ISP took the time and money to respond their bs and pay to send me a physical letter about it. What I did to that notice is not just not appropriate to talk about here...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, RIAA! Are your profits still in the dumps? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trite Auto-tune
Yes I know it wasn't a good joke ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What changed is the internet and people suddenly discovering that there was another way to obtain, share, or sell their music.
Riaa wants to go back to the old days where everyone was their bitch, and that's not going to ever happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the music industry and record stores were run by hip, visionary geniuses from 1925 to 1998, then alla sudden everyone got stoopid.
There are bands from the 60s and 70s that still get airplay today. Meanwhile, just about everyone from ten years ago is now yesterday's news. Is there even one singer or band today who will still be relevant in 2054?
youtube (Score:4, Interesting)
The #1 piracy tool
Bit torrent in dire need of fixing (Score:2)
Problem is any actor with money who wants it is able to extract a more or less complete picture of activity occurring on bit torrent.
The system as it exists today is simply too open and too transparent creating a lightning rod from intelligence being wielded to justify all manner of legislative unpleasantries.
If exposure issues are not fixed in bit torrent eventually we will see legislative reality that harms everyone more than any illegal activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is any actor with money who wants it is able to extract a more or less complete picture of activity occurring on bit torrent.
The system as it exists today is simply too open and too transparent creating a lightning rod from intelligence being wielded to justify all manner of legislative unpleasantries.
If exposure issues are not fixed in bit torrent eventually we will see legislative reality that harms everyone more than any illegal activity.
This is how the entire internet works, not just bittorrent.
The only way to securely encrypt communication over the internet is end-to-end with pre-shared (SHARED OFFLINE) keys (keys, passwords, certificates, etc. all work as long as you don't use the established certificate authorities).
The only way to hide your activity (as opposed to encrypting the contents) is to never use the same MAC address or connection twice.
The internet connects hosts to hosts.
Every single packet touching a major ISP is logged and
Re: (Score:2)
Every single packet touching a major ISP is logged and tracked by the government.
While we should assume as much this type of information is out of reach of MPAA. Sniffing transport isn't the problem and isn't how MPAA is gathering their data for infringement notices.
The problem is anyone on bit torrent network is able to infer activity of many many many other people just by normal participation in the bit torrent protocol.
Access to room 641A *not required*.
If you want SECURE communication establish the security OFFLINE. You CANNOT trust the channel.
Secure communication is not really the point in this context... exchange between peers just needs to be facilitated differently so
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot have Bittorrent work (distributing files to anyone who wants to get them) while blocking the bad guys from participating because the bad guys can be anyone.
Alternatively, you can't have Bittorrent be efficient (fast) if you plug it full of fake data.
Bittorrent connects hosts to hosts to distribute files. these hosts don't know each other so they must communicate publicly to some degree. Anyone (including the bad guys) can and must do so for Bittorrent to work. The ONLY way to solve it is as I
Quit being bitches and do your own work (Score:2)
Cox Communications shouldn't be doing anything about people who download copyrighted material without permission. They are an ISP, they provide internet connections.
Does banks tell car companies to police the people that buy their cars because cars are used as get away vehicles? No.
Does stores tell clothing manufactures to police the people that buy their clothes because you can hide stuff you shoplift in clothes? No.
You get my point?
It's not Cox's job. The Copyright Cartels need to police their own sh
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You get my point? (Score:3)
Agreed, except - this isn't even about people who download copyrighted material without permission. This is about allegations that people are downloading copyrighted material without permission. That's all - allegations. There was nothing proven in a court of law - just some scum bag outfit like John Steele & Co. called "Rightscorp" pointing their fingers at IP addresses that may or may not connect with people they are accusing of downloading.
RIAA sues EVERYONE, news at 11 (Score:2)
Cox is not Rightscorp's enforcer (Score:2)
If Rightscorp has "overwhelming evidence" of repeat infringers (or really, any infringers), they need to sue the offender directly or f**k off. If they don't actually have evidence, then they need to f**k off, then die in a fire, then go f**k off again.
It's not Cox's job to enforce Rightscorp's allegations as if they were court orders.
Judging from the complaint, Cox must feel like it has staked out a secure legal position:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Rightscorp didn't like getting the finger, and now they've asked for a *jury* trial. LOL good luck with that, assholes.
You are forgetting the Jamie Thomas case. Juries are apparently trivially simple to first select and then manipulate into awarding multi-million dollar infringement fines over 5 songs. Twice.
And this time the defendant is not in the least bit sympathetic. Rightscorp thinks they can ride anti-corporate and anti-ISP sentiment into a multi-billion dollar fine.
Shut off by Cox (Score:2)
The solution is simple (Score:3)
STOP BUYING THEIR MUSIC!
Stop downloading their music.
Ignore their entire existence.
I don't care if you /like/ it. If you buy it or download it, you are giving them monetary and mindshare resources to continue to punish their customers and act improperly.
When they are penniless, perhaps they will see the error of their ways. Probably not, but then no one will give a fuck about them any more, and they can do no more harm.
In short, STOP feeding the monster.
INSTEAD, buy/download music from GOOD actors in the market. Support them in spite of the BAD actors. Support the artists directly. Never support any labels unless they eschew being part of organizations like RIAA and ASCAP.
I have done this for over twenty years. I am very happy with the music that is available to me, and also very happy that I don't support the bad actors in any way, shape or form. Indeed, I do all I can to put them out of business.
You can do it, too. ALL of you.
Take a stand. Make a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeding torrents of the latest releases of a couple of Linux distros right now. Not piracy. KFGY.
How sharing Linux might infringe (Score:2)
I'm seeding torrents of the latest releases of a couple of Linux distros right now. Not piracy.
Almost. Some popular packages included in Linux distributions might infringe, though in practice you're unlikely to get busted for these.
Re: (Score:2)
There's considerable difference between "bits of it might infringe, but I can always point a finger at the distro maintainers if that's the case, since they warrant that it doesn't" and "entirely commercial product which I should have bought instead of torrented, and definitely have no legal basis to redistribute sans contractual agreement with the copyright owner".
And if the US Supreme Court has its head so far up its arse that it can't see that allowing copyright/exclusivity of APIs is a death sentence fo
Work visa? (Score:2)
And if the US Supreme Court has its head so far up its arse that it can't see that allowing copyright/exclusivity of APIs is a death sentence for the US software industry, so be it. I live in Europe.
But how many expats from the US can the European software industry absorb?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's time to play the [citation needed] card. See, raise, or fold--up to you, mate.
Re: (Score:2)
it's high time you fucked off, bittorrent like any other tool is vulnerable to abuse, that doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Might as well outlaw cars, screwdrivers and hammers while you're at it since they've actually been used as offensive weapons to lethal effect on many occasions.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. It's purpose is to distribute content. That it's alleged main purpose being is to facilitate piracy is only accurate to the extent that the content that people seem to actually want to distribute happens to be pirated. Before bitorrent, people were using ftp. Before that, they were downloading from dial-up bulletin boards. Before that, they were photocopying books and before that they were manually copying stuff by hand.
Piracy has been around for as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Neither of the NetBSD 6.1.5 torrents I'm seeding (for the last several days) is "pirated". Torrents are an accepted distribution practice for a wide range of software.
Re:Block all BitTorrent traffic (Score:5, Informative)
Torrents are an accepted distribution practice
Not only that, torrents are the technically superior distribution method for large files.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its main purpose is to facilitate piracy.
That's not only wrong, pirates would also not give a fuck about it. Piracy was alive and prosper well before Bittorrent was invented and *any* fast content delivery system can (and will, if needed) be used for piracy. People pirated video games on floppy disks and tapes.
If you want to stop piracy, you need to close the Internet (i.e., prohibit TCP/IP connections except those by content providers) and strictly prohibit all mass storage media like hard disks, USB sticks, CDs and DVDs, and Blueray. But if you
Re: (Score:2)
People still download music?
Yes, most just call it streaming now. It's still downloading, and the RIAA doesn't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An act of infringement (Score:5, Interesting)
How do they even know it was "Cox subscriber having IP address 24.252.149.211", as opposed to his neighbour who tapped into his WiFi?
Lest someone think this is a lame excuse, let me tell you my own experience...
The first month after I got the internet connection set up in my new place, my ISP noted my 64 gb data cap was exceeded, and they made a courtesy call to see if they could up sell me on more bandwidth. I was totally shocked, because I know my normal data usage would never come close to that limit. Somebody obviously cracked my relatively simple password and hacked into my modem. I immediately changed that to the longest password it would accept, and there has been no more data overages since. What do you suppose my WiFi was being used for? Could well have been for downloading copyrighted material, which certainly I hadn't been doing. What if the copyright police came after me for this? I would be pretty pissed off!
Re: (Score:2)
"How do they even know it was "Cox subscriber having IP address 24.252.149.211", as opposed to his neighbour who tapped into his WiFi?"
Why do they should?
Probably there's a contract provision for the customer to take apropiate care of the service is provided.
Given that this is a civil issue, it'd make total sense for that to be the case.
"Somebody obviously cracked my relatively simple password and hacked into my modem."
Therefore you failed in protecting your conection with due dilligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Most normal people don't know how to properly secure their networks. Any law that doesn't account for that simple fact is just insane. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Most normal people don't know how to properly secure their networks. Any law that doesn't account for that simple fact is just insane. Good luck with that."
Good luck trying to repel a law on the basis that it's insane.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be true normally. However, copyright law doesn't have any provision for holding you liable for someone else's infringement unless you actually contributed directly to the infringement. Cox may have grounds for terminating your service for breach of terms of service, but a third party like a copyright holder can't avail themselves of that (they're not a party to the contract) and if they try pressuring Cox then you might well have a case against them for tortious interference with contract if Cox agre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Embrace(early MTV), Expand(grunge scene, MTV, music videos, etc..), Extinguish(every generation sounds more like pop music, destroying and confusing labels like punk and metal into pop music, negative portrayal of rock musicians and their fans, newsmedia witch hunts, etc...).
sound familiar?