Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA May Be Violating a Court Order In California

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the play-nice-now dept.

The Courts 339

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of its 'ex parte' cases seeking the names and addresses of 'John Does,' this one targeting students at the University of Southern California, the RIAA obtained an order granting discovery — but with a wrinkle. The judge's order (PDF) specified that the information obtained could not be used for any purpose other than obtaining injunctions against the students. Apparently the RIAA lawyers have ignored, or failed to understand, that limitation, as an LA lawyer has reported that the RIAA is busy calling up the USC students and their families and demanding monetary settlements."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And file sharers may be violating copyright law (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127275)

Face it, you fucktards.

You are not entitled to everything for free just because of the internet.

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (5, Funny)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127533)

May I redirect you to The Pirate Bay's legal department [thepiratebay.org] ?

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127977)

May I redirect you to The Pirate Bay's legal department [thepiratebay.org] ?

Jeez, that amounted to 'Nya-nya, we're in Sweden and you can't get us.' Are they trying to make the --AAs look good with that page?

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (5, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127639)

Free?

I'm Canadian. I pay a levy on all blank media to pay for the possibility that those materials might be used - at some point - to hold copyrighted materials.

I've paid for the content, and I am damn well going to get my money's worth. It is NOT my responsibility to make sure that the money I paid is going to the right hands. I've paid; it's done.

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127917)

I pay a levy on all blank media to pay for the possibility that those materials might be used - at some point - to hold copyrighted materials.

What if you never buy any blank media?

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (4, Insightful)

hakr89 (719001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127953)

Blank media includes hard drives. You have to put those files somewhere.

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (4, Informative)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128207)

Protip for those of us a bit south of canada

Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut. Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128447)

Yeah but don't the "music" CD-Rs have a flag bit set on them that tells standalone consumer grade CD recorders that "yes, this is a music CD" ? When they were new (and popular) I remember reading the manuals from some of these units and every single one said to use "music" CD-Rs instead of data CD-Rs for "compatibility" reasons. My first brush with DRM. Bleh.

P.S. the magic word? "seeding" - the best way to share music :)

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128471)

Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut.

True.

Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.

Partly False. They have a header on them so that standalone CD recorders, like the Pioneer PDR-609 [pioneerelectronics.com] can recognize them, those recorders will not record on regular DATA CD-Rs.

Otherwise though, they are pretty much the same.

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (3, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128571)

Never buy music CDs.

That's a good principle to go by in general these days (indie artists excluded, of course :)

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128325)

Blank media includes hard drives. You have to put those files somewhere.

Not according to this [wikipedia.org] : "The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", such as CD-Rs."

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128577)

I have the internet wired directly to my brain...

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128189)

As a fellow Canadian, I couldn't agree more. I have been paying this "tax" for years on every media purchase I've made. My business requires me to purchase recordable media and I know I would save thousands every year if this "tax" did not exist.

I'm almost tempted to "get my monies worth" but I feel I have too much to lose, if I were dragged through court.

I suppose this is how the RIAA/CRIA operate. Preying on those they feel are vulnerable. I'm not even a very big music fan, in fact most of what I listen to is about to lose its protected status soon.

I do believe that if given enough time and political conditioning, they will craft laws for themselves in favour of their business model to the point of absurdity, if they haven't gotten there yet.

Its only a matter of time before they begin to investigate and sue "suspicious purchasers" of recordable media. Read "big purchasers".

In their effort to limit copyright infringement and maximize profits, they have created a generation of would be criminals. Simply because they refuse to adapt their revenue stream and the only outcome is aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved, given enough time.

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128407)

Just a couple of corrections:

In their effort to ... maximize profits, they have created a generations of would be criminals. Simply because they refuse to adapt their revenue stream and the only outcome is aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved, given enough time.

I'm writing to Mr Obama about this, with the intent of ensuring that the people who run the **AAs, their legal teams, and anyone closely associated with them are on the aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved end of this equation.

Personally, I think that Canadians should get their money worth of music. Oddly, the CRIA forgot to tell you how many songs and/or movies that is.... grab what you can while you can. The tax law does not say how much you can download, only that you have to pay a tax in case you do... hmmmmm Need any help setting up a Petabyte RAID server?

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128515)

Forgive me if this has been asked previously: Where does the distinction lie? Can I, as an Alaskan, drive through Canada, purchase said blank media for the purpose of holding copyrighted materials? Am I allowed to transport it outside of Canada, assuming I keep it and don't resell it, or am I obligated to leave it at the border?

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128423)

Face it, you fucktard, you don't have a monopoly on music, and what you have been producing hasn't been good for YEARS. You've been signing shitty artists to restrictive and exploitative contracts and then claiming to be doing them a favor for it since the 70s, and probably longer.

Please l2failedbusinessmodel kthxbai.

RIAA strikes again (5, Interesting)

chadenright (1344231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127281)

So, how many countersuits would it take to wipe RIAA off the face of the planet?

Re:RIAA strikes again (4, Funny)

empesey (207806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127321)

A million. One to make the countersuit, 999,998 to download the suit via P2P and one RIAA agent to sue the lot of them.

Re:RIAA strikes again (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128371)

A million. One to make the countersuit, 999,998 to download the suit

Your statement has an obi-wan bug. Please recompile.

Re:RIAA strikes again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128411)

You apparently can't count.

Re:RIAA strikes again (3, Interesting)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128405)

I've wondered why no one has tried to "poison the well" with suits yet. You could create a GIF of a 7-legged spider and then let someone else violate your copyright. Use the RIAA's tactics to locate the infringers. Then, with lawyers on both sides working together, take the cases as far as possible. Get a local circuit court to make a ruling. Appeal to the next court. Wash, rinse, and repeat until you have set a firm legal precedent.

It seems whenever the RIAA is about to get a ruling against them, they drop the case to stop a precedent from being set. But by using their tactics in an outside case, you can set the precedent for them in a way they can't stop.

And if you have lawyers working both sides, you could play the case to come out on whatever side you wanted.

Hell, you could probably get law students to do it for little to no cost.

Re:RIAA strikes again (3, Insightful)

belmolis (702863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128509)

Countersuits? Feh! The headline I look forward to is: "RIAA lawyers jailed for contempt of court". That will discourage them more than countersuits.

Obligatory (0, Offtopic)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127287)

I'm Sparticus!

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127315)

No, I'm Sparticus!

Re:Obligatory (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127411)

Me: Go get my wallet
You: Which one is yours?
Me: The one that says MOTHER FUCKIN SPARTICUS on it!

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127617)

Uh, yeah, they're Sparticus. Please don't kill me.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127955)

That's SPARTACUS, not SPARTICUS

    --Grammar **AA Squad

Re:Obligatory (0, Offtopic)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128001)

And so's your wife! (That's what she said.)

Re:Obligatory (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128531)

"A geek like you, but who doesn't get the respect you do because I wear a skirt and you wear pants."

So, why not wear pants?

Or maybe I should say: "I'm a transvestite, you insensitive clod!"

Or maybe: "Respect? I take it you've never seen the reactions to me in a kilt."

Finally, does "girlintraining" mean "transgendered"? I was just curious.

Re:Obligatory (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128591)

Why is that obligatory? Spartacus wasn't a Trojan.

Devil's Advocate (3, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127299)

Just to play the Devil's Advocate here... Couldn't the RIAA use the information, once granted, to call the students and offer to "leave them alone" (as opposed to settle since they now can't sue them for anything other than injunctive relief) for a fee?

Re:Devil's Advocate (5, Insightful)

chadenright (1344231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127309)

They could...IF that weren't blackmail.

Re:Devil's Advocate (5, Informative)

theascended (1228810) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127895)

The legal word is extortion, but I concur.

Re:Devil's Advocate (4, Funny)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128329)

but extorion is such an ugly word.. the RIAA prefers to think of it as justice...

Re:Devil's Advocate (5, Insightful)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127915)

And when has that ever stopped them?

Re:Devil's Advocate (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127485)

Couldn't the RIAA use the information, once granted, to call the students and offer to "leave them alone"

Which begs the question of, why do they need to call them to announce they are doing nothing? Besides, such an action could be used in future lawsuits to demonstrate a lack of good faith effort to enforce their copyright, which would invalidate the copyright in turn. It is not in RIAA's best interests, legally, to do this. Ignorance can be bliss in the world of civil litigation.

Re:Devil's Advocate (4, Informative)

BlueBlade (123303) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127775)

Invalidate the copyright? You must be thinking of trademarks. You can't invalidate a copyright by lack of defending it (or in this case, bad faith). If someone reproduces a book I've written for 10 years and I don't do anything, I can still sue them at anytime even if I was previously aware of the violation. You can't 'lose' a copyright.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127869)

You might want to look up the "doctrine of laches" before you make such an assertion.

Re:Devil's Advocate (5, Informative)

BlueBlade (123303) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127959)

Laches only applies to "equitable relief", ie, compensation. Basically, you can't let someone sell your stuff for 10 years (knowingly) and them hit them for all the money they've made distributing it since they started. However, it will not in any way invalidate your copyright. You can still stop them from redistributing your works, you just can't go after them for a zillion dollars.

Re:Devil's Advocate (2, Informative)

Yuuki Dasu (1416345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128009)

First off, laches is an affirmative defense, and is not a get-out-of-jail-free card: compare it to fair use, another affirmative defense that many here on /. agree is fairly cumbersome to use and burdensome on the defendant. Secondly, laches has a certain component of pressing an unfair advantage gained by biding one's time.

Thirdly and most importantly, I am not a lawyer and I am not your lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. Don't take anything I ever say as legal advice.

Re:Devil's Advocate (4, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127605)

To put it simply, NO. The judge put a very narrow restriction on the information. Any other use is a violation of that restriction. Judges take a dim view of being ignored.

Re:Devil's Advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128101)

Judges take a favorable view on contributions made on their behalf... so this may balance each other out.

Re:Devil's Advocate (5, Informative)

Aellus (949929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128069)

That is what they're already doing. I work for one of the top 10 universities targeted by the RIAA, and the "offer" they make the students has absolutely no legal authority to it. They're quite literally "promising not to sue" if the student pays them some number of thousands of dollars. There is no suit being filed, no legal action being taken, no trial. Just a letter, an offer, and instructions to visit their handy website to make paying as easy as possible: www.p2plawsuits.com

This is an inaccurate article title (4, Insightful)

Valarauk (670014) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127319)

The article's title should read: "RIAA Violating a Court Order in California".

Re:This is an inaccurate article title (1)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127399)

The article's title should read: "RIAA attempts to continue extortion in direct violation of a court order."

Re:This is an inaccurate article title (5, Funny)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127421)

The article's title should read: "Here is an article about the RIAA, I only skimmed it, let me know what it says".

Re:This is an inaccurate article title (3, Insightful)

pfleming (683342) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127647)

Considering that NYCL contributed the article, I would say he's speaking as plainly as he can without going over the potential libel line.
See how I did that there?

Re:This is an inaccurate article title (2, Insightful)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127811)

I don't think it's fair to outright accuse them of an undetermined finding, in an article title, regardless of the entities involved. If an organization that wasn't so maligned (like Apple) was to be accused, there would be no small amount of grandstanding on this point. IANAL and neither are the editors involved in the proceedings.

Re:This is an inaccurate article title (2, Insightful)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128025)

NYCL is a L (from NYC), and therefore is going to be careful what he says.

Re:This is an inaccurate article title (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128253)

NYCL is a L (from NYC), and therefore is going to be careful what he says.

Unlike the L's the RIAA uses.

Re:This is an inaccurate article title (1)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128319)

He's from New York Country?

Re:This is an inaccurate article title (5, Insightful)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128245)

I think it's FAR better when Slashdot headlines are like this one - too many jump to conclusions that the articles don't support.

It's unfortunate that Slashdot is resorting to sensational headlines to attract viewers. For me, when I find out that the headline and summary were wrong (always pointed out in the comments when so - don't even have to RTA :) ) I get quite annoyed. If the story actually matters, then there's no need to exaggerate with a sensational headline. If one finds him or her self tempted to exaggerate the headline, perhaps the story is not that interesting or important!

Sometimes corrections are posted, but the damage is already done.

For this specific case, as others pointed out, NYCL is being safe (and fair) in his wording. Even if it was made official by the judge ruling that they're violating the order, your proposed title would still not be the best. It would then be "Judge Finds RIAA in Violation of California Court Order" or something like that.

This is what Slashdot should be. We gladly get the news here a day or two after digg or wherever, because the editors are (supposed to be) here to ensure that we get the best news and that the facts are straight in the summary.

This ideal has, unfortunately, been slipping away recently. The exception is usually stories from NYCL, because he puts a lot of effort into making sure he gets everything right. In order to improve things, ideally we should all step up and start submitting better stuff. The problem is that many of us don't have time to prowl for stories - Slashdot aggregates all the best stuff for us already, and provides all kinds of insight and references through the comments, and that's why we like it. So I do appreciate those who put time into submitting stuff, I really do, because otherwise I'd have to find it myself. I just regret that it seems to be losing the focus it once had of news for nerds and stuff that matters. Too much focus on entertainment - that's done better on other sites already, we don't need it here.

Thanks for reading my rant!

Re:This is an inaccurate article title (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128323)

I think it's FAR better when Slashdot headlines are like this one - too many jump to conclusions that the articles don't support. It's unfortunate that Slashdot is resorting to sensational headlines to attract viewers. For me, when I find out that the headline and summary were wrong (always pointed out in the comments when so - don't even have to RTA :) ) I get quite annoyed. If the story actually matters, then there's no need to exaggerate with a sensational headline. If one finds him or her self tempted to exaggerate the headline, perhaps the story is not that interesting or important! Sometimes corrections are posted, but the damage is already done. For this specific case, as others pointed out, NYCL is being safe (and fair) in his wording. Even if it was made official by the judge ruling that they're violating the order, your proposed title would still not be the best. It would then be "Judge Finds RIAA in Violation of California Court Order" or something like that. This is what Slashdot should be. We gladly get the news here a day or two after digg or wherever, because the editors are (supposed to be) here to ensure that we get the best news and that the facts are straight in the summary. This ideal has, unfortunately, been slipping away recently. The exception is usually stories from NYCL, because he puts a lot of effort into making sure he gets everything right. In order to improve things, ideally we should all step up and start submitting better stuff. The problem is that many of us don't have time to prowl for stories - Slashdot aggregates all the best stuff for us already, and provides all kinds of insight and references through the comments, and that's why we like it. So I do appreciate those who put time into submitting stuff, I really do, because otherwise I'd have to find it myself. I just regret that it seems to be losing the focus it once had of news for nerds and stuff that matters. Too much focus on entertainment - that's done better on other sites already, we don't need it here. Thanks for reading my rant!

Thanks for your kind words, penguinchris. One of the problems with headlines on Slashdot is that they have to be very short. I struggle with that on almost every submission. It would be much easier for submitters to provide accurate headlines if we had more space to work with.

who cares about laws? (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127327)

This is a country where the congress can reject a bill (auto bailouts for example) just to see the president go ahead and do it anyhow.

Re:who cares about laws? (4, Interesting)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127933)

This is a country where the congress can reject a bill (auto bailouts for example) just to see the president go ahead and do it anyhow.

I hope he does, so I can enjoy watching the Republicans who voted against the Detroit bailout bitch about the president ignoring Congress. You know, since those Republicans have acted as a rubber stamp for every violation of the Separation of Powers or the Constitution the last 8 years.

Re:who cares about laws? (4, Insightful)

exi1ed0ne (647852) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128427)

You know, since those Republicans have acted as a rubber stamp for every violation of the Separation of Powers or the Constitution the last 8 years.

Yeah, and the Democratic party majority sure put a stop to the abuses and saved us. Two factions of the same Oligarchy if you ask me.

Re:who cares about laws? (0, Offtopic)

Rozine (1345911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128435)

Because bashing Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) is more important than our democracy.

Re:who cares about laws? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128563)

Yeah, because Republicans control the Senate for 8 straight years. Damn them!

Shock and Alarm! (2, Interesting)

HannethCom (585323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127351)

How come I'm dying of not surprise?

Might be because the RIAA keeps functioning illegally, slanders and purposely lies.

When is the US Department of Justice going to do something about this criminal organization? They are a monopoly that for decades has abused the artists they are supposed to protect and villainized their customers.

To support my accusation, look at the article this it attached to.

Also look at the many claims they make about Canada and Piracy. Just pull up the studies they done that "support" their position. Problem is you will find their own data does not support their claim.(See previous /. articles for more references) They also like to apply US law to Canada. Guess what RIAA and MPAA, US law is not Canadian law.

Suing people with out computers for distributing files.

Re:Shock and Alarm! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127413)

When is the US Department of Justice going to do something about this criminal organization?

January 21 is my guess.

Re:Shock and Alarm! (1)

More_Cowbell (957742) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127563)

We should be so lucky...

Re:Shock and Alarm! (1)

theskunkmonkey (839144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127735)

They are a monopoly that for decades has abused the artists they are supposed to protect and villainized their customers.

The RIAA does not represent or protect artists. They represent and protect the record companies profits by victimizing the artists fans.

Re:Shock and Alarm! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127827)

Don't you mean by victomizing the artists and demonizing their fans?

Faint hope at end of article (3, Interesting)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127445)

"Last week, Warner Music Group proposed a voluntary blanket licensing scheme for universities. The proposal would add a fee to student tuition to permit music file sharing in schools."

And then, via another link;

"The rest of the details are still to be determined, including whether it would be a mandatory fee for all students, or an opt-in fee (complete with continued lawsuits for those who fail to pay?). It's also not clear what the fee would be, although those familiar with the talks suggest less than $5 per student per month... "

Sounds more like a pragmatic solution and better than criminalizing your potential customers via dubious legal processes, such as this one.

Re:Faint hope at end of article (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127509)

Sounds more like a pragmatic solution and better than criminalizing your potential customers via dubious legal processes, such as this one.

...Or legalized racketeering.

Re:Faint hope at end of article (1, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127549)

Right. Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?

Re:Faint hope at end of article (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127659)

Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?

The suggestion was to have the infringing person(s) pay a fee in lieu of legal action. The definition of racketeering approximately is; Paying someone to not undertake an economically damaging course of action to you and/or your business. That's a nice credit score you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it...

Re:Faint hope at end of article (2, Interesting)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128135)

And actually I've always found the credit reporting agencies guilty of that too. They're like pay us 10 bucks a month and we won't state untrue negative things about you based on other people's actions. I think this is only legal because those agencies are specifically and specially regulated. It's still criminal to me, though.

Re:Faint hope at end of article (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128151)

Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?

The suggestion was to have the infringing person(s) pay a fee in lieu of legal action. The definition of racketeering approximately is; Paying someone to not undertake an economically damaging course of action to you and/or your business. That's a nice credit score you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it...

Bingo! Got it in one. It's standover tactics, extortion, to do that. It's Racketeering because this illegal act is a fundamental component of the RIAA's business model. Organised illegal business = organised crime.

Re:Faint hope at end of article (1)

nyet (19118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127793)

When the judge *specifically* tells you that you can't use his decision to threaten people, and you go ahead and do it anyway while demanding money, then yes, i'd say thats racketeering.

Re:Faint hope at end of article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128023)

Err, voluntary blanket licensing fee-schemes for universities have nothing whatsoever to do with suing someone for infringing their copyright, (as you seem to be randomly implying). I guarantee that they will reserve the right to sue in any case.

Re:Faint hope at end of article (1)

re_organeyes (1170849) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128459)

Sounds more like a pragmatic solution and better than criminalizing your potential customers via dubious legal processes, such as this one.

...Or legalized racketeering.

If you can't beat them, join them?

Re:Faint hope at end of article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127551)

maybe everyone in the world should pay a fee to be able to listen to music. and share it ... shit lets pay a fee to be able to use words ... why restrict it to folks on campus and tunes?

Re:Faint hope at end of article (4, Insightful)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127607)

Because if there's one thing students in the US don't have enough of, it's fees.

But seriously, an opt-in fee to benefit the artists sounds like a good compromise, though I think it's safe to say that's not going to happen. It will be a mandatory fee, collected by the universities and deposited into the coffers of Sony BMG, EMI, Warner and Universal without them having to lift a finger. Artists will never see a dime, labels will have a new printing press for cash and students all across America will get screwed.

It's a sad state of affairs when the pessimistic view is synonymous with the realistic.

Re:Faint hope at end of article (4, Funny)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127999)

You misunderstand. The "artists" are defined by the RIAA as "those who have made an art of suing people."

Re:Faint hope at end of article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128361)

Guess it depends on how you define "art". Reminds me of someone having chimpanzees fling stuff at a canvas and then selling the results as high priced "art". The RIAA lawyers aren't even as talented as the chimpanzees, though they likely do hold themselves in high esteem as you may have been insinuating.

Re:Faint hope at end of article (3, Insightful)

CroDragn (866826) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127671)

Wow, who fired their marketing department. They could have billed it as "download all the music you want for 5 dollars a month". Instead, they're running it as "we're forcing college students to give us 5 dollars a month and we won't sue you". Except for the mandatory part, which sounds like it could be dropped, it's basically what people have been telling the RIAA to do since the Napster fight.

Re:Faint hope at end of article (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128347)

Doesn't the current Napster service already do that, at a price only slightly higher than that?

Re:Faint hope at end of article (1)

HotBits (1390689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127891)

Wait, so... doesn't that limit RIAA losses to $5/month no matter how many files swapped? Doesn't that limit how much they can sue too? Is their any proof of this that can be submitted in court as evidence? Sounds good to me!

Racketeering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127751)

Racketeering
n : engaging in a racket

Racket Rack"et, n.
  1. A scheme, dodge, trick, or the like; something taking
  place considered as exciting, trying, unusual, or the
  like; also, such occurrence considered as an ordeal; as,
  to work a racket; to stand upon the racket. [Slang]
  [Webster 1913 Suppl.]

  2. an organized illegal activity, such as illegal gambling,
  bootlegging, or extortion.

So the RIAA/MPAA are engaged in racketeering. Clearly they don't mind violating the orders of the judge. The point is: if you were contacted by these clowns, or went to school where these clowns are shaking people down, would you ever ever buy from anyone, anything related to their clients? Its a simple way to lose 10000-45000 potential customers at one go. Are they really surprised the recorded music business is dying?

HoHoHo (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127763)

I hohohope they get nailed for this real hard. Merry Christmas.

USC? (3, Funny)

chainLynx (939076) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127783)

But aren't those the RIAA execs' kids?

Re:USC? (1)

dapho (939695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127899)

With all the money the RIAA execs get from suing other students, it's not likely they'd have to send their kids to college just how they can make more money.

Re:USC? (1)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128033)

Nah, those got filtered before the RIAA went forward.

Why is the word 'may' in the title? (-1, Redundant)

theascended (1228810) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127849)

The probability that there is a violation is 1.0 Harassing phone calls and threats of lawsuits are not injunctions... nor do injunctions include the former. I know the world is becoming ridiculously politically correct (IT'S MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS!!!!! I'll wish you a Happy Hanukkah and a Delightful Kwanza too if you want), but call a pig a pig.

Protection racket? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26127963)

This isn't really a protection racket. It's more like a civil version of what police and prosecutors have done for years: "We have no real evidence, but if you confess to the crime, you'll spend less time in prison than if it goes to a trial by jury."

Just stop stealing (-1, Redundant)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#26127973)

Just stop sharing copyrighted works against the wishes of their creators and owners. And — woo-hoo — no calls from RIAA, no demands, no problems. Their hated lawyers lose their jobs, and everyone is happy enjoying the music.

Re:Just stop stealing (2, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128037)

Given the RIAA's history of suing people who don't even have computer and/or an internet connection, I doubt the efficacy of your suggestion.

Re:Just stop stealing (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128045)

Possibly.

Alternatively, this business of suing people has become so lucrative... do you honestly think that will stop them?

Re:Just stop stealing (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128287)

this business of suing people has become so lucrative...

I don't think so. According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.

What's that in RIAA math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128399)

> I don't think so. According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.

Yeah, but what does the RIAA math say? Because I know their movies never make a profit (so they never have to pay out gross OR net points they specify in the movie contracts, even when sued over it), so I can't imagine that their math here would be any less crazy.

Perhaps they see themselves reducing losses from piracy by eleventy billion dollars for every million dollars they spend suing people?

Re:What's that in RIAA math? (4, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128503)

According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.

Yeah, but what does the RIAA math say?

I don't know. They're not very good at math, or law.

Re:Just stop stealing (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128099)

Really? What about the people who either don't have a computer or no internet access that were sued by the RIAA? Why were they sued/threatened/extorted? What's happening is the bully in the schoolyard has gotten very greedy, and now all the kid's he's been stealing lunch money from have decided to beat his ass. I welcome our new ASSBEATING Overlords.

And woo-hoo.... (2, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128125)

...the RIAA will keep on ripping off artists and producing bland, over-compressed, payola-driven crap instead of music.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html [salon.com]

http://www.beforethemusicdies.com/ [beforethemusicdies.com]

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html [janisian.com]

Priceless (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128079)

Priceless! "Yes, I saw you waving me over, Officer, it's just that this is the only way I know how to drive."

There are serious pitfalls ahead of people who respond in set patterns to everything.

RIAA Doesn't Use Professional Engineers (2, Interesting)

systemeng (998953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128201)

Couldn't somebody get state engineering licensing board to go after some of the so called RIAA investigators? After all, these are technical matters and if the cases were about bridges falling then one would be required to have a PE license to testify as to the technical matters.

How about... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128205)

you grow a pair and say "RIAA *IS* violating a court order in California?"

Otherwise... you might as well say they *might* not be. Oh, sensationalism for the sake of controversy! Worse than Entertainment Tonight!

The question is... (1)

achenaar (934663) | more than 5 years ago | (#26128355)

Were these (potentially infringing) calls recorded? And did the defendants in question respond as I hope I would with a short but firm "Fsck you. And your mother."?

Tired of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128457)

I'm a little tired of hearing about the mafiaa is trampling on people, and violating laws, and court orders, etc. It's not new or newswothy, the only thing new is the method they're using to do it. Until someone actually does something about it, they'll just keep going in the name of protecting their dying industry.

Oh how I'd love to see... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26128599)

Personally, I'd love to see each of those law breaking, judge ignoring lawyers arrested, put in cute little pink jumpsuits, and thrown in jail.

Of course, that's the *nice* side of me speaking. I think my *honest* side would rather see them horse-whipped...in public...on TV...in prime time.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?