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!

Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the balls-in-our-courts dept.

The Courts 316

whisper_jeff writes "Ars has an excellent write up outlining how Kiwi Camara (Jammie Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer) is following the 'Best Defense is a Good Offense' philosophy and going on the attack against the RIAA. Not content to just defend his client, he is laying siege against the RIAA's entire campaign and beginning the work of dismantling it from the bottom up, starting with the question of whether they actually do own the copyrights that were allegedly infringed. And, if you're thinking this is good for everyone who's been harassed by the RIAA, you'd be right — Camara, along with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, plans to file a class-action suit seeking to force the RIAA to return all the (ill-gotten) money they've earned from their litigation campaign." We first discussed the efforts of Nesson and Camara to thwart the RIAA last month.

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

Hmmmm (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28280491)

What does the Campaign for Real Ale have against the RIAA?

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281241)

It's a serious issue. Drinking bad booze might make you think frivulous lawsuits is a business model. Think of the RIAA lawyers!

A$$ kickin' time (4, Insightful)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280493)

It's time to kick some serious RIAA boo-tay.

On a more serious note, it warms my heart to find that there is at least a couple of "good" lawyers out there who have their clients best interest at heart.

NYCountryLawyer excluded - dude you do good work.

Re:A$$ kickin' time (1, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280763)

Ray Beckerman (NYCL) is my third favorite lawyer, right after the lady who did my divorce and the gentleman who did my bankruptcy. When you need a lawyer, you NEED a lawyer. If you need a lawyer, (s)he won't cost you, (s)he'll save you far more than his or her fee.

I'm a fan of Lawrence Lessig, too. Too bad he lost that Supreme Court case he wrote about extensively in his book, available at your bookstore, library, or online. It's not full of lawyerese, it's a good read.

Re:A$$ kickin' time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28280877)

Let me guess... next on your list is the lawyer who got you off for fingerbanging one of your prostitute friends in the bushes in front of the Illinois State Capitol.

Re:A$$ kickin' time (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281725)

Don't talk about your mom that way. Besides, he never technically paid, so that doesn't make her a prostitute, only a skank!

lawyers. (5, Funny)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280821)

IANAL

Someone on slashdot once wrote "99% of all lawyers make the rest of us look bad".

Re:lawyers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281097)

I remember reading that. But now that I think it about it, it is coming from the point of view of a lawyer.

He could be saying that 99% of all lawyers are worthless and will roll-over on any in-coming attack and not fight for the client in whatever way possible.

Just a thought.

Re:lawyers. (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281303)

You can say that about many professions, from mechanics to plumbers to technical supporters to software engineers.

Any profession that has special knowledge their customer can't even possibly have unless he's a professional in the field as well is prone to abusing this power. How often did you tell your boss it takes 2 hours even though you knew it would take 2 minutes so you can slack off?

Re:lawyers. (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281593)

Er, hi boss. I'll get right on that bugfix now.

Re:lawyers. (5, Funny)

d'fim (132296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281645)

"How often did you tell your boss it takes 2 hours even though you knew it would take 2 minutes so you can slack off?"

Not often enough to offset all the times he has given me 2-hour tasks and expected results inside of 2 minutes.

Re:A$$ kickin' time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281515)

All layers are playing the same game. Some represent the guilty party some represent the victim but aboth sides make tons of cash of litigation. You really think this lawyer is doing it out of the good of his heart or is it for the cash? Maybe both.

Re:A$$ kickin' time (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281721)

One of those silly Latin phrases they use is "pro bono". Look it up.

Re:A$$ kickin' time (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281543)

It sounds like they're all out of bubblegum.

More exciting than the play offs (1, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280497)

I think this is the equivalent of the breakaway in the third period last night.

Re:More exciting than the play offs (2, Funny)

berashith (222128) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280709)

exciting, but ultimately resulting in a loss?

Re:More exciting than the play offs (4, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280857)

This is Slashdot. Anything is more exciting than sports.

Re:More exciting than the play offs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28280903)

What is this "sports" you speak of?

Re:More exciting than the play offs (4, Informative)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281109)

This is Slashdot. Anything is more exciting than sports.

Except Redwings Hockey isn't a sport, it's a religon. And they'll bring home the Cup on Friday night.

But I like the idea of RIAA getting a dose of its own medicine. This day has been a long time coming, just like that other case [wikipedia.org] we've been watching from the peanut gallery. Almost makes you wish you could sell tickets & popcorn at it. It's gonna be a helluva show...

Re:More exciting than the play offs (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281327)

Except Redwings Hockey isn't a sport, it's a religon.

So it's not more exciting on Slashdot but instead it is ridiculed?

All I gotta say is... (0)

Praedon (707326) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280499)

It's about time.. Though it does seem like a lick and a prayer, it may open some eyes.

Re:All I gotta say is... (1)

NormHome (99305) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281039)

Damn straight! It's about time somebody took these bad boys out to the wood shed and gave them a good spanking!

Camera goes on offense against RIAA (5, Funny)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280501)

Refuses to film copyrighted content!

Re:Camera goes on offense against RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28280719)

In related news, Mixing Board threatens work-to-rule action.

A taste of their own medicine (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280541)

... and a lawsuit they can't just back out of when they realize they're not going to win. It's two great tastes brought together into a cocktail of bitter irony for the RIAA!

Re:A taste of their own medicine (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28280753)

The last few months I have been doing some research [slashdot.org] into the trolling [slashdot.org] phenomenon on slashdot.org. In order to do this as thorough [slashdot.org] ly as possible, I have written both normal and troll [slashdot.org] posts, 1st posts, etc., both logged in and anonymously, and I have found these rather shocking results:

  • More moderator points are being used to mod posts down than up. Furthermore, when modding a post up, every moderator seems to follow previous moderators in their choices, even when it's not a particularly interesting or clever post slashdot.org [slashdot.org] . There are a LOT more +5 posts than +3 or +4.
  • Logged in people are modded down faster than anonymous cowards. Presumably these Nazi Moderators [slashdot.org] think it's more important to burn a user's existing karma [slashdot.org] , to silence that individual for the future, than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying "good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments [slashdot.org] in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions, instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions)
  • Once you have a karma of -4 or -5, your posts have a score of -1 by default. When this is the case, no-one bothers to mod you down anymore. This means a logged in user can keep on trolling as much as he (or she) likes, without risking a ban to post on slashdot. When trolling as an anonymous user, every post starts at score 0, and you will be modded down to -1 ON EVERY POST. When you are modded down a certain number of times in 24 hour, you cannot post anymore from your current IP for a day or so. So, for successful trolling, ALWAYS log in.
  • A lot of the modded down posts are actually quite clever, funny, etc., and they are only modded down because they are offtopic. Now, on a news site like slashdot, where the number of different topics of discussion can be counted on 1 hand, I must say I quite like the distraction these posts offer. But no, when the topic is yet another minor version change of the Linux kernel [slashdot.org] , they only expect ooohs and aaahs about this great feat of engineering [slashdot.org] . Look at the moderation done in this thread to see what I mean.
  • Digging deep into the history of slashdot, I found this poll, which clearly indicates the vast majority does NOT want the moderation we have here today. 'nuff said.

Feel free to use this information to your advantage. I thank you for your time.

Re:A taste of their own medicine (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28280987)

Feel free to use this information to your advantage. I thank you for your time.

I will append this to my journal. Thank you for quantifying that which I've wanted to say but have been too lazy to think about. Is that you, smidge?

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:A taste of their own medicine (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281373)

Hate to pull the "reply to the first reply" BS, but seriously, stop treating this guy like he's original, becaues he's not. [slashdot.org]

Re:A taste of their own medicine (-1, Offtopic)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280999)

Very good post, pity that I just ran out of mod points.. :)

Re:A taste of their own medicine (-1, Offtopic)

End Program (963207) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281063)

Mod parent up. Thank you for doing this very interesting research. What are you suggestions to make the system better?

Re:A taste of their own medicine (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281311)

I have a suggestion. When a user is given mod points the names, relational (zoo) status, and the scores should be hidden from the user.

That will prevent the user spending their points on the basis of not liking the posters or following groupthink. Same rule should apply to metamods, of course.

And yes, there are ways around it, but the moderator would have to be a real turd to comb discussions as AC or sockpuppet and jot down posts. Hopefully people with mod points would be too lazy to circumvent in such a manner ;)

Re:A taste of their own medicine (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281541)

I'm not sure that would stop someone from going to a user's comment page and simply following the link from there.

As for metamods, you need to know the context of the post. I don't think that would improve anything much.

Re:A taste of their own medicine (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281257)

Wow, you re-post the most moderated /. comment EVER [slashdot.org] , and no one recognizes this?

Re:A taste of their own medicine (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281309)

Also, if anyone DOESN'T know about that, check out the timeline [wikipedia.org] on the /. Wikipedia entry, particularly the January 16-30, 2002 entry.

Re:A taste of their own medicine (1)

End Program (963207) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281469)

You are correct sir. I shall turn in my geek card and hang my head in shame. May the Internet Gods have mercy on my soul.

Re:A taste of their own medicine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281299)

I think you've just been proved right. Your AC offtopic post got modded +5 (rightly so IMHO, it's very interesting) but the logged in replies got modded offtopic. You might say QED.

Camara is a friend to all children! (-1, Offtopic)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280559)

What's that? A giant turtle known as Camara is attacking the city hmmm!? As you know the turtle Camara is attracted to fire I believe we can use this to lure him into a fight with Gaos.

Re:Camara is a friend to all children! (2, Funny)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281565)

Isn't that Gamera?

      -dZ.

project trilogy and coolruc; peer-to-peer IPTV (-1, Offtopic)

lkcl (517947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280617)

hooray! this comes at just the right time for coolruc [i2cat.net] p2p video broadcasting to make headway without legal threats.

Kiwi? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28280641)

That is a hell of a name for a lawyer.

"Meet Kiwi Camara. He's a high-powered defense attorney by day... and she's a pole-riding stripper by night! What will happen when these two lives collide? Find out this Fall on Barely Legal, only on Fox!"

Re:Kiwi? (2, Informative)

Niris (1443675) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280759)

Oh God dammit, I lol'd hard at work :(

Re:Kiwi? (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280815)

+1 Internets. Would be more, but you came in as AC.

Re:Kiwi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281643)

Asshole. I looked up the name because of your post, but it's a dude. Asshole.

But, yeah, the show sounds good.

waiting for my official interpretation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28280689)

NYCountyLawyer, what is your take on this?

Hmm. (4, Insightful)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280707)

I wish them the very best of luck - thats a very powerful business lobby with a lot of politicians in pocket that they are going after.

Still, its very clear why he chose to represent her - the publicity on this high profile case could make him and give his career a hell of a head start.

Re:Hmm. (2, Interesting)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281587)

Still, its very clear why he chose to represent her - the publicity on this high profile case could make him and give his career a hell of a head start.

Good point. Also, please recall her previous lawyer allowed fees to climb to $150,000 and then pulled the lawyering services when Jammie couldn't pay-up. But then that lawyer didn't seem to have the wisdom to construct Jammie's case as well as her current lawyer either.

Needs experienced analysis (5, Interesting)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280793)

We would all like to see the RIAA lose on all points brought up here, but how strong are these arguments, and are there known ways the RIAA could dodge them?

Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie (0)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280797)

Does young "Kiwi" there really have your best interests at heart, or is he more interested in making a name for himself by shooting for the moon?

It's good that someone is fighting this case, but old age and cunning will always defeat youth and vigour. And the RIAA are ancient and well versed in the ways of the Dark Side.

Re:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280907)

What does it matter what his motivations are, so long as it results in a loss for the RIAA?

BTW, boycott the major labels, listen to indie music. By boycott I mean don't just not buy, don't even download or listen. Funny how the RIAA never mentions the almost decade long boycott as a reason for decreased sales...

How practical is such a boycott? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280947)

BTW, boycott the major labels, listen to indie music. By boycott I mean don't just not buy, don't even download or listen.

How do I avoid listening to major label music at work or in a grocery store?

Re:How practical is such a boycott? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281081)

How do I avoid listening to major label music at work or in a grocery store?

Keep an iPod with you filled with indie music. Play your iPod when you start to hear major label music.

Ask to speak to a manager. Tell the manager that you do not like listening to major label music and that you would like them to play something else (or ask them if they have gotten the appropriate license from ASCAP or BMI...chances are the manager on site won't know and will turn off the music)

Start singing made up music loudly. Not only will you not be able to hear the major label music, but you may get kicked out, thus saving you from further exposure.

Re:How practical is such a boycott? (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281609)

So in other words, just become an anti-social asshole!

Re:How practical is such a boycott? (2, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281181)

BTW, boycott the major labels, listen to indie music. By boycott I mean don't just not buy, don't even download or listen.

How do I avoid listening to major label music at work or in a grocery store?

You could try clapping your hands over your ears and loudly shouting "LA-LA-LA!" while you walk down the aisles of the grocery store. You'd probably benefit the other shoppers who would be also unable to hear the Muzak over your masking noise.

I'm not sure how you'd keep the music stopped once you've been committed into the asylum, however.

Re:How practical is such a boycott? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281329)

I don't know "LA-LA-LA!" might be a little mainstream. Maybe you should try "ARG-ARG-ARG!".

Re:How practical is such a boycott? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281375)

Did MP3 players go out of fashion?

Re:How practical is such a boycott? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281575)

How about not "actively" listening? You know, like you tune your radio to a station that's not likely to ever play anything by a major label.

Re:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281069)

What does it matter what his motivations are, so long as it results in a loss for the RIAA?

It matters because if the lawyer is trying to make a name for himself on this case and over-reaches, this will not result in a loss for the RIAA. It will result in a win for the RIAA.

Re:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie (1)

prelelat (201821) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281235)

Depends on the what kind of a lawyer this person is. If they are going out to make a name for themselves then I would think they would see over reaching as being a career killer. It would look bad if he went down in a ball of flames on a high profile case. Now the fact that this lawyer is working with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson I would think that he's got some good council to help him. I hope he will win if not this makes it harder for the future.

Re:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie (1)

Mordaximus (566304) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281397)

Funny how the RIAA never mentions the almost decade long boycott as a reason for decreased sales...

Much like me, I doubt they even knew there was a decade long boycott...

Re:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281549)

Well, maybe having some ambitious young hot-shot looking to make his representation defend you isn't as good as being able to buy any kind of defense you might want, but it sure beats going into a knife fight armed with a rubber chicken.

Wow!!! (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280799)

If the RIAA were forced to give all the money they collected BACK, the RIAA would simply close up shop permanently, probably filing some sort of bankruptcy or some such action to prevent their actually having to pay anything back.

And what would that mean with regards to the MPAA or BSA? They both, quite often, use similar tactics and means of evidence collection.

This will undoubtedly stir up a hornets nest on a scale we have never seen before. If this guy actually manages to win his cases and motions, it will likely result in new laws being introduced that would effectively make the RIAA's activities legal... that is unless some people are there to stop it which isn't likely considering the way laws like the DMCA are passed... subversively and practically secretly.

Re:Wow!!! (1)

DeskLazer (699263) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281049)

what you say WOULD be awesome, but I get the feeling they would create a brand new entity and do the exact same thing after folding the RIAA [bankruptcy, or what-have-you]. these guys are exploiting people because they know all the underhanded sneaky tactics needed. I'm sure NYCL could confirm some of the crazy shit they've pulled over the years.

Re:Wow!!! (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281283)

When people say "the RIAA" they usually mean "the record company in question at the direction of the RIAA." The lawsuits that have been filed have not been filed by the RIAA nor have the checks been written to "the RIAA" - they are filed by the member companies (EMI, Sony, Universal, and Warner being the four biggest) [wikipedia.org] . Thus, there won't be any "close up shop to avoid paying the money back."

Re:Wow!!! (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281741)

And here I thought the following was true:

http://digg.com/tech_news/RIAA_Keeps_Settlement_Money_Artists_May_Sue [digg.com]

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth [boycott-riaa.com]

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/02/riaa_what_settlement_money.html [nymag.com] ...and there are more on this topic. And while it's unquestionably true that these articles are talking about the settlements from fileshare software companies and not settlements from individuals, I see no cause to believe that the money collected is passed on to the labels (or the artists) at all. Do you have any indication that the RIAA actually passes the money they collect on to the labels? You are aware of the RIAA collection web site yes? (https://www.p2plawsuits.com/) People have been known to use that site when paying their settlements. A single point of transaction for all settlements ostensibly run by the RIAA.

I can't claim to have absolute knowledge of the fact, but it would appear that the RIAA does indeed pocket the money taken ostensibly to fund additional litigation and other legal activities.

Re:Wow!!! (1)

ultraexactzz (546422) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281453)

If the RIAA were forced to give all the money they collected BACK, the RIAA would simply close up shop permanently, probably filing some sort of bankruptcy or some such action to prevent their actually having to pay anything back.

This raises a question - do we actually have a tally of the damages so far? That is to say, do we know how much money the RIAA has taken in as a result of settlements, litigation, and shenanigans? Would the loss of these revenues (for lack of a better term) represent a big enough percentage of overall income to push the RIAA toward some reorganization/bankruptcy/bailout?

Re:Wow!!! (1)

david.emery (127135) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281535)

If the RIAA were forced to give all the money they collected BACK, the RIAA would simply close up shop permanently, probably filing some sort of bankruptcy or some such action to prevent their actually having to pay anything back.

The statement by the RIAA that they've lost money on this (see http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/riaa-responds.ars [arstechnica.com] ) means that most of the money has probably moved out of RIAA and into the hands of the lawyers and MediaSentry. One would hope that there would be some grounds to go after not just RIAA, but also their lawyers and MediaSentry, possibly under RICO-like recovery. But IANAL, and maybe a lawyer can comment on if it's possible to recover the $$ from the lawyers if RIAA goes bankrupt.

MST3K Singalong Time! (2, Funny)

snarfies (115214) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280829)

Camaraaaaaaaaaa! Camaraaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Camara is really neat,
Camara the RIAA won't beat,
We've been eating Kiwi, Camara!

Two sides (4, Insightful)

davmoo (63521) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280833)

This case brings me very mixed feelings. On the one hand, the RIAA (and to a lessor extent, the MPAA) needs to have its ass seriously kicked.

But on the other hand, I wish this was a case where the defendant wasn't so obviously guilty of what the RIAA claimed in the first trial. It sucks that this isn't one of the cases where the RIAA went after a senior citizen who doesn't even know hot to turn on a computer. Its a good thing that the RIAA is so evil and stupid, because otherwise I'd find it much harder to root for her side.

Re:Two sides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281045)

How is the defendant obviously guily?!!!

Have you seen the evidence?
Have you seen, GOOD evidence, obtained by LEGAL means?

This has already been to court twice and even the people involved could not agree.
You are taking the RIAA word basically...

Re:Two sides (5, Interesting)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281145)

It sucks that this isn't one of the cases where the RIAA went after a senior citizen who doesn't even know hot to turn on a computer. Its a good thing that the RIAA is so evil and stupid, because otherwise I'd find it much harder to root for her side.

Well that would be kind of dishonest, wouldn't it? Your average file-sharing culprit isn't an innocent old grandpa, but a young adult who downloads movies and music for his/her own use, full well knowing it's illicit. If we're going to defend file sharing, let's be honest and call things for what they are, and not try to embellish the truth or cherry pick facts. The RIAA may resort to reality distortion, but that doesn't mean we should.

Re:Two sides (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281507)

Well that would be kind of dishonest, wouldn't it? Your average file-sharing culprit isn't an innocent old grandpa, but a young adult who downloads movies and music for his/her own use, full well knowing it's illicit. If we're going to defend file sharing, let's be honest and call things for what they are, and not try to embellish the truth or cherry pick facts. The RIAA may resort to reality distortion, but that doesn't mean we should.

I think this is exactly right. Defending the innocent grandma is noble and the RIAA gets egg on their face, but it doesn't change anything other than (potentially) making the RIAA a little more gun shy about making accusations (and even that doesn't seem to be happening). What we really want is to highlight how out of line the RIAA is and to open the debate about how file sharing changes everything. Obviously people aren't going to be scared into not sharing; the cat is, as they say, out of the bag. So, what next?

Re:Two sides (5, Interesting)

wytcld (179112) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281363)

She's "obviously guilty" only if file-sharing is not fair use. And she's "obviously guilty" only if the RIAA truly owns those copyrights. If the copyrights were, in effect, extorted from the artists, falsely filed, then the RIAA is representing an industry who's claim of ownership is fraudulent.

This does not, by the way, under current US law, cheat the artists. You by default own copyright in your creative work, even without filing. Clearing the bogus recording industry copyrights off the federal register would, under our law, enable the true artists to file copyrights to their work in their own names. This would then open the opportunity for the true artists to recovery money properly owed them, from whoever has been commercially distributing their music - whether record companies or commercial online enterprises.

That would be a great boon for musicians. If file sharing is not fair use, but the copyrights properly belong to the creative artists rather than the recording companies, then it would be up to the artists to form a cooperative to claim money from file sharers. However, in this case it may well turn out that (1) file sharers are more willing to pay directly to the artists they love, and (2) artists are more willing to be generous to the fans who love them.

This ends up good all the way around. The file sharers, in defending themselves from the RIAA, can make the greatest gift back to the artists themselves - the true ownership of their own works.

Re:Two sides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281603)

Well, it's important because of the damages. We need somebody to lose so the court can rule that the damages are really something like $1/song, rather than $150,000/song.

dom

Is it Christmas already ? (1)

loutr (626763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280845)

First my country finally shows signs of sanity by rejecting the Hadopi law (by way of the Constitutional Council, which verifies that a law doesn't break the constitutional rules), and then this ? Time to start celebrating :)

Re:Is it Christmas already ? (1)

Haxzaw (1502841) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280963)

Just as long as it isn't April Fools Day again.

Let's pretend they win. Who gets the money? (1)

chemosh6969 (632048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280875)

In class action lawsuits, the lawyers are the ones that get most of the money. A tiny sliver will go to the people that tried to win it back.

Subject Line (0)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280887)

Did anyone else read the story title as Camera Goes On Offense Against the MPAA?

Re:Subject Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281007)

No. Sorry. =(

Re:Subject Line (1)

n30na (1525807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281275)

might as well be *AA anymore.

Re:Subject Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281319)

Did anyone else read the story title as Camera Goes On Offense Against the MPAA?

You may need to clean your eyes/contacts/glasses/monitor or anything else used in sight of a subject line.

It'll never happen (1)

kcredden (1007529) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280945)

Although we can dream, yes? :)

They'll pay off some lawmaker like they're doing still.

- Kc

Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA (2, Interesting)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28280993)

Actually I would like to see Open Source/ Creative Commons type licences covering intellectual and creative works. With a good dash of community pooling of resources to sue any big corporation that infringes the above IP.
The situation we have now of large companies using the law to lock down markets would change. If they they feel they are being controlled and constrained by laws they initiated, the law will change.

Dangerous (5, Insightful)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281017)

This stunt is dangerous. This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.

Remember he could lose and set more case precident in favor of the RIAA. This guy is gambling and the stakes are incredibly high.

I am not amused at this, it's risking everyone rights and the future of fair use, by putting the case in his hands. He has noting to lose in this, he'll get his 15 minutes of fame either way. If he wins, great a blow to intellectual tyranny. If he loses, the law suit lottery flood gates are blown wide open.

Going on the offense against an industry who is backed by both parties, who have pretty much hand picked damn near ever appeals judge out there, sounds like about the dumbest idea since the Sword-Chucks from 8 bit theatre.

I'm not a fan of gambling with people's freedom.

Yeah I said it. Mod me whatever, but this scares the hell out of me... IANALBMWIAPL and she's pretty spooked too.

Re:Dangerous (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281143)

Yeah, we should just cower and hide~

Re:Dangerous (1)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281447)

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win" - Sun Tzu

Re:Dangerous (2, Insightful)

fprintf (82740) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281413)

IANALBMWIAPL

I am not a lawyer but my wife is a paralegal?
I am not a lawyer but my wife is a property lawyer?
I am not a lawyer but my wife is a patent lawyer?
I am not a lawyer but my wife is a ?

Re:Dangerous (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281445)

practicing lesbian...?

Re:Dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281491)

I 100% agree. A while back /. had an article about how Kiwi was representing someone for free after that person got the boot from there old layer. Its great Kiwi is willing to do this for free but this kid lacks major experience. Experience the RIAA bought a lot of with there "war chest" funds. If this fails then the RIAA will then have 1 more legal precedence backing there claim.

Im just hoping it works.

Re:Dangerous (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281529)

A valid point, however anyone had the opportunity to do something like this before and not one person took up the challenge. Not one of those highly experienced lawyers could be bothered or was willing to take the risk; so as he is the first to step up to the plate, he can take the swing.

This stunt is dangerous. (3, Informative)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281675)

This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.

This "Rookie" is teamed up with a Harvard law professor who's called the "Billion Dollar Charlie" [encyclopedia.com] and has a 1998 movie, "A Civil Action [imdb.com] ", about a case of his about a toxic polluter.

Falcon

Kiwi Camara is a race troll (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281075)

In his first year at Harvard, Camara was involved in a racial controversy that would gain attention from the national media. Like many students, Camara posted his course outlines to a popular student-run website. Camara's, however, referred to blacks as nigs. For example, to summarize Shelley v. Kraemer, he wrote "Nigs buy land with no nig covenant; Q: Enforceable?"[7] The notes were prefaced with a disclaimer that they may contain racially offensive shorthand.[7]

Upon discovering the outline, a classmate alerted other students and professors.[7] Camara issued an apology and the outlines were promptly removed, whereupon a third student using the pseudonym "gcrocodile" e-mailed the classmate who discovered the outline expressing disappointment that they were no longer available and an intention to use the word nigger more often.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara [wikipedia.org]

He sounds like trouble in a box!

Even if it fails... (1)

SeeSp0tRun (1270464) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281093)

At the very least, I would hope that it will bring some real media coverage on the whole scandal. Sure, we read about it on /. all the time, but how often do you see it covered at 5PM? That will be the biggest test, because (from what I gather, and correct me if I am wrong) the same lobbyists who pull for the RIAA have a big hand in corporate media.

It would be no surprise to me if the majority would love to see the RIAA burn to the ground, with a crater the size of Texas where they used to stand, and not so much as a memorial dog crap to mark the spot. It is just getting the not-so-computer-savvy to actually give a damn.

It's a great step though.

reality check (1)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281095)

The RIAA can easily drop the one case and hold up the class action suit in court for years. Even if that suit does go in favor of the RIAA's victims they can still appeal and hold it up a few more years. And in the meantime they have plenty of other tools at their disposal: re-education campaigns, new legislation to file lawsuits under, working with ISP monopolies, to name a few. Just sayin'... don't go recycling those tin foil hats yet.

At last ! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281141)

goddammit. this was a long time coming.

I have a stupid question (1)

bitt3n (941736) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281205)

If the RIAA can go after people based on their IP address, why can't law enforcement press charges based on a DNA profile they find at a crime scene? The latter is doubtless more useful as a means of identifying the perpetrator, and that would presumably prevent the statute of limitations from running out. I'm not proposing this would be just, but I don't think that would stop the law from doing it without a court case. Is this something that's done, and I never heard about it?

woo! (1)

n30na (1525807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281255)

Hack the planet! er, wait...

IANAL (4, Funny)

jockeys (753885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281337)

but neither is Jack Thompson!

Sorry, I'd been waiting a while for an excuse to say that in a slightly relevant way.

Here's a thought... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281419)

I know in most cases where class action suits are filed, the attorneys filing and operating the case get a rather sizeable chunk of the take. If/when this class action is filed and won, does Kiwi intend to take from the rich to give to the poor or will he take a sizeable chunk for himself?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?