RIAA Countersued Under Racketeering Laws 893
Negadin writes "According to CNET News, a New Jersey woman, one of the hundreds of people accused of copyright infringement by the Recording Industry Association of America, has countersued the big record labels, charging them with extortion and violations of the federal antiracketeering act." The woman's attornies are arguing that "...by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime."
Probably won't stick (Score:5, Interesting)
Stick it to the Man!
Re:Probably won't stick (Score:5, Insightful)
After writing that, I realized that I can probably agree completely with the plaintiffs in this RICO suit, but I will get called all kinds of names for calling your sorry post an overreaction.
Re:Probably won't stick (Score:5, Informative)
>>it's pretty likely that the p2p users the RIAA
>>chose to sue were actually violating the law.
I wouldn't jump very hard on that limb...
Do you remember the grandmother who thought Kazaa was the name of a clown [mtv.com], or Ross Plank who was accused of downloading Spanish language songs but doesn't speak spanish? [wired.com].
Re:Probably won't stick (Score:5, Funny)
Coming this summer from Random House: John Grisham's The Shithammer
Didn't work against directv (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt this suit will fare much better.
Analogous to Lemelson / Mitsubishi case? (Score:5, Insightful)
Extorsion, coersion, blackmail... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Extorsion, coersion, blackmail... (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA: You really would let me sue you, you sick fuck.
College Kid: You ever hear of casettes? People have been downloading music for decades. The Industry tried to take advantage of people back then, and where are they now?
RIAA: You're looking at them, asshole.
Start a Trend (Score:5, Interesting)
1) The RIAA can't stand up to intense public scrutiny, without shooting themselves (and their industry) in the foot.
2) Being sued by over 1,000 people becomes cost prohibitive very quickly, particularly considering it will be in 100's of different courtrooms spread across America.
I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but I say good for her.
Re:Start a Trend (Score:4, Insightful)
Typo alert (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry to be nitpicky, but I must point out that you put an extra 'g' in the word "sue".
Re:Start a Trend (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Start a Trend (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, it's not as fitting an end to the RIAA as being gunned down by a rival street gang in LA (or arrested by the LAPD), but it's something. I wonder if they're due for an audit...
Racket (Score:5, Funny)
Coincidence???? (Score:5, Funny)
Coincidence? I think not!
A Long Shot? (Score:5, Informative)
Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
(Of course, this will end when the RIAA then settles with the woman herself, paying her to shut up.)
In fact, whether the woman wins or loses, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
In his immortal gangster words... (Score:5, Funny)
*mows down RIAA*
God I love you Pacino....
RIAA getting sued... (Score:4, Interesting)
Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
In contrast, most people do not perceive sharing music as a crime. In fact, it's pretty hard to explain to most people what is wrong with it. Seeing people get sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing a few digital music files is far more likely to evoke a reaction.
I can't predict how the public will react, and I'm especially unsure that people will care enough to do anything about it, but this is quite a different case from those you cited.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Funny)
I think you are in the wrong debate: the Gay Marriage issue is being dealt with over at kuro5hin.org
The difference (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA is suing those whom they think are guilty of file sharing. If you are not guilty, you have the absolute right to demand your day in court.
I'm not trying to absolve the RIAA for their heinous practices, but there is nothing illegal about what they are doing.
Re:The difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Please.
They're saying "Pay this small fine of several thousand dollars, or when we take you to court we'll ensure that you and all of your immediate family are destitute for the next 3 generations"
They're banking (no pun intended) on the fact that most people see that it will cost at least as much as the proposed fine to hire a lawyer and fight, and by fighting there is no guarantee they will win, so they just pay the fine rather than take the risk.
Sounds at least a bit like extortion to me...
Re:The difference (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely right.
The core problem is that the law allows for ridiculously high monetary penalties for violating a copyright. It seems to have been written to deter those who would make millions off bootlegged distribution. But it's being applied to people who violated copyright for no financial gain, and typically they weren't even aware they were sharing files (they only thought they were downloading for themselves).
I mean, imagine that a law was passed to penalize big businesses from dumping garbage in rivers, and it would cost them $100,000 per incident. But since "incident" was so vaguely defined, even dropping a gum wrapper off a canoe would mean you violated the law. So the gov't could sue you for $100,000, but they offer to settle for $3,000. A lawyer would cost you $3,000 anyway, so what the hell do you do? You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I think the best that could come out of this is that the law will be declared unconstitutional on the basis of "penalty doesn't fit the crime" (via cruel/unusual punishment). If the RIAA successfully prosecuted everyone they've contacted for one song each (over 2000 by my count so far?) and got the maximum penalty of $30,000, they would have been awarded $60,000,000 dollars! WTF? Were they really damaged $60,000,000 by the sharing of 2000 songs? Those 2,000 people could have been sharing the same single song to at least 10 people, so even if the RIAA lost $20 worth of missed-album purchases, they'd still be only be $40,000 in the hole. And that's not even considering that the record companies pocket just a percentage of each album's sticker price.
From http://www.arizona.edu/home/p2p-programs.shtml [arizona.edu]
I wish one of our legislators would read this and realize how ridiculous it is:
Re:The difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The difference (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The difference IS HUGE (Score:4, Insightful)
You would not be nearly so smug if they sued you, even by accident. Not only can anything happen in a court room, but you'll spend hundreds to throusands of your own dollars to prove your innocence -- of which you won't get a penny back if you do win.
Next time think of the real situation before you post.
Re:The difference IS HUGE (Score:5, Insightful)
You clearly have no concept how much money it takes to bring a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. It's like having your wallet Slashdotted for years!
She'll lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:She'll lose (Score:5, Informative)
She might not have the cashflow, but if what an earlier poster said about the Racketeering Act covering legal fees is true, that mightn't matter.
I quote the earlier poster:
I'm not so sure that's a good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Do nothing, and seem ineffective at stopping P2P (which they already are, but it's a different thing to give up the PR battle) or
b) Drive every court case home. The evidence is quite clear, the possible damages huge. The courts might award them considerably higher fines than any settlement.
Somehow I think this will push them to b), and I sure wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of the next $97 billion lawsuit... $97 million, billion, trillion, kazillion is kinda irrelevant at that point anyway.
Kjella
Option B could prove very interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Children age 12, Grandmothers, and People without actual computers being sued in court. Wonderfully bad publicity RIAA
2) Sympathetic Jury Nullification. More wonderfully bad publicity for RIAA
3) A Hung Jury or a simple Not Guilty Verdict. Not only bad for RIAA but it sets a track record. This is one of the things they absolutely DO NOT want.
4) A wealthy defendent who hires an Attorney who can go the distance. This would also be very bad for the RIAA.
So yes, if convicted the RIAA may just take cases to court en masse, but they could also become a classic David vs. Goliath story as well.
.
Mobsters (Score:5, Funny)
Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not? The "content" industry has had major mob ties since it arose from the jukebox protection rackets.
BAD PRESS for poor RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
I sincerely hope that we get a good judge on this one. A precedence ruling in favor of the alleged file swappers would be a nice help.
Every RIAA executive weenie's nightmare:
headline "RIAA COMPARED TO MOB, TACTICS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
Her lawyers should do this pro-bono for all the attention they will get from this case.
protection money (Score:5, Funny)
It is a joke. Laff!!
huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
How's that work.....??
899lb Gorilla (Score:4, Interesting)
Happy Trails
Erick
Why aren't there arrests? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why aren't there arrests? (Score:4, Interesting)
If an individual accidentally kills a few people, it's a few counts of manslaughter and considerable jail time. If a corporation does it, it's a lawsuit and some cash.
Re:Why aren't there arrests? (Score:5, Informative)
Like if you open a store which is in your name, and someone falls down in the isle, they can sue and win not only the store, but your own home and personal assets as well.
If you open a store under a corporate name, and someone sues you, they can win, at most, the business. Your person and personal effects are separate from the business.
You may not like it, but the whole purpose of the concept of corporation is to limit liability, as above.
Re:Why aren't there arrests? (Score:5, Interesting)
Barratry (Score:5, Informative)
Make the RIAA pay (Score:5, Insightful)
But unless they win HUGE punitive damages (and the loser actually has the money to pay and doesn't declare bankruptcy) they probably lose money when it comes down to a lawsuit. And that takes a long time and involves a lot of up-front legal expenses, for questionable return.
If enough people start counter-suing the RIAA, or at least going to court instead of settling, then the lawsuits will soon become a huge financial burden on the RIAA, even when they win.
Like DirecTV, or not? (Score:4, Interesting)
This pig doesn't have wings (Score:4, Insightful)
If you lend someone ten bucks, they say they can't pay, you sue them, and you both agree to settle the matter for a fiver there is no extortion.
In fact the courts do everything they can to encourage such a resolution and avoid a trial.
If she felt the RIAA did not have grounds she had the opportunity to have her day in court.
Settling and then demanding your day in court, plus damages, well, that's a wee bit of a stretch, even against the RIAA.
The people who have been hustled by the RIAA "cops" would stand a much better chance with this sort of action.
KFG
Re:This pig doesn't have wings (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case though, they're accusing you of stealing $10, they threaten to sue you sue you for $250,000 and offer to settle for $1000.
If you're innocent, your choices are;
Pay them the $1,000.
Pay a lawyer $10,000 and waste a year of your life fighting the case.
Sure if you're guilty it's a generous offer on their part.
But if you're innocent, it's extortion.
It might be legal extortion, but it's still extortion.
-- this is not a
a classic example of "the laugh test" (Score:5, Interesting)
I liked this part of the article:
"Maalouf's attorneys noted that downloading through Kazaa was openly discussed at Maalouf's daughter's school by teachers, and they downloaded songs used in classes. That should be a protected fair use of the music, the attorneys said."
First, I really wonder if the teacher said "now, put thousands of songs in your Kazaa share directory." They got nailed for apparently sharing lots and lots of copyrighted material with Internet users at large without authorization, not for downloading a song or two at the behest of a teacher.
At any rate, helping yourself to a copy of Photoshop because you need it for a class project isn't "protected fair use" (although, sensibly, Adobe and many other software companies do often take steps for students to legally get software at less than retail cost), and neither is downloading a song. Did the teacher mislead them into thinking that massive music piracy was legal? Fine; sue the teacher. But it's no excuse to break the law.
There are plenty of legitimate ways to fight back against the recording industry (as the main subject of the article is doing), but this defense is just plain silly.
lack of accountability leads to extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
One has to ask two questions. First, if they are willing to settle for such a small amount, why are the fines so high to begin with. Wouldn't it be more efficient to set fines at a appropriate level in the first place? It is very arguable that such high fines were created to allow extortion.
Second, why do they want to settle so badly? It seems like they would want some percentage of the cases to go to court to establish that these people actually violated copyright. As it stands, it would be very reasonable to assert that they are randomly choosing people, and then extorting money from them.
So, with the current tactics, extortion and fear seems to be their game. It is like those old shows where a gang would go into a business and demand protection money. There are legal ways to extort this kind of money, the MPAA and BSA does it. The RIAA does not seem to care about the law.
I really don't understand why the RIAA does not get an independent arbitrator to look at each case, assign a dollar value to the damages, and then send a letter to the alleged violators. Further legal proceedings might occur if the money is not paid, but at least then we would have some confidence that the RIAA is not just harassing innocent people.
Wow, if everyone who gets sued by RIAA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Possible defense? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only would it cost the RIAA a fortune (as well as create logistical impossibilities), but as soon as the children of a few politicians, celebrities, executives, etc, are fingered by the RIAA we would see some fireworks fly.
Dan East
Meanwhile, in Canada... (Score:5, Interesting)
details here:
http://www.canfli.org/index.php?name=PNphp
The RIAA -are- gangsters. (Score:5, Insightful)
Proving that in court? That's somewhat more difficult.
Classic... (Score:5, Funny)
Imbalanced laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they have a special law that lets them come down harder on file sharers than victims of the mob can fight back against mobsters? Do we really need a law that is tougher on copyright violators than the law is allowed to get on Drug Kingpins, Murder for Hire rings, or general Racketeers?
RIAA and morality? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a thought...
(Now the question: offtopic, troll or flamebait. These things are so unpredictable)
Been tried. Didn't work. (Score:5, Informative)
How do I know? DirecTV has been doing the same thing for far, far longer, someone counter-sued them for racketeering, and the suit was dismissed. If I'm not mistaken, it was even discussed here on Slashdot.
Anyway, the alleged activities these people are engaged in are illegal in the U.S. (but not in Canada!) so if it's proven they did them, then it's proven.
Think of the consequences of a racketeering conviction! A company would no longer be able to sue large masses of people who were infringing their intellectual property! Ack, the chaos that would ensue there!
She has a case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:She has a case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:She has a case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:She has a case (Score:5, Informative)
What somethinghallow is referring to is this response [house.gov] to a local newspapers editorial staff.
Here is a little sampling of my favorites for the lazy slashdot reader:
"...what is shocking is that the entertainment industries are now being completely lambasted by the editorial board for what is essentially their home town paper."
The editoral board of a home town paper is supposed to completely support any stance of local industries?
Its actually very difficult to tell what side he is on, because he keeps bringing up opposing views :
The nature of the problem is easy to describe to any consumer who has tried to jump into the digital content fray. A well-meaning consumer buys songs through the Apple iTunes store rather than downloading illegal files from Kazaa. But then, he finds those songs don?t play on his Creative Nomad MuVo digital music player, which he bought for a substantial sum only last year. Another well-meaning consumer finds he cannot sign up for Movielink because he refuses to use Internet Explorer as his browser. Another finds that, in signing up for different digital media services, each attempts to establish a different media player as his default, the result being substantial annoyance and inconvenience when trying to use a service.
But the best quote by far: ... few paragraphs later ... The editorial also characterizes the D.C. Circuit decision as ?a victory for consumer privacy rights.? I think it?s the opposite.
The editorial uses as a jumping off point the recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a case that pitted Verizon against the Recording Industry Association of America.
I always forget that not providing your customer's names away for what has been illegal finding of your customer's ISP is not a "victory for comsumer privacy".../sarcasm
I think this just serves as a reminder to go out and vote this fall.
Re:She has a case (Score:4, Insightful)
They own it, everyone downloading it is pirating it under the law, they have every right to take legal action and they are. This should be no surprise, they are simply using the laws we have allowed to be created. End of story
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Informative)
He said, it is something new and not yet defined, but it is not 'piracy'
I do not think I should have to pay some organazation every time i hear a tune.
I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...
And neither is the fedral judiciary
cheers
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Insightful)
I won't disagree with you but Congress already has. The DMCA, of all laws, changed the definition of "commercial gain" to include "the receipt, or expectation of receipt" of copyrighted material. In other words, Congress specifically made mere trading illegal. People running P2P clients are making infringing material available because they expect to download other infringing material.
burris
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm. "...receipt, or expectation of receipt", eh?
Sounds good to me... just write an article on the issue of the DMCA and copyright law. Duly register it with the Library of Congress, or whoever it is that you need to go to in order to formally register a copyright.
Then mail a copy to each and every member of congress, and each and every high-level executive of the RIAA and MPAA.
Finally, haul them all into court for violating the DMCA, as they are in receipt of your copyrighted work.
If there's a problem here because it's your copyrighted work (i.e., you have permission to distribute copies of it), then perhaps you could make use of some other copyrighted work. It should be a short bit of work to find something that has a registered copyright, but where the actual owner of the copyright can't be located.
If that won't work (say, becuase only the copyright holder can press charges under the DMCA), then perhaps you could use a copyrighted work that was created by someone morally opposed to the DMCA - RMS, for example. Let him know that you're violating his copyright, and point out that under the DMCA, not only you but everyone you sent a copy to can be taken to court and fined up to $150,000 each.
Someone smarter than I will point out exactly why this wouldn't work, I'm sure. But I like the idea of turning the legal system back upon itself, like the worm Ouroboros...
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Informative)
Listening to the above mp3 is great to (1) listen to what a real appellate argument sounds like, and (2) hear real lawyers debate stuff that's important to many /. readers, including file sharing and the meaning of the Sony Betamax decision.
Related links are here [eff.org] and here. [www.elee.cc]
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Insightful)
>> meaning of words in a language?
Judges anywhere can tell lawyers to stop using one term to describe another. If I call a person who was shoplifting a murderer, that can influence the audience, media, and jury, any anyone else involved in a case. I imagine most people see a huge difference between shoplifting and killing, but I'm not alone in seeing a huge difference between piracy and file sharing.
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Informative)
Why are you using past tense? (Score:5, Informative)
But in the east piracy still happens exactly as it happened in the time of sailing ships. Sure the movies may have shown pirate ships with three decks of cannons taking on the british navy but that is fiction. Most pirates used small fast ships wich could out manouver their prey (don't forget that canons of those days were more or less fixed and you needed to move the entire ship to aim) and then board and overwhelm the largely civilian crew.
This is still the way it goes. Pirate ships have gotten smaller but then most civilian ships these days are totally unarmed anyway and their crews have gotten smaller.
Piracy of a different sorts exists in areas where drug running takes place where pleasure yachts(?) are captured and the owners forced to smuggle drugs or simply killed.
For the facts on piracy today search google with "piracy lloyds" (lloyds is a famous insurance company) you will find countless links talking about the costs, the risks and people offering protection. The lloyds bits helps keeping the filesharing "piracy" links down.
So I agree with the judge who might have said that calling filesharing piracy is wrong. Piracy is a current and far different crime.
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Funny)
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Insightful)
So what is it when someone listens to a song on the radio? Does having a copy of the song so you can listen to it when you want make it theft? What if you record it off the radio?
I'm not saying I think file sharing is not theft, I'm just playing "what if".
I was thinking about "piracy" the other day. If I break into your house and take your TV, it is obviously theft because I have obtained the TV without paying for it and you have suffer the loss of your TV. If, however I make a copy of your copyrighted song, I have still gotten something without paying, but you are not out anything except the money you theoretically would have received for my copy.
When I was a kid, I used to make "unauthorized copies" of lots of programs for my Commodore 64 (I don't do that anymore... I mostly use Free Software or buy the few things I can't get as Open Source). Anyway, the software industry was not really deprived of the money they would have gotten from me purchasing all those games because I never could have afforded them anyway.
To put it another way, if you work minimum wage at Burger King and you download $200,000 worth of music, have you really deprived the music industry of $200,000? No. That's why I find the numbers they spread around about the cost of "piracy" to be misleading.
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Informative)
No, its not. Altogether now kiddies - its "copyright infringement"
Re:It IS theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringement is not a FORM of theft.
Calling it theft "therefore" is not even vaguely valid.
Since your premise is faulty your house of cards falls down. Repeating your statement in capital letters does not make your point any more valid than talking slowly does.
Copyright infringement is closer to an "infringement of a prohibition" [against copying and distribution] than it is to theft, stealing, larceny, pilfering or light-fingered-ness.
It's closer to the breaking of an exclusivity contract [and one in which you have no right to negotiate].
Using politically motivated, inflamatory language ["theft"; "piracy"] does not make it any worse an act in reality.
Re:It IS theft (Score:5, Funny)
There is a reason it has its own phrase to describe it. The legal system does not invent phrases to be more descriptive of a particular crime. It tries to be as straight forward as possible.
First degree murder
Second degree murder
Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
Vehicular Manslaughter
Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter
And, my personal favorite:
Intoxicated Manslaughter
I always thought dead was dead, you know? In any case, copyright infringement isn't theft, which I agree with, but our legal system isn't as clear with language as you say it is. They do invent phrases to be more descriptive of a particular crime, usually because it means something specific, such as Capital Murder. You get a harsher sentence if you kill for money than you do if you kill for fun.
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Informative)
It is NOT theft.
Re:She has a case (Score:5, Insightful)
I recommend this [isanet.org] analysis of the fallacies of treating information that way. The RIAA/MPAA and the current USPO maddness are only tips of the iceberg. Think someone else's "ownership" of your DNA and patenting/copyrights on large integer numbers.
Re:She has a case (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about whether you would or wouldn't have purchased a copy if it were cheaper or easier either. The fact is that you have taken something for free, which the owner has asked payment for. Just as a service isn't property, but you are still required to pay for your phone, your cable, your Doctor etc.
The law does not see music as property, just as it doesnt see a service as property, it is somewhere in between. The flaw isn't in the way the RIAA treats music, the flaw is in those who somehow feel right in taking something which they should rightly be required to pay for. It costs a lot of money to produce and promote an album, and those who pay for that are entitled to due payment for you using it.
If you are SERIOUS about supporting artists, and SERIOUS about screwing the RIAA. Go out and support your local unsigned artists by turning up to their gigs and buying their CD's, but dont take something you aren't entitled to just because you think music shouldn't be owned by anyone.
Re:She has a case (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in software. I write software for a living, and I expect to get paid for it. I provide valuable expertise that I use to build (hopefully) a very valuable product.
Yet my work is 'performed' only once (when I code it) and yet is run on a playback device (that others already paid for) over and over again. By your logic, I should only be able to sell one copy of any software that I write.
After all, I'm asking for a 'stream of endless payments' for not doing anything but making copies of what I already have.
That is completely ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that the value of my software is not in it's creation, but in the continuing value it provides. You may open it 1000000 times, and everytime it is likely to prove useful to you (otherwise why would you use it?). When you are buying the software you are really buying the hours and hours of hard work that I put into building it.
It's the same exact thing here. Sure, you can make money on live performances. However, creating copies of performances and providing on demand playback of those performances is EXTREMELY valuable as well. It entertains people, it passes time, it comforts.. recorded music has many functions. When you buy a CD your aren't buying a bucket of bits, but rather you are paying for the hard work and talent that went into producing those copies. You listen to music because it's valuable, but it's value lies not in it's physical qualities but in it's end result.
Artists do not only create art from the need to express themselves. Artists are motivated by many many things, and money is one of them. Many of the greatest painters throughout history worked almost solely on comission after all. You'll find that 'starving artists' starve not because they are true artists but because people do not find their works particularly valuable. The value of art has more to do with it's age and fame of the artist (often not gained until well after death) then the quality of the painting itself.
So I fail to see the problem. It sounds to me like you want a free lunch. You want to enjoy the VALUE provided by this music, without having to give anything in return. I would find it hard to beleive that you would expect someone to cut your hair (something presumably valuable) and yet not pay for it when you leave. Why is a recording different? Just because it's easy to copy it doesn't make it right.
Re:She has a case (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this lawsuit alleges that they are, in fact, doing what they do not have a legal right to do. We shall see. Furthermore, previous tactics (such as mass-suing individuals from one location regardless of where the alleged infringement took place) has already been ruled illegal. Thus, a whole bunch of subpoenas were ruled invalid.
"Yes it is their property, without going into how they got it and if their contracts with musicians are screwing the musicians. Also forgetting that they would rather litigate than release a simple way to pay for the music online without only being able to listen to it once."
Actually, this has RICO and anti-trust implications. If the RIAA, (and thus member companies) are guilty of RICO and anti-trust violations, it may very well not be their intellectual property at all. In any event, it would be highly doubtful that they would be able to continue enforcing their IP rights.
" everyone downloading it is pirating it under the law,"
Really? Pirating? That's rather
"This should be no surprise, they are simply using the laws we have allowed to be created. "
There's a woman in New Jersey who, along with her lawyers, not only believes differently, but is willing to put her 'rear end' on the line to prove it. Should she succeed, or even get a foot in the door, I think you'll see a whole lot more suits like her's. Do you think the RIAA can afford to engage, say 10,000 people, in long, involved lawsuits?
Ah yes, P2P lawsuits - the new face of law.
Re:She has a case (Score:5, Insightful)
To me the issue is the level of penalty; $125,000 per incident (not per song; per each time someone accessed the song).
I think that was meant to dissuade commerical copying, but the RIAA are using it against individuals, and only individuals, some of whom the public would be very sympathetic towards.
A 12-year old kid (to use the now-cliche'd defendant) could easily find themselves facing hundreds of millions in penalties; all the RIAA has to prove is that 10 people shared a copy of one Brittany Spears song on the kid's Kazza folder and it's already $ 1.25 million. Some of the people they're going after probably are looking at a bill of about a half-billion dollars (5000 songs, shared just once each) or 10 times that (each song shared 10 times) or even more.
You can run a war for a day or three on that kind of money. Which citizen has that kind of scratch? Or how about $4.83 Billion? That's Sony Music's annual revenue (2003). Given that I'd be pleased as punch with a 10% profit margin (Sony is bleeding red ink from every aspect of it's operations, not just music), am I supposed to believe that a fine levied against one prolific music sharer can equal the potential net profit of a huge music company? Why print the CDs at all?
I'd just leave the damn masters laying around the studios at night and wait for some sucker to upload 'em to Kazza. Sure beats all that manufacturing and advertising bullshit, and I'm guaranteed a profit? Count me in.
When the punishment does not fit the crime, and the RIAA uses the threat of onerous punishment to elict a quick settlement, it raises some questions that I think should be answered.
If answering them requires a lawsuit, so be it.
And when the punsihment does not fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, one of the ammendments states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The key here being the cruel and unusal punishments. The intent and interpretation of this law is that the punishment must fit the crime. You cannot execut someone for anything less than a murder (and a premeditated one at that) because it wouldn't fit the crime.
Well, as you noted, the statutory punishment for copyright infringment is TOTALLY out of line with the crime. If 20 people download a song worth $1 the makimum you can posibly claim it cost you is $20. Theoretically, if those 20 people intended to spend the money on your song, but elected not to because they got it for free, you would have not gotten $20 in sales. Of course, this is all theoretical. Some of those that downloaded may decide to but the song anyhow, and some may not have been willing to pay regardless of if they could not get it for free.
Regardless, it is quite clear that the statutority damages are totally out of line with the crime. Thus the law is invalid, it is a cruel and unusal punishment and in violation of the constituion.
I see this BS copyright "damages" the same as if they decided to charge people $10,000 for each mile per hour over the speed limit they went for tickets. The crime is just as (if not more) harmeless and thus should be in the same class of punsihment (small fine, not billions of dollars).
Re:She has a case (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room
She may be able to get a criminal act by a violation of the Sherman Antitrust act:m [usdoj.gov]
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div_stats/1638.ht
Section 1959 (18 USC 1959, on the first link) spells out that just racketeering won't do it, you need a criminal act in support of this. Now, a successful argument that the RIAA is an illegal monopoly, would be the criminal act that brings massive awards and possible injunctions, but that is a big hump.
I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice
Re:Mod UP? (Score:5, Informative)
And despite what judges and lawyers will tell you, this is a legal right, which pre-dates the constitution, and was not overrulled by it.
Because of this the govt. is trying to remove the requirement for unanimity on the part of the jury to achieve a conviction. Some people, for some reason, don't think that the government is treating people fairly.
Now that mainly has to do with criminal prosecutions, and this is probably a civil matter, but the same basic principles apply. Juries should attend to the facts, and attend to the laws, and then decide as their ethics requires. Judges are to instruct you in matters of law, and to see that the evidence is presented in a proper manner. Juries are to decide what the verdict should be.
Re:Mod UP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Works every time. Little unnerving though when the judge asks me if in all cases I can follow the law as he describes it to me: my answer is "No. I am a strong proponent of jury nullification."
Dismissed immediately, three times in a row... and it happens to be the truth!
If the jury was always expected to follow the law as the judge describes it we wouldn't need juries. Jury nullification is why we're there, IMHO.
Re:Mod UP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in Fulton County (Georgia, U.S.), the jurors waiting room has brochures everywhere from some legal foundation or another, describing jury nullification. It would be nice if somebody read the damned things.
Re:Mod UP? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, you're right, I don't want to be there... in the end most people with important stuff to do get excused and the juries end up being made solely of little old ladies and public servants.
And I feel guilty/lucky in some way that I have a legitimate way out.
But if I didn't have the out I wouldn't lie or make up some lame excuse like some do.
It's the judge that gets rid of me every time, and the reason is that they don't like jury nullification, even though it's probably the only reason we're there. I say that since the judge could make a better determination of law than a group of little old ladies and bureaucrats. All I do is answer the lawyers' and judge's questions to the best of my knowledge.
Re:Mod UP? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree they sound pleased that they did not have to serve on the jury, but if they are not lying, then not serving on the jury is a decision the JUDGE is making, not the potential juror.
Your statement about "you'd rather not do your civic duty" is totally off base - nothing was said by the parent poster about not wanting to be on the jury(ies), only about their belief in the juries being able to act in a legal manor that is inconvenient to the legal system.
"[A]nd would rather get off without serving." is also without merit. The parent poster did not say they were responding to the judge in that manor to "get off without serving" - notice the part that says " "No, I am a strong proponent of jury nullification"...and it happens to be the truth!"
I find it disturbing that you seem to think 1) that stating the truth about your feelings or beliefs is wrong, 2) lying in court is acceptable, and 3) you have any business passing judgement on others in a public forum.
Jury nullification (Score:5, Interesting)
The prinicple is called "jury nullification." Judges are so scared of the idea of juries deciding for themselves what the law should be that lawyers are forbidden to mention the possibility in their arguments to the jury.
Re:Jury nullification (Score:5, Insightful)
You are mistaking your role as a juror for an aspect of the political branch when really it's an aspect of the administrative (all judicial rulings below the supreme court are considered administrative).
Now the reason for laws is to define which behaviors society wants it's citizens to follow. (I assume you live in a "democracy") it's basically the guidelines that everyone is expected to follow so we can all get along, these are set at diffrent times but they are not changed often because the government is concerned over the avarice [reference.com] of people. (ex. Everyone wants a new tv so tuesday they decide stealing tv's should be legal).
They don't have you in the jury box in order to decide policy, they have you in the jury box to decide whether the accused is guilty of a crime (law says a, accused did a = guilty a,b!=guilty). Emotions get in the way of factual judgements, whether they impact your understanding of what the law says or bias your opinion of what the accused did.
So why are you there? Well first there are twelve of you, this is to hopefully weed out an individual's emotional issues regarding an issue. Second it is so the government can't cover up crimes. Twelve people will have seen what the government is doing and be able to speak out against it.
In conclusion don't take advantage of your role as an administrator to accomplish political goals. History has shown that a society can rush to judgement (60 war/anti-war, 30's America almost went communist,45 America wanted Japan destroyed, ). Democracy's slow march has prevented as many disasters as it has caused. I am a firm believer that almost all information should be available for free. Know your rights, know how to be politically active, and if you have the majority behind you and the government doesn't listen, well there's always the second ammendment.
Re:Jury nullification (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, a judge is much better at deciding maters of fact and law than any juror is.
Re:Jury nullification (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were true it still doesn't invalidate jury nullification. Laws are created for a purpose. But language is imperfect, and legislators don't alway have the foresight to understand all possible situations that may meet the wording of the law. (Just look at some of the DMCA cases.) There are cases where the defendent may have technically violated the wording of the law but not the original intent. People should not be punished because of imperfection in language and lack of foresight.
But even beyond that, juries are there to decide the guilt of a person, not whether they violated a law. Whether a person violated the law is not something that a layperson is very good at. Experts are much better at that. Whether the person deserves to be pushished is what citizen decide.
Re:Mod UP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Still, it is true that a jury can always acquit, even if it believes the defendant factually guilty. There are no legaly sanctioned repercussions for the jurors.
MM
--
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm, wonder if RIAA uses Linux on their servers? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So what does she want them to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for open and shut cases, do you really trust an organization that's suing a list of IP addresses because they can't actually go to the trouble of finding actual defendants? Given that a significant percentage of the last batch of addresses aren't even in the United States (the jurisdiction of the court in which the suits were filed), do we trust their investigative prowess so much as to call the cases open and shut? If you're truly concerned about harm to your business, you do the research. If you can't even be bothered to before you trot your ass down to the courtroom, you look a little less than honest in your plaintive wails of "stop the evil file sharers from starving our artists!"
If you happen to know the plaintiff in the RICO countersuit, and you know she is guilty, then my apologies for my tone. Otherwise, I'll keep an open mind as to who the real extortionist is.
Re:Oh whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
People who focus solely on what is and is not legal (like the RIAA and yourself) are missing the point. Sure what the RIAA is doing is legal. But it is also ludicrous.
By (ab)using the legal system in this fashion, the law must be made ever more stringent, new exceptions and modifications must be introduced and so it grows more complex and (from observation) less flexible.
All that this sort of legalism encourages is
a) pressure by special interest groups to change laws to be more favourable or to leave in place laws that have long past their intended purpose to the detriment of the community at large;
b) business models based more on litigation than real value;
c) an increasingly complex legal structure that becomes less and less a codification of the will of the people and more an artifact to protect those who can best manipulate it.
The law is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. It should be (and again I own to idealism) a means of defining the desires of those who elected the people making those laws.
Take a step back. The law under a democratic system should be a tool for everyone and usable by everyone, and examples like this are making it increasingly apparent it is not.