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 Defendant Says Kazaa Settlement Bars Case

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the can't-have-it-both-ways dept.

174

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The defendant in Arista v. Greubel has filed an answering statement. The statement says that the RIAA's case against him, since it's based upon his use of Kazaa, is barred by the RIAA's receipt of $115 million from Kazaa. Mr. Greubel also challenged the constitutionality of the RIAA's $750-per-song damages theory, saying damages should be limited to $2.80 per song. See the previous Slashdot discussion of that issue and Judge Trager's decision in UMG v. Lindor."

cancel ×

174 comments

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

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890512)

riaa sucks

Has the RIAA won any court cases (5, Interesting)

ClaraBow (212734) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890534)

against individuals or have all of them been settled out of court? This has been going on for so long that I've lost track!

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (1, Redundant)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890756)

This has been going on for so long that I've lost track!

You ever read 1984? It's like that.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16891012)

Have you ever read 1984? How on earth is this story anything like 1984?

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (5, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891384)

How on earth is this story anything like 1984?

We have always been at war with the RIAA.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (1)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892268)

We have always been at war with the RIAA.

The MPAA have always been our allies. Remember our boys on the SCO Front. Just think about what they have to put up with.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (4, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890832)

They haven't won any actual cases against people, though they have won a number of suits against the companies running the file sharing software.

This is an interesting defense, though I don't think it'll fly. I think the record companies will argue that the settlement against Kazaa was for creating the file sharing software, and not for actually infringing on any copyrights.

I do think that the arbitrary value per song is long over due for a re-evaluation. 750 is nothing more than extortion unless they can prove actual value lost (which they can't) or until they actually force someone to settle for that amount, which they haven't yet.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (4, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890918)

750 is nothing more than extortion unless they can prove actual value lost (which they can't) or until they actually force someone to settle for that amount, which they haven't yet.

No, that's actually the number Congress provided in the statute. It's meant to be an alternative to having to prove actual damages (similar in some respects to, say, workman's comp). In fact, $750 per work is the minimum amount they can ask for; the maximum is $30,000 to $150,000, depending on some facts in the case. Don't think that the $750 figure is them being nice; it's meant to stay away from a jury that might side with the defendant, since if the minimum is what's sought, there's nothing for a jury to decide with regard to damages, or even to need to know about.

As for settlement, that has nothing to do with anything.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (3, Insightful)

Astro Dr Dave (787433) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891176)

No, that's actually the number Congress provided in the statute.

So? It may be the law, but that doesn't make it right. Indeed, the due process defense is interesting, and probably is a better solution to the RIAA lawsuits. In general, a defense based on Kazaa's payment to the recording industry is not a good idea IMO. After all, a paid-off bully has incentive to extort more money from you.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (2, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891250)

A win on either defense would probably put the RIAA litigation juggernaut out of business.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (4, Funny)

default luser (529332) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891434)

A win on either defense would probably put the RIAA litigation juggernaut out of business.

That, or else you might start getting served papers for $2.80 in damages :D

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (3, Funny)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891722)

Cool - send them a twenty and go download some more stuff.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (1)

deathy_epl+ccs (896747) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891792)

at, or else you might start getting served papers for $2.80 in damages :D

Then we'd have a lot more people settling out of court, that's for sure.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891436)

Perhaps it's not right, but that doesn't mean it's violative of due process. I agree, it's an interesting defense. Personally, I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I do wish the proponents of the argument luck. It is better than the Kazaa argument, but more because that is limited to this plaintiff specifically, and wouldn't stop someone totally different winning in the same sort of case in the future.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (5, Insightful)

pdovy (952071) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891676)

"On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered" (from the linked article, statement by Judge Trager)

This to me implies that they don't neccesarily have to stick to the minimum, if they can show that the minimum is ridiculous.

Also - I think it isn't quite fair to say that if you uploaded 1 song to 50 people, and those 50 people upload it to 50 people, that you are responsible for all of those damages. Who is to say that they don't go after the 50 people you uploaded it to, and the 50 people they uploaded it to? If they did in fact, then they would be getting damages way in excess of the money they actually lost. Realistically, I think the defendant should only be responsible for damages *directly* caused by them - that is, their initial downloading of the song and their uploading it to others, if those others go onto share it yet again, they should pay the price, not the original seeder.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891782)

Good thinking. Here [blogspot.com] is an excellent law review article which agrees with you.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (3, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891104)

On the first point, I agree with you. Plus, that kind of argument doesn't fly anywhere else. Generally if more than one group commits an offense of some sort (civil or otherwise) against you, you don't have to pick just one of them to sue.

As far as the second goes: as cpt kangarooski points out, the $750 is what is legislated, not some arbitrary figure the music industry has pulled out of it's rear.

Moreover though, saying they should prove actual value lost is a nonsense and precisely that reason why a figure was legislated in the first place. You don't know how many people downloaded the song. You don't know how many of those people passed it on to others. You do know that the person put the music up for download onto a network where it was effectively available, without control, to millions of anonymous strangers.

As if to make matters worse, putting that music up for download also increased the value overall of an piracy-oriented peer-to-peer system, making it a more practical and attractive alternative to legal music. If someone can expect to be able to use such a system to find an arbitrary song that they would otherwise have to pay for, they're likely to do so.

And we haven't even begun to scratch the surface. Some have argued, for instance, that the 50-70c per song the content producers gets from the iTunes Music Store should be used as the "actual" value (as if putting up a single song to be downloaded 2,000 times works out at 70c of lost revenue.) The fact is though that this is a royalty paid for music that's already crippled using DRM and therefore of already limited utility. Would the industry have negotiated a rate that low if it were higher bitrate unencrypted MP3s that will never need to be complemented with versions on other medias?

The bottom line is that I don't actually think the $750 is quite as extortionate as people claim it is. As a fine for putting someone else's music up for download by potentially millions of anonymous strangers, it's not exactly out of line.

Do I think that it'd be fair for, say, a charge of copying a music CD for a friend to listen to? Absolutely not. But that's not what we're talking about here.

I think both arguments look like bad lawyering to me and I wouldn't be surprised if the defendant gets into more trouble as a result than if they'd just kept their mouths shut and taken a settlement. The legal fees will pile up, and someone will have to pay them.

Umm... (1)

Ahnteis (746045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891272)

That's $750 PER SONG. Share 1(one) CD? $7,500+. That's a hefty fee for putting something on Kazaa. (Compare to fines for reckless driving and the like.) Given the bandwidth most people have it's extremely unlikely that they've uploaded to more then 50 people. (The song itself may be shared more then 50 times, but not by just one person.)

Re:Umm... (4, Interesting)

shark72 (702619) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891456)

"That's $750 PER SONG. Share 1(one) CD? $7,500+."

Good point. I think the "$750 per work" language is a remnant of the old days of piracy, where people tended to pirate entire albums, books, or movies at once. It's from before today's song-by-song piracy.

"That's a hefty fee for putting something on Kazaa. (Compare to fines for reckless driving and the like.)"

Yet if your sharing that song with 10,000 people caused the rightsholders a loss of $750 of business, then it's just. Yeah, yeah, I know, the rightsholder might not need the money and might be a cocaine addict, but rich cocaine addicts have the same rights under the law as we do.

"Given the bandwidth most people have it's extremely unlikely that they've uploaded to more then 50 people. (The song itself may be shared more then 50 times, but not by just one person.)"

You've nailed it. I recall some analysis several years back that through fingerprinting or what have you, they found 16K copies of an Eminem song on a P2P network that all came from the same rip. Power in numbers.

Re:Umm... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892282)

Double counting damages is not exactly legit. The RIAA cannot sue me for illegally distributing a song, claiming I am responsible for "downstream" sharing, and then sue "downstream" sharers as well. Either I am responsible or the downstream user is responsible -- claiming both, at least if the RIAA benefits from it the first time, is called judicial estoppel and is grounds for their argument to be thrown out. The defendant's theory in this case is probably similar.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (4, Insightful)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891382)

Moreover though, saying they should prove actual value lost is a nonsense and precisely that reason why a figure was legislated in the first place. You don't know how many people downloaded the song. You don't know how many of those people passed it on to others. You do know that the person put the music up for download onto a network where it was effectively available, without control, to millions of anonymous strangers.

Inability to prove your claim should not be grounds to relieve you of that burden.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892014)

Inability to prove your claim should not be grounds to relieve you of that burden.

That's what IBM has been saying about SCOX.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (1)

default luser (529332) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891558)

Moreover though, saying they should prove actual value lost is a nonsense and precisely that reason why a figure was legislated in the first place. You don't know how many people downloaded the song. You don't know how many of those people passed it on to others. You do know that the person put the music up for download onto a network where it was effectively available, without control, to millions of anonymous strangers.

Ever been to a library?

They let people TAKE HOME books, CDs and DVDs!

You don't know how many people copied the book / song / movie. You don't know how many of those people passed the copy on to others. The only difference is, at least one link in the chain has to have a library card, but it's not so different: on Kazaa, at least one link in the chain has to buy the CD.

This flat $750 fine per song is bullshit. If you can be prosecuted for assumed damages, you might as well prosecute libraries and their patrons. It's about time somebody challenged this damn law. I'm all for paying for what I enjoy, and I think these people who got caught should pay for their music...but the price is due for renegotiation.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891864)

Library's have different rules applied to them, do a quick search for DMCA & library. The other flaw in your argument is that library's allow you to check out the physical media, not just give you a copy the electronic bytes. The library doesn't generate new copies of the content (though I believe they are legally allowed to do it 3x times), while your computer creates new copies of the content as it "shares". Now if there was only one copy of the file, and it left your computer when you shared it, you'd have a better library argument. You might still have a bit of a problem copyright owners have rights of transmision, but you'd be in a much more defendable position.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (1)

boiert (934539) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892660)

"The library doesn't generate new copies of the content (though I believe they are legally allowed to do it 3x times), while your computer creates new copies of the content as it "shares"."

Your computer must make copies to even play a song (copying the bits from the cd to the sound card).

But IMO consumers should be left out of the whole Intellectual Property discussion/thing, the only ones you should prosecute are those who violate copyright commercially.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16891662)

> The fact is though that this [70 cents] is a royalty paid for music that's
> already crippled using DRM and therefore of already limited utility. Would
> the industry have negotiated a rate that low if it were higher bitrate
> unencrypted MP3s that will never need to be complemented with versions on
> other medias?

Umm, emusic.com sells uncrippled, 160-192kbps MP3s at 30 cents or less per track (that's the price of "booster pack" tracks, regular subscription tracks cost 25 cents or less). And they even give away a free track every day!

Is bandwidth a consideration? (2, Interesting)

Scrithy (919074) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891916)

If the user put up 5000 songs for download for 24 hours, but their personal internet bandwidth could only support actually uploading 50 songs in that time period, shouldn't they only be liable for a maximum of AverageRetailPricePerSong * 50?

Re:Is bandwidth a consideration? (1)

raynet (51803) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892824)

Ah but you forgot that usually P2P programs split the files into small chunks that are then downloaded from multiple servers. So the question is, how much of the file do you need to upload for it to be counted as 1 song?

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891614)

I think the record companies will argue that the settlement against Kazaa was for creating the file sharing software, and not for actually infringing on any copyrights.

But wasn't that their whole argument? That Kazaa thrived off of copyinfringement, not that they had some disdain for networking protocols...

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891648)

The claim against Kazaa was for inducing others to infringe plaintiffs' copyrights.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (2, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891812)

Lawsuits for creating file sharing software... lawsuits for creating encryption programs... lawsuits for creating blogs, a method of saying political leaders are whores... all banned. Hacked by Chinese.

Re:Has the RIAA won any court cases (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891760)

As far as I know, the score as of today in contested cases is 0-0.

The RIAA hasn't won any contested case.

No defendant has won a contested case either.

No contested case of which I am aware has been seen through to conclusion yet.

(By "contested case" I mean a case in which the defendant (a) denies having done what the RIAA claims he or she did, and (b) is fighting back and not defaulting.).

There are probably cases out there that I don't know about. If you hear of any, please let me know.

IANAL (4, Informative)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890542)

IANAL but I don't care. The defendant is right in every single assertion they have made. The RIAA is wrong and should be sued out of existence. /conversation

Re:IANAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890700)

I can't possibly see how a judge couldn't accept an argument like that! *rolls eyes*

Re:IANAL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890986)

I ANAL TOO! LET'S FUCK EACH OTHER IN THE ASS YOU MENTAL MIDGET! MALE ON MALE ANAL SEX IS WHERE IT'S AT HOMIE. I <3 ANAL AND BRILLIANT LEGAL MINDS LIKE YOURSELF. LET'S GET IT ON BIG BOY!

tant Stuff * Please try to keep posts on topic. * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, ortant Stuff * Please try to keep posts on topic. * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or

tant Stuff * Please try to keep posts on topic. * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or

Sued? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892232)

Or just taken out back and shot?

Piracy Tax? (4, Interesting)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890562)

hmm, does this sorta set a precedent for us to use our Zunes to hold pirated music? After all, MS Basicly setteled it premptivly by paying off one of the major labels....

Re:Piracy Tax? (5, Interesting)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890632)

Essentially that is what happened in Canada ...

The Recording industry lobbied the government to introduce a tax on recordable CDs (and MP3 players IIRC) which was then paid out to the recording industry; later the recording industry wanted to sue individuals in Canada for downloading music and it was ruled that people had already paid for the music through this tax.

Re:Piracy Tax? (3, Interesting)

zxnos (813588) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890742)

silly questions but... ...do the artists get an automatic percentage of this tax collected by the music industry in canada?

Piracy Tax for the Zune (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890908)

silly questions but... ...do the artists get an automatic percentage of this tax collected by the music industry in canada?

I don't know about Canadians, but my understanding is that with the Zune situation, the artists get half of the money that Universal gets from Zune sales. I think Universal gets about $1/Zune. So each artist gets a pico-cent from the Zune. Altogether they should end up with a total of 12 pico-cents each.

what's the ratio of Zune-points to pico-cents? (1)

johnpaul191 (240105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892672)

maybe they can eventually buy a song, or a yo-yo or something.

that Canadian media tax was also put on blank CDs and DVDs iirc. oddly i do not think it applied to HDDs, just plastic media and portable MP3 players. didn't the iPod/MP3 player part of that tax get overturned? i thought there was some sort of rebate. i know the same idea has bounced around in parts of Europe too.

Re:Piracy Tax? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890942)

in theory, yes ... in practice, no

administrative costs are excessive
industry collects revenues
system lacks proper accountability and transparency

imho, it's like many other good ideas that have been corrupted by greed

its one redeeming feature, there is less lawyer fodder

Re:Piracy Tax? (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891308)

"silly questions but... ...do the artists get an automatic percentage of this tax collected by the music industry in canada?"

To expand on some other answers: it's split up roughly according to sales, and goes to Canadian artists. Which means that the bulk will go to Celine Dion and her songwriters, but your typical recording artist or songwriter who sold maybe 5K CDs last year won't get anything worthwhile.

Many Canadian music fans use the tax as an moral free pass to pirate as much as they want since their piracy is "paid for." While Canada has many fine recording artists, I'd wager that the content of the typical Canadian's iPod is largely non-Canadian artists, and as covered above, they're not entitled to this money.

If you live in Canada and the tax makes you feel better about torrenting or using allofmp3 to get your music, more power to ya -- just as long as you understand that the artist whose work you're pirating will likely never see any of that tax. They stand a much better chance of making money if you were to actually buy their CD.

Re:Piracy Tax? (1)

Cervantes (612861) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892542)

They stand a much better chance of making money if you were to actually buy their CD.

And that's why I don't buy CDs, but rather go to the shows. Artists make crap off of CDs, and new/indie artists make even less. But if I go to the show, buy a ticket, and maybe buy a CD or TShirt there, the artist ends up getting more money out of that than if I'd bought their entire anthology from The Record Store.

For bands where I can confirm the band runs the website and not the label, I'll buy the music or merchandise off the site, again to ensure the band gets more money. Unfortunately, labels are catching on to this, so they're setting up and running the bands site for them, handling the online shopping, and then collecting their usual cut (or, if you believe some rumours, their usual cut, plus costs for running the site, plus extra 'administrative costs').

I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure the last band I saw got more money from my trip to their concert than they'd gotten from me buying their CDs for the last 10 years.

Re:Piracy Tax? (1)

debrain (29228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892618)

silly questions but... ...do the artists get an automatic percentage of this tax collected by the music industry in canada?

Not a silly question at all. I was one of the official objectors on this court case in federal court a few years back. Their inability to fairly distribute brought the whole regime into question, and for that reason (among others) I argued that it should be scrapped.

Right now it's collected and distributed by an agency called the Canadian Private Copying Collective [www.cpcc.ca] . They base their distribution to each artist baseed on statistics from major commercial radio stations. Of course, this is problematic and anti-competitive because major radio stations have their play list dictated to them by major media conglomerates and monopolies such as ClearChannel [clearchannel.com] , rather than responding to actual consumer demand.

Note, incidentally, that ClearChannel is essentially liquidating its assets, so this argument may no longer fly (at least as definitively), as a means of persuading the CPCC, or anyone else, that this mechanism of estimating fair distribution is anti-competitive. But I digress.

To date, it is my understanding that the CPCC has several hundred million dollars stored from this tax (*cough* "tarriff", per the Federal Court; a tax requires Parliamentary assent, which this did not receive ... even though it is a tax), and they have distributed very little of it. It's a genuinely difficult problem. In my opinion, it's impossible to estimate consumer demand, and I argued that the levy is inappropriate, especially in a case such as this where free market forces exist precisely to determine value. (That's oversimplifying, but that's the gist)

Re:Piracy Tax? (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890858)

"The Recording industry lobbied the government to introduce a tax on recordable CDs (and MP3 players IIRC) which was then paid out to the recording industry; later the recording industry wanted to sue individuals in Canada for downloading music and it was ruled that people had already paid for the music through this tax."

Are you sure that it was the CRIA? I thought it was SOCAN that lobbied for and collects the tax -- but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I know it's an easy shorthand to blame "the recording industry" on anybody who tries to interfere with our free and unfettered sharing of music, but sometimes the artists are the bad guys, too.

Re:Piracy Tax? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890954)

Note that the US also has a "piracy tax" on certain recordable media that is connected to the provisions of law that allow noncommercial individual sharing of recorded copyright-protected audio (but using a computer in the reproduction is explicitly excluded) under the Audio Home Recording Act.

Re:Piracy Tax? (2, Insightful)

FreakerSFX (256894) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891096)

You are wrong - that "tax" does not protect you from music companies. You should check into it before you get sued. They have been much less litigious in Canada but the current government is passing (has passed?) legislation to make it open season on file sharers.

Re:Piracy Tax? (1)

Omega Leader-(P12) (240225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891992)

However based upon the fact that the current government haven't passed anything except the budget I wouldn't bet on it changing.

Everything else is stalled. Everything.

Re:Piracy Tax? (4, Informative)

wrook (134116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891350)

Not entirely true.

The recording industry lobbied the government for a levy (not a tax) on recordable media. The government decides what media is covered and what the amount of money is levied. The money is sent to the recording industry which is supposed to distribute it to the recordning artists (I don't believe that part has actually happened yet).

In exchange for the levy, the copyright act specifies that copying an audio musical performance for personal use is not considered infringement. This is *very* different than saying "It has already been paid for". It has not. Copying for person use is *not* infringement whether or not the must has "been paid for".

The court case in question was an injunction to get certain ISPs to release the names of accounts who had been shown to share files over the internet. In the case, the recording industry failed to show that they represented the copyright holders for those files (they had file names, not contents). And they failed to show that the copying was not for personal use. Further they failed to show that making a file available *to others* on the internet actually infringed copyright (since *they* weren't the ones who were copying it).

So, they failed to show any evidence at all that copyright infringement had occurred. And so the judge did not grant the injunction.

Right now the Canadian government is making ammendments to the copyright act. There are no details on what those ammendments will be. But one can guess. Government officials have been meeting with recording industry lobbiests to consult on the issue. The government even paid hundreds of dollars to take lobbiests out for lunch. So far they have refused to meet with pro-user lobbiests.

Re:Piracy Tax? (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891148)

I'll squirt to that!

The RIAA Has To Sue.... (5, Funny)

8127972 (73495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890596)

..... Or the terrorists win.

Re:The RIAA Has To Sue.... (0, Flamebait)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891098)

Good [slashdot.org] Grief [slashdot.org] !

Find a formula and stick with it eh? Of course if you get a +5 funny again for the same comment I should just shut up and leave you alone about it since obviously I'm the only one bothered by it.

Re:The RIAA Has To Sue.... (1)

Dan Slotman (974474) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891398)

Who cares? No one gets karma from +Funny.

Re:The RIAA Has To Sue.... (1)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891524)

No, really, according Alberto Gonzalez they do [com.com] ! Not really but according to the RIAA/MPAA, file sharing is the same as selling full on bootlegs.

Double dipping is why they can't sue in Canada (3, Informative)

metoc (224422) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890662)

The CRIA (Canada's RIAA, or more correctly the multinational IAA as they represent no Canadian artists, producers or studios) hasn't been suing Canadians because of the tariff on CD already makes us pay for being music pirates (the CRIA/RIAA says so). The CRIA convinced the government to put the tariff in place over a decade ago, and the CRIA knows it will get its hiney kicked if it is tested it in court.

f1rst p0st (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890680)

click here [31337.pl]

Yeah... (3, Interesting)

webheaded (997188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890688)

I'd love to see someone win but there are 2 things here:

First off, who knows if what he is saying will work. If he goes into this he could be wrong and get completely fucked. They will of course offer a settlement, etc etc and everyone will be warm and cozy.

Secondly, if they actually see a threat, they will simply drag it out as long as they can until the defendant runs out of money...at which point they will probably offer another settlement.

He's fucked either way, unless he's rich or something. There is no way for a person to win against the machine.

Re:Yeah... (2)

hangingonwords (581642) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890720)

"There is no way for a person to win against the machine."

and it's that mentality that keeps you from winning. fool.

Re:Yeah... (1)

webheaded (997188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890824)

Oh by all means, I'd try as hard as I could if it were me, but sitting here (not part of the situation), it seems to me that he's proper fucked. Its worth a shot, but I don't think he has a chance. Sad fact of life is that it takes money to win against money and I doubt this guy has it.

Greubel Has Sugar Daddy (3, Interesting)

cmholm (69081) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891394)

It would seem that Mr. Greubel has been given the wherewithall to fight the case by a Vancouver-based music producer [findarticles.com] who is looking to create a proper test case to challenge the RIAA "John Doe" lawsuits.

Re:Yeah... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890834)

There is no way for a person to win against the machine.

Especially with that attitude...

One point: computer geeks and programmers need to get used to the "feces flinging" technique of the lawyers. Write a program with multiple logically inconsistent statements and it will collapse in a screaming heap. Doing that is anathema to most programmers. But when mounting a legal defence (or attack), you're allowed make logically incompatible statements. You just keep flinging feces until something sticks. The fact you're arguing the case should be dismisseddoesn't stop you arguing that the damages awarded should be reduced 100x - EVEN THOUGH it's nonsense to talk of damages because you're arguing the case should be dismissed. Many computer geeks just don't get that. You're not programming a consistent logical system, you're feces-flinging. Remember that, and you can start to win much more often against the lawyer/CxO scum.

Re:Yeah... (4, Insightful)

Rydia (556444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890998)

I like how providing people with multiple arguments about why you are right and allowing them to choose which ones they believe have merit makes someone scum.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892750)

What would you think of a friend who treated you to this example argument from law school?

"In the first place, I never borrowed your car".
"In the second place, the front end was crumpled when I borrowed it".
"And in the third place, I returned it to you in showroom condition".

"Scum" would be one of the milder words you might use.

Re:Yeah... (1)

LordPhantom (763327) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891014)

Uhh....

I don't know what computer programmers you work with, but there aren't many I know who don't understand an "if->elseif->elseif->elseif->else" loop chain.

Re:Yeah... (2, Insightful)

miyako (632510) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891230)

yeah, it's sort of like how you see something in code every once in a while like:
int x=5;
if(x==5)
{
doSomething();
}
else
{
doSomethingElse(); //never should happen
}
It's essentially saying, "the fact is that X, but if all logic fails we'll recover as well as possible instead of just freaking out and dying".

Re:Yeah... (2, Funny)

Plaid Phantom (818438) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892344)

Suddenly all the rhetoric, philosophy, and law that I've read in school is falling into place. It's like a giant Tetris chain.

Re:Yeah... (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891040)

Piffle.

You're just complaining that lawyers make a lot of arguments in the alternative. This is really not different than having conditional statements in computer programming. You're required to make all the arguments you can make up front, partly to be fair to the other side (so they have a chance to respond), to not waste the court's time (courts do not tolerate surprises or sudden changes midway through a suit), and to avoid the danger of suing the defendant again and again over the same thing (which would be an improper use of the judicial system). To be honest, the judicial system loves predictability. If you don't know pretty accurately how a case is going to turn out before you set foot in court, you're either breaking new ground or in real trouble.

In psuedocode, it would be like this:

if plaintiff's prima facie case is insufficient
    then defendant wins
elseif defendant has a valid defense
    then defendant wins
else try to show that damages are very low

A good programmer doesn't wait for a specific likely condition to actually happen before he writes code that can handle it. Why should lawyers have to wait for a condition to actually happen before having prepared for it.

Re:Yeah... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891310)

Write a program with multiple logically inconsistent statements and it will collapse in a screaming heap. But when mounting a legal defence (or attack), you're allowed make logically incompatible statements.


Not really; for the most part, you are allowed to, for instance, argue that one of two (or more) logically inconsistent scenarios is the case and present the arguments for each. It's not really at all analogous to much in programming, because if you right a program you are ordering the computer what to do, and of course you can't order it to do two incompatible things without bad things happening.

When you are making a legal argument you are asking the court to do something, and there is no contradiction in saying, citing proper authority for each contention:
1) You should throw out this claim entirely, because the facts the plaintiff alleges don't justify the kind of action he has brought;
2) If, somehow, you manage to find that such an action is justified by the allegations, you can't allow the punitive damages the plaintiff is seeking, because the kind of action the plaintiff has brought is one that doesn't allow punitive damages; and finally
3) Even if you ignore the fact that the plaintiff isn't allowed to seek punitive damages for this kind of claim, the amoung of punitive damages the plaintiff is seeking exceeds the maximum punitive damages allowed based on its relation to the actual damages claimed.

Or, for an analogy that might make it something that is understandable from a programmer's perspective rather than the foreign art of "feces-flinging" you make it out to be, consider that often enough the lawyers job is something like pointing out why the other sides "program" is wrong. So, you point out the bug that gets hit first, then the bug that would get hit if that one was fixed, and then...

Of course, the difference is that whether or not a legal argument is "correct" is less amenable to unequivocal testing than (most, at least) computer code.

Fascinating Idea, But... (2, Insightful)

smallferret (946526) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890696)

Could someone who actually IS a lawyer respond about the validity of this defense? I read it and say "yeah, that makes sense," but that doesn't mean anything because I don't know all of the ins and outs of litigation.

Re:Fascinating Idea, But... (1)

Ocular Magic (948250) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890736)

The story was submitted by NewYorkCountryLawyer who is a lawyer actively working on these cases. I would say that it's a valid defense if he submitted it for us to read about. Of course, I'm guessing a judge could just flat out say, "That's not a valid defense." and it wouldn't be, but it looks good me, the layman.

Re:Fascinating Idea, But... (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891236)

Mr. Greubel's lawyers are Charles Mudd of Chicago, and John Browning of Dallas. They are two really good litigators. John Browning's the guy who got the excellent order on hard drive inspections in SONY v. Arellanes [riaalawsuits.us] , which I predict will serve as a model for all future RIAA v. Consumer litigations.

I wouldn't bet against these guys.

Re:Fascinating Idea, But... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890740)

Well, the OP is a lawyer, and is particularly involved in such cases. I suspect that he wouldn't have bothered to post it if it was without merit.

Of course, he could be sitting back and thinking, "Oh, he is so going to get his butt kicked by the RIAA," but I doubt it.

but what if he wins? (2, Interesting)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890772)

If his arguments prove to be a successful defense to file sharing on Kazaa, does that mean that all users on Kazaa just got a "get out of jail free" card? (is kazaa even still around?)

Bad complaint (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890860)

ok IANAL but the original complaint seems to be a terrible piece of writing :

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or
consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to
download the Copyrighted Recordings, to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public,
and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others. In doing so,
Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendant's
actions constitute infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.


So they're alleging that they believe something ? Shouldn't their allegation be "Defendant illegally downloaded our stuff" and not "We believe the defendant illegally downloaded our stuff". If I were the judge I'd be included to say "Believe whatever you want, case closed!"

Re:Bad complaint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890900)

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant,
They are informed and believe. Someone told them that you downloaded, and we believe them.

Re:Bad complaint (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891064)

So they're alleging that they believe something ? Shouldn't their allegation be "Defendant illegally downloaded our stuff" and not "We believe the defendant illegally downloaded our stuff".


One initiating a lawsuit is not required to have evidence establishing the truth of every claim before filing a complaint (that's what discovery to develop evidence and trials are for); those things that the plaintiff does in fact believe and will seek to establish as fact, but which the plaintiff cannot state as certain facts, are often qualified in complaints as being stated on "information or belief [law.com] " or some close variation on that phrasing.

It's not bad writing, its domain-specific writing.

If I were the judge I'd be included to say "Believe whatever you want, case closed!"


Its probably a good thing you aren't a judge, then.

Re:Bad complaint (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891260)

I'm not saying they need evidence, I'm saying they need to clearly and succintly explain what the alleged tort is. Instead they claim that they have a belief. I've seen a bunch of complaints and they aren't usually worded like this.

Re:Bad complaint (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891468)

I'm not saying they need evidence, I'm saying they need to clearly and succintly explain what the alleged tort is. Instead they claim that they have a belief. I've seen a bunch of complaints and they aren't usually worded like this.


I've seen a bunch of complaints, and they are a mixed bag, but references to "information and belief" aren't all that uncommon. Here are a few examples from a quick googling:

Raytheon v. John Does 1-21 [netlitigation.com]
Roadrunner v. Network Solutions [patents.com]
US v. Olivia Alaw, et al. [usdoj.gov]
Macromedia v. Adobe Systems [techlawjournal.com]
British Telecom v. Prodigy [techlawjournal.com]

The use of allegations on "information and belief" is very common.

Re:Bad complaint (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891704)

OK - Fair enough ... but it apparently caught the attention of the defendants lawyer in the case who repeatedly says that they are in no position to admit or deny that the plaintiff believes something.

Re:Bad complaint (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891290)

You link deals with affidavits, where you are making sworn statement and wish to qualify something you don't have direct knowledge of. Complaints aren't written that way, a complaint is presented as a set of facts. The defendant can then admit or deny each fact alleged. You then have a trial or other proceeding to sort out the disputed facts (if any) or points of law as appropriate.

Re:Bad complaint (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891510)

You link deals with affidavits, where you are making sworn statement and wish to qualify something you don't have direct knowledge of. Complaints aren't written that way, a complaint is presented as a set of facts.


You clearly didn't read the link:

information and belief
n. a phrase often used in legal pleadings (complaints and answers in a lawsuit), declarations under penalty of perjury, and affidavits under oath, in which the person making the statement or allegation qualifies it. In effect, he/she says: "I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe it." This makes clear about which statements he/she does not have sure-fire, personal knowledge (perhaps it is just hearsay or surmise) and protects the maker of the statement from claims of outright falsehood or perjury. The typical phraseology is: "Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief, alleges that defendant diverted the funds to his own use."


Note that the three examples of places where it is used are:
1) Legal pleadings (complaints and answers),
2) Declarations under penalty of perjury, and
3) Affidavits under oath

Pleadings (including complaints) are the very first thing referred to in the link which you claim only deals with affidavits but not complaints.

Complaints are in fact written that way, as the examples I presented in response to your other response to the same comment demonstrate.

Re:Bad complaint (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891794)

You're right on the link.

It still seems like bad writing in this case as they've qualified their core allegation as a belief. I guess you don't get style points in a lawsuit though.

Re:Bad complaint (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891128)

"Informed and believe" is usually used in conjunction with "allege". The lawyers agree with you that it's a weird formulation, and repeatedly say, "We don't know what you believe, and don't care." I'm not sure why they didn't use the word "allege" there, since they're right: it doesn't matter what they believe or what they know. I don't know what the judge is going to make of it.

Just for the record, they're not accusing the guy of downloading stuff. They're accusing him of uploading stuff.

Re:Bad complaint (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891566)

I agree with you that the complaints are defective.

They're all the same by the way, all 20,000 of them.

So far though 6 out of 6 judges have said that this vague complaint is ok for the first round.

We're still waiting for judge number 7, Judge Karas, in Elektra v. Barker [riaalawsuits.us] .

the RIAA wants to collect twice... (1)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890890)

there's surpsise! i think i might have a heart attack and die because of that surprise.

He stands no chance of winning .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890920)

.... his lawyer's name is mud.

Just an opinion (2, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891008)

because IANAL and other such notices, and either way, if IRCC, Kazaa was sued successfully because they encouraged the illegal downloading and sharing of copyrighted works through the use of their software, rather than being responsible for everyone's use of their software, they were found guilty of encouraging people to use their software for illicit purposes, sort of like a pipe manufacturer encouraging people to get high, rather than simply selling pipes. Its a fine line, but I think this guy might have the same chance of pleading innocence as those who became hooked on cigarettes... IF ... nothing else is given as evidence against him. It is a very thin edge he is on... as far as I can see.

They may be complicit, but I think the judge will still see this guy as having guilt regarding the 'crime' in question.

Re:Just an opinion (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891680)

ts a fine line, but I think this guy might have the same chance of pleading innocence as those who became hooked on cigarettes... IF ... nothing else is given as evidence against him. It is a very thin edge he is on... as far as I can see.

No, there's no fine line. Even if you can prove you did it in good faith, you're still liable (I think it drops from 750$/work to 100$/work, but you'd have to look it up).

Jury trial (1)

Saxophonist (937341) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891118)

I see that the defendant has requested a jury trial, an interesting choice... How likely is some sort of jury nullification, should the case actually go to a jury trial? (Of course, the jury could simply find that the facts support the defendant's case, which is not the same as nullification. How would we know the difference?)

Re:Jury trial (4, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891138)

We don't need jury nullification. The plaintiffs have no case.

Re:Jury trial (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892350)

How likely is some sort of jury nullification, should the case actually go to a jury trial?

juries tend to be middle-aged, middle class, small-c or large-C conservative. people who take the oath seriously and are not looking for an excuse to beg off.

not a particularly benign environment for the defendant.

one last word of practical advice for the Geek: never go into court thinking you are O.J. Simpson.

Terminology (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891288)

Just for the record, the document is called an "answer", not an "answering statement".

The judges are on their side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16891342)

Over the past 25 years or so there has been a concerted effort to pack the bench with right-wing judges. These judges tend to be unsympathetic to the downloaders and very sympathetic to big business. We shouldn't be surprised when outrageous decisions are made.

I wonder if GooTube (1)

netsfr (839855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891858)

will have to pay big $$$ to everyone who owns a copyright (to get out of infrengment) just like Kazza? hummm, should I have someone else post my (c)opyrighted material up on YouTube and get ready for a big dip into the deep googlewallet?

Good idea (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891920)

Glad I thought of it [slashdot.org] . :) But seriously, I'm glad to see somebody pursuing this line of thought. I hope the guy doesn't end up settling, because these are issues of law that really need an answer from the courts.

There's an element of "doing it on principle" here, because if Joe Sixpack is jointly and severally liable with Kazaa for damages, then it means that Kazaa could (at least potentially) sue Joe for his contribution to the damages. It opens a lot of questions, like how much of the settlement Joe is actually responsible for. It's at least possible, though, that Joe would be out the same amount of money to Kazaa that he would be to the content cabal, in which case it's basically a matter of whether you want to mitigate a filesharing network's losses or put additional cash in Cary Sherman's hands.

Re:Good idea (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892042)

On the contrary. Kazaa has no case against him. But he has a case against Kazaa for getting him into this pickle. See discussion by judge in Interscope v. Duty [riaalawsuits.us] at Section C, pages 4-5.

I want to see someone try a "CD tax" defense (1)

Deagol (323173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892110)

I'd love to see a defendant in one of these suits argue that because they had previously bought a spindle of CDs or any media storage device that has the tariff/tax included in the price (that supposedly to compensate for piracy) they should not be held liable for the copyright violations, and *then* counter sue to force the RIAA/MPAA's hands to either give up the tariff or the right to sue for the violations.

Seems these orgs are double-dipping in a *big* way with the current system, and they need to get spanked hard in court for doing so.

So.... any lawyers or other legal eagles out there care to comment on the feasibility of these strategy?

No CD tax in the US (1)

moosehooey (953907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892648)

The US does not have this type of media tax. Canada does, and perhaps that's why these lawsuits aren't a problem there.

I've said it once... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892650)

...and I'll say it again.

If people would STOP pirating music, the MPAA, RIAA, etc, would go away. Sheesh.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?