Slashdot Log In
IFPI Threatens UK Academic For Linking To Article
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jun 18, 2007 04:19 AM
from the we're-gonna-tell-on-you dept.
from the we're-gonna-tell-on-you dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Apparently the RIAA is getting sensitive about counterclaims. When a British blog author linked to a recent article about a defendant's counterclaims for extortion and conspiracy by the RIAA in a Florida case, UMG v. Del Cid, a record company executive who sits on the board of the RIAA's UK counterpart, the IFPI, threatened the author if he did not take his link down."
Related Stories
[+]
News: RIAA Accused of Extortion & Conspiracy 373 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The defendant in a Tampa, Florida, case, UMG v. Del Cid, has filed counterclaims accusing the RIAA record labels of conspiracy and extortion. The counterclaims (pdf) are for Trespass, Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 USC 1030), Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. 501.201), Civil Extortion (CA Penal Code 519 & 523), and Civil Conspiracy involving (a) use of private investigators without license in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 (a)(2)(C); (c) extortion in violation of Ca. Penal Code 519 and 523; and (d) knowingly collecting an unlawful consumer debt, and using abus[ive] means to do so, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a et seq. and Fla. Stat. 559.72 et seq."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Their strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called a "Chilling Effect" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see if they would make a threat...
Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd buy that if they sued grown & guilty people (even if the guilt is about mere sharing).
But they're frequently found suing kids, or people who never sat on a computer and don't know what an mp3 is.
If you look at the chain up in RIAA and the organisations like it, you'll see the people carrying out those actions don't always directly have some well thought and sound long term strategy in mind.
They just want to report that they're doing what "is necessary" to their superiors, and save their jobs for another day. It's like a drowning man who just wants another gulp of air *right now*, never mind looking for ships passing by or reaching the shore or whatever.. That's not as emergent as saving the next minute or so.
As a counterclaim of the popular "they want to scare you by making examples" theory, I want to ask you: do you know people die every single day in car accidents? Do you drive a car? "It'll never happen to me", right?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's the whole point it's the "you don't want to mess with that guy; he's insane" effect. If someone doesn't seem to care if they get hurt or if they hurt random bystanders or whether any offence is real or imagined, then most people will avoid doing anything that might possibly upset them. It doesn't alwa
Re: (Score:2)
So how does a citizen constitute this "messing with the insane guy" activity? By living in USA? The "don't drink at the same bar where RIAA is standing" kinda doesn't work, they'll subpoena the ISP, get the name written
kids have buying power too (Score:2)
Well, kids also have media buying power these days. Just because the law draws a distinction between adult and child, doesn't mean that the business world does the same. In fact, there are lots of other examples proving th
Re:Their strategy (Score:4, Funny)
I do - but now I always wear a seat belt. Same way that when downloading, I make sure I use proxies and encryption
Parent
Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm as much against RIAA tactics as everyone else. Also, I'm against terrorism and every kind of organized violence. But let's call a spade a spade, all right? Everytime someone misuse the word "terrorism", god kills a kitten and the terrorists win.
Parent
Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Funny)
Damn, god's a terrorist.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm... let's see... giving out vague threats that bad things happen to you if you don't comply with his requests, conducts a worldwide network of followers who would religiously do whatever he requests or allegedly requests, kills people (or makes his followers thinks he wants them to kill people) who he deems enemies, promises eternal bliss to those that die in his name and for his cause...
Yup, I'd say you're right.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Requiring worship is the ultimate form of arrogance, and arrogance is clearly a human quality -- certainly god would be above that, right?
Re:Their strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
They didn't say it was "terrorism" just that it is like it. It is you who seems unclear about the definition as you say "People discussing ways to blow things up is not terrorism" but then refer to terrorism as meaning "organised violence".
Clue: At least in its original sense, terrorism doesn't refer to violent behaviour or killing people (that's murder) but threatening to use violence or suggesting that others will cause violence against someone unless that someone does what you want (e.g.: relinquishes their liberty). So, the Bin Laden video tapes are terrorism (incidentally, whether or not they were really by Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda) and the "war on terror" statements of George W. Bush are mostly terrorism, but someone who kills people without issuing a statement before hand is not a terrorist. In fact, for terrorism to be effective, actual killing is best kept to a minimum (although an occasional bit probably helps).
It can also refer to other things as well as violence (so I'd say that the post you criticize wasn't far off the mark). Basically terrorism roughly means an argumentum ad baculum [wikipedia.org] argumentum in terrorem [wikipedia.org] (more commonly known on /. as FUD).
Parent
Re:Their strategy (Score:4, Interesting)
That being, most of your post is nothing but a weakly constructed straw man [wikipedia.org].
I stand by what I said. There is not "original meaning" for terrorism that includes use of minor threats (like lawsuits, ground up misbehaving kids, whatever) to intimidate a person (our group of people) in order to achieve an objective. Check the etymology [etymonline.com] of the world, to understand that terrorism must both be systematic and, as the root of the word implies, terrifying.
Parent
Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the RIAA are doing this systematically and a large number of people would classify it as terrifying then by your definition it is terrorism.
The problem is that you are equating being terrified with physical violence.
Parent
Re:Their strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
We've had a lot more terrorism to deal with than the US. We've had decades more experience...
Parent
Do as they do... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can easily turn around and call them a copyright DENIER.
Re: (Score:2)
People who actually have a good case have no reason to make a lot of fuss. Those who make a lot of noise probably have weak cases, which they probably weaken by the fuss they make about them. e.g. even if they made it to court the judge might dismiss the case on the basis of the plaintiff's behaviour.
They just want to scare you by suing innocent people. They want you to think "if that innocent guy got sued, maybe I am next". It's a bit like terr
Obligatory ... (Score:5, Interesting)
IFPI, the more legal squeeze you put on the people with your ridiculous propaganda and bribed-for legislation, the more will slip through your loopholes
until the day when everyone realises that "intellectual property" thing is itself an excuse that allows you to profit where you should not.
protection money (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Rico can't help, he's busy leading the Roughnecks, don't you know anything?
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
hubcaps are causing hate mail?
How does an article this incomprehensible make the front page?
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm?
Does the size of the hubcaps determine how much hate mail you can get?
*goes outside and removes hubcaps...uses one to supplement tinfoil hat*
The E-mail Exchange (Score:2, Informative)
Interestingly, Birch posted a comment in response to another person's question about creating backups:
Andrew
Thank you for clarifying these are my personal views not those of the IFPI, RIAA, BPI or others.
In response to Mark I actually think there is nothing wrong with making a copy for your own use, in a sense side-loading to an iPod or similar is an extension of that use. Under current copyright legislation there is a need for customers to be allowed that facility but without it giving rise to them then making multiple copies for sale. The very specific instrument that allows the one and not the other is the difficulty in drafting any amendment.
Paul
Revolver Records
So he supports fair-use and time-shifting, but not linking to sites on the web. Yay for stupid opinions!
I may be wrong ... (Score:5, Informative)
But isn't the IFPI the International Federation of Phonographic Industries?
I think the UK equivalent of the RIAA is the The MCPS-PRS Alliance [mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk]?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I may be wrong ... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you siblings for the BPI pointer. I forgot about them.
Meh, I was half right
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. ???
3. Profit.
Now, I don't really claim I understand every move of the mafiaa. More often than not, I do not. But I somehow don't get just how this is in any way beneficial for them. If anything, this information will get spread now. Did you know about that blog before it hit
Now it's on
It's just like every time. Trying to hush something up is the surefire way to spread it on the 'net. Because nothing is interesting before it's supposedly "forbidden" to know it. Because then, you have to learn it NOW before it vanishes.
Re: (Score:2)
A climate of unreasoning fear is beneficial for them. Fear encourages people to settle rather than countersue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The concept of "goverment funding" (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely in terms of editorial integrity at least, it should be case that it would be wholly appropriate - if not actually desirable - to criticise a private company if you are being funded by the government?
Paul Birch of Revolver Records is probably not alone in seeing the government as being simply a tool of corporate influence. This just shows how bad things have got - that people like him now need to make no secret of the fact that they expect governments to work exclusively for commercial interests. I mean, we know that the military industrial complex is now one and the same as democratically elected government in the West, but to flaunt is like this is just staggering I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Is anyone else flabbergasted by the BPI chief's statement that "allowing indiscriminate criticism of the RIAA is inappropriate for a Government funded institution"? Surely in terms of editorial integrity at least, it should be case that it would be wholly appropriate - if not actually desirable - to criticise a private company if you are being funded by the government? Paul Birch of Revolver Records is probably not alone in seeing the government as being simply a tool of corporate influence. This just shows how bad things have got - that people like him now need to make no secret of the fact that they expect governments to work exclusively for commercial interests. I mean, we know that the military industrial complex is now one and the same as democratically elected government in the West, but to flaunt is like this is just staggering I think.
Yes I was totally shocked by it. And offended. And outraged. These are some evil people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In that case, it's wholly appropriate for a government funded institution to be forbidden from indiscriminate criticism of any entity.
The issue is that I don't see how the professor in question exercised indiscriminate criticism, or actually any criticism --
When will they learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the next phase in the war on copyright will be cold callers from india "Hello mr smith, this is PETER from RIAA just calling to let you know you have been selected to not be sued, this special offer comes at just $2000"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But you can't just sack someone for expressing an opinion in Britain. But even in the US, a universtiy is certainly going to protect its employees right to freedom of expression.
Re: (Score:2)
But even in the US, a universtiy is certainly going to protect its employees right to freedom of expression.
Possibly, but I can see why the RIAA/IFPI/et al think that threatening his uni might work and that anyone working for a uni doesn't have a right to speake against corporations (particularly protection rackets).
I seem to recall that universities in the US have run away scared and offered money when threatened by the RIAA and not protected their students and staff (or even helped the RIAA sue them) even the innocent ones. Also, academic research is increasingly run for the benefit of corporations in the
Re:Hardly a threat. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)