RIAA Lawsuits from a John Doe's Perspective 629
An anonymous reader writes "Nick Mamatas was sued by and subsequently settled with the RIAA for file sharing. He wrote a piece for the Village Voice describing his experience, and he goes on to briefly discuss the implications of "John Doe" file-sharing lawsuits. He argues that the labels are using these suits as a source of profit; he also claims that when his lawyer contacted the RIAA to discuss the suit, he was put in touch with a regular staffer, not another lawyer. 'It feels like they're doing a volume business,' Mamatas' lawyer notes."
It's a profit center!! (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringement is against the law, and I have absolutely _no_ sympathy for people who think that because it's just a "little crime" there should be just a "little penalty". That's nothing more than a bunch of handwaving to rationalize the criminal activity in the first place.
Why are these suits wrong, exactly? (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh noooooo! (Score:1, Insightful)
Note I didn't say 'steal'; I want sane argument here, not arguing semantics with slashbots. I'll probably just get modded down instead
So, what's so evil about this that it merits a YRO mention?
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws are to be for the benefit of people. These days, if you are rich and can have a government official elected by generous donations, media exposure, etc., you can get laws passed that might benefit you more than the public...
Re:It's a profit center!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah! Death to all jaywalkers!
clarification, please (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:3, Insightful)
"These days"? Read some history, dammit. It's been this way in the US of A for at least 150 years. Ever hear of Jay Gould? Andrew Carnegie? This ignorant ahistorical whining is getting really annoying.
I don't feel his pain (Score:4, Insightful)
Is he upset that he got sued? That it was filed as a John Doe suit? He admits in the article he broke the law, so I don't think he has the right to complain.
Is he upset that his lawyer (whom he did not pay) did not get to speak to lawyer at the RIAA? Doesn't the RIAA have the right to handle their case the way they want do?
Is he upset they sued a lot of people at the same time as him? If it's illegal, say so and fight it. If the other people aren't guilty, let them complain. Otherwise, it sounds like an acceptable legal tactic to me.
Yes, the RIAA has done some things wrong in handling these cases. Originally, they were requesting information without a filing a suit, but they have changed that. Also, they have sued some innocent people, but the writer admits he is not one of those.
He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and doesn't like it. Well, sorry. If he did not want to be sued and pay up he should have not violated the law. He, like everyone else, must face the consequences of their actions.
I don't like the way the RIAA is reacting to digital music, but that does not give me the right to steal music. If you don't think someone is offering their music fairly, then boycott them. That is a time-honored legal method of protesting.
Calling downloading "civil disobedience" is an insult to those, like the civil rights protesters and the protesters in Tiananmen Square, who have used civil disobedience to try to right the wrongs of society. File sharing is stealing to avoid paying the cost, not civil disobedience--it directly benefits the protester. Civil rights protesters did not directly benefit from their protests. The only thing they got was a change in the laws--the whole point of their protest..
If you steal music, then, as a law breaker, what right do you have to complain about the RIAA?
Given their standards (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I've read of their contracts with artists, the RIAA is probably charging them for the privilege.
When all else fails... sue? (Score:3, Insightful)
Towards the end, SCO's business model was pretty much:
1) Sue
2) Sue
3) ???
4) Profit!
to the point where they listed court cases among their achievements on their corporate website.
The media indstry seems to be slowly heading in this direction. Maybe the demise of the RIAA labels / MPAA studios is imminent?
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone tell me if I am wrong, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess it comes down to, what is the average file sharer's excuse other than "I want it, I want it now and I want it for free?" Most of the file sharing I have seen among other college students isn't obscure stuff, but top 40s type stuff. It's stuff that if you go to buy it online you can find a ton of bargains on. Not only that, but the "poor college student" excuse is bullshit. The most prolific abusers of file sharing I have seen were people that could afford to **buy** most of what they downloaded.
I'm glad that the RIAA has cut down on its lobbying and started doing its job. The RIAA is supposed to protect artists and labels, and that's what they are doing now. New laws don't mean a damn thing unless they are so draconian that enforcement is trivial. These lawsuits are not even in the same league, let alone as some of the laws that people like Fritz Hollings have tried to foist on people.
And you know what's amusing? This is precisely the type of copyright defense that was originally intended in America by our founders. So stop your bitching, you could be arrested by the FBI and sent to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. People like Fritz and Orrin Hatch would love to send file sharers to prison, but the RIAA is happy with a few thousand dollars in civil liabilities which sure beats the fines you would pay in criminal court. In fact, these mass lawsuits are a drop in the bucket compared to what you could face.
Btw, if anyone wants to shop for cheap metal, I have found http:///www.theendrecords.com to have a great online store for distributing popular and obscure stuff. It's even got free shipping in the U.S.
Making it difficult to trade (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't download because I don't want to get sued. But I can't accept copyright as it exists today.
Re:I don't feel his pain (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the will of the people no longer controls the state of laws in our countries. That's why we're upset, and frankly, I think it's a pretty good reason to be.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is this so hard to understand?
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:4, Insightful)
About the bankruptcy law:
"The short answer is fairness," declared Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Fairness would also involve passing laws that drop the maximum interest rate lenders can charge from 23.9% to something under 10%. At a time when the prime interest rate is less than 3% and banks pay less than 1% interest, charging 19-24% interest IS EXTORTION. Besides taking advantage of people during difficult financial times these rates CREATE difficult financial times.
How? Health insurance rates are skyrocketing and so are the co-pays. Have a serious illness or accident and you could end up with a co-pay greater than your annual income. With double digit interest rates you will never be able to crawl out from under that load. The new bankruptcy bill will just force people to walk away from debts. The next thing the Republicans will legislate is Debtor Prisons, where they can farm out the the prisoners as day laborers.
Re:does it matter? dont pay. (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, not everyone HAS property, but it doesn't cost a lot to find out.
Took a number of years, but I finally got my money when he sold his house +10% a year interest. What was funny were the calls 5 or 6 months before I got my money -- him wanting to "settle" with me for a few hundred, then a thousand, then a few thousand, then the original amount... Bah. He never did found out how all his creditors knew he had title on some real property in my state... They got all their money, too... (heh)
Increased profit == Increased royalties? (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, so RIAA is admitting they know exactly which songs each person they are suing has and that they are getting a minimum $750 each for them (via the court proceedings). That's way more than they could ever hope to get through conventional retail sales or download sales: but are any artists seeing any benefit from this?
To me, it sounds like RIAA has just opened-up a new revenue stream and like it so much because they get way more income for less expenditure (ie: no royalties, manufacturing nor distribution costs).
Are there any recording artists reading slashdot? If you get a statement breaking-down your royalties, is anything attributed to P2P litigation?
Re:Shareholder Profit (Score:3, Insightful)
-kaplanfx
kiss these suckers goodbye (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about the insecure wireless router defense (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, except that argument just isn't going to fly in court.
Court: RIAA, what's your evidence that AC infringed on your copyrights?
RIAA: We have his IP address showing he downloaded and shared X songs.
Court: AC, what's you defense?
AC: I don't secure my wireless router. I have no idea who leaches off my internet connection and I don't care.
Do you honestly believe that "I didn't do it, and I don't know who did it" is going to fly? You can't just say "it wasn't me" -- you have to have some evidence that it wasn't you -- and evidence that it potentially wasn't you isn't enough, you need real evidence that it wasn't you, because the RIAA has evidence that it WAS you, and the court isn't going to take your word for it that it wasn't you...
Re:I don't feel his pain (Score:3, Insightful)
Right....
I'm not sure if you noticed, but when you don't reward people for their efforts, they stop trying (see U.S.S.R.)
I'm guessing you should still get paid for whatever you do however?
Buy the CDs! (Score:3, Insightful)
the court ordered her to pay damages of $750 for each of 30 songs she was found to have downloaded illegally, for a total of $22,500.
If you get sued by the RIAA for downloading, why not buy the CDs and claim downloading was a convenient way to rip. Fair use of your CDs means no copyright broken. $600 is a helluva lot cheaper than $22K.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Credit providers are responsible for extending credit to people and should face the risk that the people they extend credit to may default. Bankruptcy isn't fun, one cannot do it regularly.
Furthermore, 50% of all bankruptcies are from people, most of whom HAVE insurance, that are in debt due to medical bills. Most people aren't running up debts willy-nilly to screw the system. This is the sort of thing that bankruptcies are for. Yeah, the credit card companies and others suffer the brunt of this when it happens. That's part of the risks they take for extending credit and charging interest and fees and what-not.
The problem stems from predatory lending practices. How about the credit card companies stop lending money to people who aren't able to manage their debts (like college kids) until they can prove their credit-worthiness?
Finally, the new bill does nothing to restrict corporations from declaring bankruptcy and all the more consumer-friendly amendments were killed by the republicans. How about making it a little more fair for the average Joe? How about making it sting a bit for the corporations as well?
This is a corporate protection bill and you've been suckered... again.
Re:I don't feel his pain (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly whose efforts are the current copyright laws rewarding? Surely not the artists as they are getting screwed most of the time too. The RIAA perhaps? Considering their efforts consist of suing people, screwing artists, and promoting bland, homoginized crap, it might not be a bad thing if we stop rewarding their efforts.
RIAA's actions are legal, Nick Mamatas' were not (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:300 million person march? (Score:1, Insightful)
If it doesn't directly affect each individual person in a large and OBVIOUS way, nobody will give a shit.
Re:The RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:2, Insightful)
What if the Catholic Church had copyrighted the Bible? Suppose we had the draconian "IP" laws of today back in 60 A.D. and the Church decided to only lease copies of the Bible to the chosen? 95 years after the death of the author leaves plenty of time to copyright the New Testament well into the 2nd century. Suppose, like today, copyright extensions kept pushing the date back and lo and behold here in the 20th century only those "worthy" enough to buy the Bible could go to heaven? Would you fully support the right of anyone to control the distribution of the New Testament?
Compare and contrast with scientology, which has taken the copyright route and the problems they make for people who disagree with them. Just imagine, only 80 years or so to go before you can legally dispute their teaching word for word in a public forum!
If you disagree with any of the above actions, it's hard to believe you are actually a hard-line copyright supporter.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't.
I download it instead.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:1, Insightful)
These penalites include fines of up to $1,000,000 and 10 years in prison for repeat offenders who are engaging in this for commercial gain.
Commercial gain requires you to do more than just break copyright law. None of these John Doe cases have involved commercial gain. None.
Re:I don't feel his pain (Score:5, Insightful)
I think musicians should get paid just the way I am paid:
I go to work, I write software for my client, he pays me for it and then I don't give a rat's ass what he does with it afterwards.
Musicians should record their music, get a buyer or group of buyers to pay for it, give it to them and then not give a rat's ass what they does with it afterwards.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no entitlement to other peoples' money as you have said. But when you have no way of staying alive except digging yourself deeper and deeper into debt, and therefore further under the control of the upper class, I would say that it is inhumain of the lenders to charge what they do. If we were all on a level playing field then sure the lenders can ethically do whatever they want. But we aren't on a level playing field, nor have we been since the introduction of society. What lenders are doing is just furthering the class warfare that is occuring and doing it with the inhuman logical of dollars and cents.
Re:It's a profit center!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Forgive me. I'm a lawyer. When I read the article, the "gravy train" alarm went off in the back of my head. I'd wager this is set up on a contingent basis
And all a lawyer would need for this would be a geek to snag the data who was articulate and had appropriate credentials to make a good expert witness (just in case a trial is needed), a small office, a telephone, and a paralegal earning $30 - 50k per year (more or less depending on the market) to handle settlement calls. Personally, I'd set up in a small town, could get rent for $1000, a receptionist for $8/hr, and a paralegal for under $30k. A pure profit machine.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:3, Insightful)
But neither should the general public be allowed to develop the preconception that it's okay to disregard copyright.
I don't condone the outrageous prices the RIAA is putting on music, but I don't feel that entitles people to break the law, and I have no sympathy for the people that have somehow suckered themselves into thinking so.
Re:Not criminal? Wait just a dog-on second... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your lawyer will tell you that need to consider the credibility of your own defense.
He will ask you to think hard before commiting to litigation that stands little chance of success, may drag on for years, and deplete your savings.
try this on for size (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the moment you OWN something, whether it's a house, car, whatever, you become vulnerable to having a lein placed against it. Those leins MUST be settled if you ever sell the item... or you cannot sell it. They can try to attach your wages, but unless you've got a government job, that can be hard to do.
One of my employees ran into this problem when some lowlife did a hit-and-run on her car... no insurance, no nothing. She filed suit against him, went to court, won, and the judge told her "I've seen this same individual in here for paternity suits... he has 9 different children with nine different mothers... you'll never see a dime." He was right.
Bottom line: if you want to live like a gypsy, or be a drifting-from-one-apartment-to-another and living-from-paycheck-to-paycheck individual, you have little to fear from the tort system. However, the moment you try to live the American Dream, you're caught.
Re:Someone tell me if I am wrong, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually IIRC several of the "founders" didn't like the idea of copyright at all and were rather reluctant to codify it. I'd also feel pretty confident in saying they would have made copyright terms *shorter* over time and not longer and would be rather horrified at the corporate-profiteering-tool modern copyright law has become (not to mention the concept of the "corporation" as a "person").
Re:It's a profit center!! (Score:1, Insightful)
So I highly doubt that they are being represented by anyone outside their organization since this is the purpose for which their organization was created. Though they're almost certainly taking a hefty administrative cut of the settlements (which is probably earmarked to pay for some new piece of legislation), there may be some stipulation that some part of the settlements makes its way to the artists (through SoundExchange and other record label creations which ensure that small artists will never see anything.)
Right on! (Score:3, Insightful)
I was just saying elsewhere in this thread: the arts and sciences don't need "promoting" as per the justification for copyright: they just need allowance to exist. Artists and scientists will do what they do because they love to do it, so long as they can afford to do it and are not too busy just making ends meet. If you want to "promote the arts and sciences", find some way to give the average populace time and wealth enough for their hobbies. Allow the products of those hobbies to be shared freely and we will all reap the benefits.
Looking Deeper (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking deeper into this article, I cannot believe Mamatas has not looked more carefully into his rights and copyrights. He basically takes and supports the RIAA and the news media's standard position: that file sharing is "stealing".
This article needs to be put into the perspective of actual copyright law. I will attempt this below.
Re:I don't feel his pain (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems reasonable.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but when you don't reward people for their efforts, they stop trying (see U.S.S.R.)
That's just a practical concern. You're saying that if people can copy music for free that there will not be any new music created.
So it sounds to me like a compromise is in order: don't copy music for free just long enough to provide enough of a motivation to get it created, then copy it for free.
And as it happens, that is precisely what copyright is intended to do -- to let people copy works for free, and also to ensure that a lot of works are created so that there's more to copy for free than there otherwise would be.
Re:Shareholder Profit (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a mighty interesting point. Any sales of CD's etc, they have to give a small percentage to the artists. But I'll bet the artists don't get a single cent form a lawsuit brought on their behalf to recoup their losses. An interesting back door for the companies to keep all of the money for themselves and give nothing to the artists who they're supposedly doing this for?
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:3, Insightful)
I really dont see what the big deal is there, it's not like they have actually used mickey in a cartoon or movie within the last 30 or 40 years. He is nothing more than a corporate logo these days.
As long as there is no corporate respect for public domain, I shall have no respect for corporate copyrights.
Re:I don't feel his pain (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not entirely accurate. More and more stars are commanding royalty deals in Hollywood. For example, a sweetheart royalty deal on the Matrix sequels is what made Keanu Reaves the richest actor in Hollywood.
Not to nitpick, but just wanted to point out that "royalties" are not unique to the music industry. Literature publishing works that way almost exclusively, and it is becoming more and more pervasive in Hollywood, too.