RIAA Subpoenas Neighbor's Son, Calls His Employer 593
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "To those who might think that I might be exaggerating when I describe the RIAA's litigation campaign as a 'reign of terror', how's this one: in UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA not only subpoenaed the computer of Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away, but had their lawyer telephone the son's employer. See page 2, footnote 1." From Ray's comments: "You have a multi-billion dollar cartel suing unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids, all kinds of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations. And due to the adversary system of justice the RIAA will be successful in rewriting copyright law, if the world at large, and the technological community in particular, don't fight back and help these people fighting these fights."
How low can they go? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's worse is that it's not even the accused, it's the accused's son.
Or rather, how much can they get away with... (Score:5, Insightful)
...before it becomes actionable defamation? Surely they've already crossed the boundary and this guy has grounds to sue for slander, right?
Re:What to do about it? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How low can they go? (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA should fire their lawyers post haste. Seriously. While IANAL, it sounds like this guy easily has a defamation of character suit against the RIAA. What's more is that he doesn't need any serious resources to fight it. All he has to do is go find himself an ambulance chaser who will take the case on contingency since it's a deep pockets lawsuit that he's likely to win. Pain and suffering, loss of income or potential income...kaching!
The hyperbole has gone nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
Low act. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the guy were working for me... (Score:3, Insightful)
-b.
Re:What to do about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go to concerts and enjoy live performances but DO NOT BY RECORDINGS IN STORES OR ONLINE!
If most people took this approach, it would bring the recording industry to its knees or at least drive prices into the ground where they should be.
Re:Is it unusual (Score:5, Insightful)
Not for nothing, but it appears that the son was deliberately avoiding receiving the subpoena (good for him, every attempt at re-delivery is costing the plaintiffs cold, hard cash) -- and if he does this at home, he should expect and deal with the consequences (the subpoena being served to him at work).
The plaintiff's lawyers decided to play tit-for-tat and ask his employer about the possibility of the son's work computer having material potentially relevant to the case.
The lesson is, if you want to play hardball with the MPAA, then you'd better bring your bat, glove, and catcher's mask.
The Objective: Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Much like a dog that has been beaten for no reason, consumers then get into a frame of mind where they will go to entertainment corps first and follow crazy usage rules in order to avoid getting criminalized.
In exchange, then entertainment mega-corps content consumption will appear cheaper.
I'm liking vhs/dvd's much more now than ever. (until I can build a silent mythtv box anyway)
Re:What to do about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What to do about it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Home Health Care Aide (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Litvinenko blamed the Russians as he lay dying in hospital. Doesn't make him any more alive now, does it?
-b.
Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop committing copyright infringement maybe?
Ain't gonna happen. Copyright law has become so ridiculously restrictive that it has become nearly impossible not to infringe. The majority of people just don't care about it anymore.
Re:Is it unusual (Score:3, Insightful)
And given the circumstances, it's not even outrageous -- assuming that the plaintiff's assertions that repeated attempts to deliver the subpoena at the son's stated address failed. If you read the footnotes you linked to, there's some pretty dodgy stuff there about avoiding the subpoena. If true, the plaintiff was fully justified.
Making the summary sound like they contacted the employer out of the blue is sensationalist, misleading, dishonest, and, in fact, outrageous.
Note that I completely disagree with the RIAA's tactics in re: intimidation of targeted suspects. However, your yellow journalism just increases the amount of people who also believe that plenty of people who are against the RIAA are no better then them. FUD, etc.
Re:What to do about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ban trade association enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple solution would be to ban trade association enforcement. In one swoop that would take out the BSA, RIAA and MPAA. Make the parent companies be the litigants. If Sony starts suing people for file sharing consumers might well start avoiding all their products at the store.
Make the companies behind these tactics be front and center in any adverse actions and you'll see lawsuits against all but the worst offenders, the ones very few of us feel sorry for, dry up almost overnight.
Stop sharing music illegally (Score:5, Insightful)
While their tactics can be extreme it's not like they're going through a phone book and randomly suing people. They find an IP that's illegally sharing files of content that is copyright by the RIAA and then contact the ISP to get the information of the person that is responsible for the account the IP was assigned to at the time the offense was committed.
It doesn't matter what your socioeconomic status is. If you break the law, you broke the law and are subject to punishment. I don't think anyone doesn't understand that if you have something you were supposed to pay for but took it without permission and without paying, you broke the law.
Game companies do the same thing. It doesn't matter what electonic media you're peddling illegally. It's all warez; music, movies, games etc. And the companies that are victims of the crime are fighting back.
It's rediculous to try to paint the people committing the crime as the victim just because they're everyday people. There's nothing nobel about taking things you have no right to have.
Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, which works perfectly assuming also that everyone the RIAA brings a suit against actually committed copyright infringement (*fixed that for ya). However the GP's question was how to support the people who aren't necessarily guilty, and/or being absolutely wiped out financially by the RIAA. One of the points that is usually contested is that the fine per infringement is rediculously high ($750 per song) and that level of damage doesn't even have to be demonstrated by the RIAA, they just need to prove there was infringement, whether one copy or 100. Adiitionally their tactics are very underhanded, to the point of almost being outright extortion. They have demonstrated in many cases thus far - sorry don't have time to go compile all the links - that they will use legal stalls to drag out the suits and make it more expensive for the defendent, as well as in a couple cases dropping the charges when it looks like they will lose, usually in such a way that the defendent cannot make a motion to recoup lawyers fees. THAT is what we're looking for solutions for. The fact is that the cost to defend oneself even when you are 100% innocent is so high that for a lot of people it's cheaper and easier to fold and pay the settlement money to the RIAA. That's not justice, that's scamming the system and taking advantage of people to prevent them from even having a chance to defend themselves. And even if they ARE guilty of the infringement, going to court might give them the chance to have the fines imposed be more reasonable than the proposed settlement value. Justice is not being served by people being extorted with the choice of admit full guilt and pay $X now, or suffer the financially crushing wrath of our multi-million dollaar legal team who can and will bleed you dry to make a point if nothing else.
I welcome your response to this but please at least identify yourself as the parent AC for clarity and continuity if you respond.
Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with... (Score:5, Insightful)
How's he going to beat the RIAA in court for that when they've already got billions of dollars worth of lawyers aimed at his family?
Those billions of dollars of lawyers cost money. If I was sued by RIAA I'd go pro-say and drag it out for as long as humanly possible. I'd file motion after motion that they'd have to answer (while paying hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour for that legal help) and tie it up for years. I'd drag out any depositions that they requested for hours and hours. You think it can't be done? I've known people that turned "What is your name and occupation?" into a four page long answer about how that question reminds them of their favorite childhood pet.
And counter suits? I'd counter sue them for everything from harassment to loss of consortium (my wife is stressed out by the suit they filed) to PTSD. Every thing that I file or every question that I answer with a non-answer costs them hundreds or thousands of dollars..
And in the end, if they won? That's what bankruptcy is for.
Yeah, I know, it doesn't have the glamour of fighting the good fight. But if just half of the people sued by RIAA adopted these tactics of filibustering and delay it would cost them a fortune and grind the court system to a screeching halt. It costs you nothing but grief and sweat equity. In the end they lose money.
Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA called his employer. This alone is a call for concern (no pun intended)...seriously, defaming someone to their employer? For fucks sake.
If they settle out of court, they are down thousands of dollars. If they don't, fight the case and lose, they are down thousands of dollars. If they do, fight the case and win, they still have legal fees to pay.
Maybe this is not Nazi Germany style terror, or Soviet Union style terror, but to these families right now they are shit fucking scared of how their future, not only their financial future but also their career, (thanks to the lawyers calling someone's employer...seriously, that's disgusting) is going to pan out. To them, this is terror. Any legal action from a large corporation against a normal family is largely going to make you 1) shit scared 2) fucked up financially for a loong while.
And this is speaking as someone who defends the RIAA (not the lawsuits, understand) all the time...this is scumbag behaviour.
Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stop sharing music illegally (Score:3, Insightful)
All of which would be a reasonable argument, if the RIAA were only going after people who were genuinely breaking the law. But, as NYCL and others have pointed out on several occasions, they're not.
Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What to do about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or are they unimportant in your eyes?
You know, people who espouse the kind of tactics you're condoning make me furious. Why do people like you just seem to assume that the artist deserves all the money? Has it ever occurred to you that your very starting premise is flawed? Why should the spoiled, whiny, drug-addicted, self-centered, egotistical singer get all the money for showing up (late) at the studio, singing a few songs that someone else wrote for them, then going off, getting drunk, and partying while the real work begins, making the album? I'd love to hear an answer from one of you "all-the-money-to-the-artist" types.
All you would have to say is "See you in court" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What to do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's what needs to be done: stop listening to music. Completely. Don't listen to corporate music. Or indie music. Or local bands. Don't go to concerts. Don't listen to the radio. Don't own a radio. Don't buy music. Don't download music, legally or illegally. Don't trade it. Don't have any CDs or tapes or LPs or 8-tracks. Get rid of it all.
The reason the recording industry seems to have so many people in their clutches is that so many people have made music a part of their lifestyle. Remove music -- ALL music -- from your life, totally. Change your lifestyle.
That will hurt them the most, and they will have no power over you.
But so few are willing to do that. You've been trained to think your every action, your every waking moment, needs a soundtrack. It doesn't.
Let the RIAA control music all they want. Every lyric, every note, every recordable sound. So what? You don't need any of it. They can control all the music, but it only has value if someone else wants it. Stop wanting it.
Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps (Score:3, Insightful)
What about breakages? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with... (Score:3, Insightful)
That wouldn't be a bad idea for someone who's retired, but what about those of us who have to earn a living? The time you'd spend in court is time you're not at work. Not only can most people not afford lawyers to go up against the Media Mafia, they probably can't afford the time off from work to aggressively pursue the matter themselves, which means they're even more frakked than you might at first imagine.
Yes it is (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't listen to reason, they listen to money. Denying them money is like denying fuel to fire.
Re:What to do about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can only minimize it.
Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court" (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong.
The RIAA doesn't hire lawyers, they are lawyers: the RIAA is effectively a specialized law firm engaged to pursue copyright infringers full-time. They can not be deterred financially, having hundreds of millions available from the record companies. Their sole purpose in life is to harass a few people to the point that everyone else becomes too scared to download. They don't really care whether they win or not.
Re:Yes it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh? Has he lost his job? What if the claims of the RIAA are true? What if the son used his comapny's property to infringe on copyright, thereby exposing them to liability? Defamation might not be so easy to prove.
Oh? Everything == lost income for, say, 40 years? Hardly adds up to billions. And you think it'd be easy to find pro bono representation in a case like this?
Do you have a transcript of the conversations? Or even what was discussed, other than what was in those footnotes? Did the RIAA tell the employer that an employee of theirs was a criminal? Or did they say that they were trying to serve him with a subpoena in relation to a pending action? Or did they say that they may have evidence to suggest that there was illegal activity occurring on one of their computers? Who knows. And a defamation judgment is very difficult to prove here in the US.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but his case is not nearly so clean-cut as you seem to think -- particularly since truth is an affirmative defense to defamation (libel|slander) claims. In his case (since he's in the US) the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that the claims are untrue... might be difficult since he would need to supply the very things that he was so desperately trying to hide from the RIAA.
Re:Yes it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court" (Score:3, Insightful)
See, you are very wrong there.
Lets try the "whats more likely" approach and see what happens, shall we ?
Ok, what is more likely ?
1) RIAA will just give up chasing people around
or
2) RIAA will lobby in congress and supreme court and have some new law/precedent stopping people from doing this kind of stunt ?
Not sure about you, but for me, #2 seems MUCH more likely.
Re:Terrorists. They're all terrorists... ;) (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the first three of those really do freak the money-grubbing power elite right out. The most threatening thing you can do to the current social order is nothing. That's right, nothing. Sit on your ass. Don't produce. Don't consume. Do nothing.
Of course it's actually very hard to survive that way - if you do, you will certainly be supported by someone supporting the current system. So here is an alternative method for dodging the system. Warning: It may involve dramatic changes in lifestyle.
First of all, you need to get your hands on some land somewhere and some suitable housing. For something like $20,000 you can get a shipping container and a kit that makes it into a home, some assembly required. This will be a home requiring very little maintenance as it will be wrapped in steel which is highly durable. It can stand up to high winds and in an earthquake it will remain intact and whole. For about $15,000 you can build a straw bale structure with a traditional roof. For about $10,000 you can build a cob home, but it will require endless maintenance so I wouldn't go that route. You can get a geodesic dome for anywhere from $1,000 to $50,000 (and up) depending on material and features.
Your land should ideally have some water supply, some means of generating alternative power (you don't need much) and a southern exposure. Everything else is a nicety. Anything you don't have you will have to pay for, so you will have to continue working, so you will have to continue contributing to the system.
You'll be growing crops :)
But seriously, it is possible for us all to dramatically decrease our consumption. I realize consumption is fun and I do plenty of it, but we're simply fueling the same power structure that we claim to dislike so much.
In the lower end, you can make a difference based simply on where you spend your money. Always do your best to give it to the least evil company, even if it costs you more. In a capitalist society, where you spend your money has more of an impact on society than anything else.
But if you want to bring the system crashing down, we're all going to have to consume a lot less.
Re:What to do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, the **AA's are evil (TM) money grubbing businesses, and pretty much everyone I know acknowledges that. There's no need to be a liberal to understand that.
I get the impression you think that the political left in this country is responsible for the DMCA and the abuses of the common man that have arisen since then. The DMCA was passed in a Republican-dominated congress by unanimous vote, and signed into law by President Clinton, arguably the best Republican (ahem) president this country has had in decades. You did read the bit about unanimous?
Most of your senators and representatives, Democrat and Republican, are bought and paid for by corporate special interests. Those corporate special interests want to keep their income steady and have made sure that laws intended to prevent the internet from threatening those income streams has been quickly passed.
This is not a left/right issue. This is a corporation/rest of us issue. The fact that you think it's a left/right issue just means that you're believing the corporatist propaganda. Good luck getting any straight information from talk radio. They're far too distracted unraveling nonexistent conspiracies to actually inform anyone. But good luck anyway.
Regards,
Ross
Re:What to do about it? (Score:1, Insightful)