Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Government The Courts News Your Rights Online

IFPI Threatens UK Academic For Linking To Article 182

Posted by kdawson
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IFPI Threatens UK Academic For Linking To Article

Comments Filter:
  • Obligatory ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by siddesu (698447) on Monday June 18, 2007 @05:39AM (#19548355)
    .... and half seriously ...

    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.
  • So... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Monday June 18, 2007 @05:42AM (#19548383) Homepage Journal
    When do the RICO investigations begin?
  • Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Monday June 18, 2007 @05:43AM (#19548387)
    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 terrorism.

    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?
  • Re:Their strategy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vivaoporto (1064484) on Monday June 18, 2007 @06:43AM (#19548685)

    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".
    I'm not unclear about the definition, and I didn't referred to terrorism as "organized violence". I said "I'm against terrorism and every kind of organized violence" as a disclaimer to dispel any interpretation that I could be endorsing or condoning violence when I mention that "disguised people shooting at soldiers in the battlefield is not terrorism". Notice that anywhere in my post I attempted to define terrorism or attribute a meaning to it. I only mentioned what terrorism is not.

    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.
  • Do as they do... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PontifexPrimus (576159) on Monday June 18, 2007 @07:08AM (#19548817)
    ...and use emotionally charged words. "Piracy" does sound so much better than "copyright infringement" even though it has nothing to do with rape, pillage and plunder on the high seas; so why not call their tactics "terrorism"? All right, it would mean lowering ourselves to their level - but as long as they are allowed to do this with impunity, why shouldn't we?
  • Re:Their strategy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 18, 2007 @07:36AM (#19548995)

    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.

    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 always work but it's a reasonable strategy until the "insane guy" meets another "insane guy" and it turns into a game of Chicken. If you've never encountered this before then you really need to get out more :)
  • Re:Their strategy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 18, 2007 @07:56AM (#19549103)
    For all we know, god couldn't give a damn about worship. I wouldn't be surprised at all upon arriving in heaven to learn that god never wanted or intended that we worship him, or anything else for that matter -- that he simply wanted us to respect each other like the human beings we are.

    Requiring worship is the ultimate form of arrogance, and arrogance is clearly a human quality -- certainly god would be above that, right?

How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?

Working...