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."
The RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The RIAA (Score:2, Funny)
I never realised that a business association of music monopolists who get custom laws written and sue people had so much in common with a bunch of white middle class nerds who troll slashdot pretending to be gay black guys. Well, you learn something new every day.
Re:The RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
" The RIAA is to America what GNAA is to Slashdot"
Not really, the GNAA trolls are sometimes creative and entertaining.
Volume business? (Score:5, Funny)
Just think, if the lawsuits decrease, record execs will suddenly whine, "OH WE ARE STARVING, WE SUED EVERYBODY! HELP US ORRIN!"
Shareholder Profit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Shareholder Profit (Score:3, Insightful)
-kaplanfx
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:Shareholder Profit (Score:4, Interesting)
Your local RIAA Office here to Serv You! (Score:4, Funny)
We are also accepting unsolicited settlements. If you feel guilty about steeling from the table of our hard working label execs just drop by and we'll settle everything.
Re:Your local RIAA Office here to Serv You! (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe they can set up drive-thrus.
Instead of a Jack-In-The-Box clown, we can have giant, glowing plastic heads of Ashlee Simpson, 50 Cent or Shania Twain.
Ha! That's silly of me!
People don't even download Ashlee Simpson songs for free.
I wonder if a giant, glowing head of Ted Nugent is a sign of the End Times. You could pay your fine and buy some ammo at the same time.
It's a profit center!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a profit center!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's a profit center!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's a profit center!! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's a profit center!! (Score:3, Interesting)
lawyers fees are profit in that scenario, profit for the lawyers. they're running a nice little operation that doesn't need any major effort from them(just hire a helper to answer the phone as seen, have a printer printing out the complaints and off you go - practically printing money for your law-firm once you get the rights from riaa to start doing it).
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.
Don't be so cheap!! (Score:4, Funny)
With this kind of profit, set up in a nice $5k office, pay $20/hr to the girl in the front desk, make the paralegals beg to work for you by paying them $60k-$100k. You'd still be making tons of money and everyone in the office would be happy...
Lawsuits for profit! (Score:5, Funny)
-----
I'll file this under "duh".
It's like tort (Score:5, Funny)
So will society let this one spin horribly out of control until it is a vast, pathetic cataclysm of Brobdingian proportions, that makes strong men weep, strong women faint and baby Jesus cry?
Of course we will. The question was rhetorical.
Re:It's like tort (Score:4, Informative)
Re:300 million person march? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:2)
Just one... where the person facing fines wasn't committing copyright infringement in the first place.
Otherwise you're just grasping at straws.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:3, Informative)
WHy do you think the RIAA targets grandmothers and little girls? Because they know that THEY won't fight it in court - they CAN'T. The RIAA will never sue someone who will likely make them look stupid in court.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:It doesn't matter .... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 doesn't matter .... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bankrup
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: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.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:2)
I respect copyright law not only because it _is_ the law, but because I respect the reasons for it.
I'm entitled to my opinion... and as it just so happens, in this case, the law happens to coincide with my opinion.
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:It doesn't matter .... (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:4, Informative)
In 1886, Victor Hugo, who was tired of having his works protected only in one country at a time, called for and received an agreement by the nations of Europe to recognize copyright across borders: behold, the Berne Convention. AFAIK this implemented the idea of automatic copyright with the duration of at least the author's life plus fifty years.
Go read the Wikipedia articles on this stuff. At some point, WIPO was created, with huge financial backing. I think we all know what that means.
Anyway, my real point is that there are three groups to consider in this tug-of-war:
- the artists, who believe strongly in preserving the integrity of their works;
- the publishers/labels/companies, whose goal (ostensibly) it is to accelerate the spread of culture and support this venture by making a profit; and
- the free culturists, who wish to promote culture by making it as available as possible, in theory accelerating the creation of new culture.
Basically, most of us are in the third group, and no one with our views was ever party to the Berne Convention or any derivative agreements (perhaps until recently?). Since our point of view has never agreed to anything we negotiated concerning this, we do not implicly respect the agreements. I think I speak for us when I say that we believe that the original Berne Convention never considered the abuses capable of the multi-national corporation, and therefore that the life+50 minimum was a bad idea. I personally think that life+10 sounds like something that could be reasonable to all parties, but I would like to add that I think that royalties should only be collectable by the estate(s) of the original author(s).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: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:It doesn't matter .... (Score:3, Insightful)
actually technically (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly copyright enfringment is not theft. Do not equate the two, to do so is in error.
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter .... (Score:2)
I have no sympathy for people who disprect the copyright holder's wishes by copying a copyrighted work without permission (fair and personal use copies notwithstanding, which I support and advocate with equal, if not actually more fervor).
Now they're suing the bassist of X? (Score:2)
No, seriously, when will it end? I'd like to know.
By the way, bassist/co-songwriter/co-singer.
Proof? (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, why aren't people going to court over these lawsuits? I don't see why you would even need a lawyer. Just go to court and say "I didn't do anything illegal. Show me proof beyond a reasonable doubt that I did."
I mean, other than a record company CLAIMING that someone at some IP address was sharing certain songs, what proof is there? If something goes missing from my garage, I can't just point a finger at a neighbor and tell the judge "no, I KNOW he took it - I saw it!". You have to have more proof than that. Something unbiased and irrefutable, preferably from an independant party.
Short of confiscating your computer, finding an installed P2P application ACTUALLY RUNNING AT THE TIME, with a configured shared directory full of copyrighted songs that you are not legally licensed to distribute and your software is actively serving them to active downloaders at the time that it is being viewed by a judge - what proof is there?
Re:Proof? (Score:5, Informative)
Which basically means, if the judge and/or jury thinks it's more likely you committed the tort than not, they can force you to pay damages.
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.
Re:Proof? (Score:3, Interesting)
Therein lies the problem, you did nothing illegal. This is a civil case and not a criminal one. Reasonable doubt is not the standard here. Basically you're looking at a "Preponderance of the evidence". Basically the judge listens to you, then the RIAA and decides who sounds better. So if the RIAA has anything better than "you did it", you better be just as well prepared and then some...
does it matter? dont pay. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:does it matter? dont pay. (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re:does it matter? dont pay. (Score:3, Informative)
If you had put a "lean" on him, you'd probably have some ugly Mafia mug showing up at his doorstep every day until he paid.
Re:does it matter? dont pay. (Score:3, Informative)
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 empl
Re:does it matter? dont pay. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Another way to share files. Legally. (Score:4, Interesting)
One point on the Riaa lawsuits . Is it really like breaking into BEST BUY and stealing CDs' and movies ? Aren't these MP3's,Camcorder tapings, Divix, AVI and Mpegs just average to bad copies. If so then how could it be counted as theft ? Shouldn't there be a consideration to quality. Wouldn't you equate this to recording RADIO with tape ?
RIAA Lawsuits from a *real* John Doe's Perspective (Score:2)
Now what's this with Martha Stewart and her lemons and donuts? Poor gal, she's suffered so much...
Man, this Michael Jackson guy trial really rocks ass...what'll they think of next.
et al...
[/sarcasm]
Nobody cares for the real news any more.
clarification, please (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
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: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?
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.
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:I don't feel his pain (Score:3, Interesting)
The value in a copy of some media is in two things: the cost it took to make it the original, and the cost it took to make the copy of it.
That should really be, "The value in a copy of some media is in two things: the market price to make the original and the market price to make the copy of it."
It is a subtle difference but an important one - value is in the eye of the buyer, not the creater. A movie might cost $50M to make, but if it sucks dod
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
Financing the arts and sciences (Score:3, Interesting)
I envisage a world where people are not caught up in the busy-day-to-day work of just surviving, and have free time to do what they love and share it with others. Our society seems wealthy enough that we're supposedly not concerned strictly with survival anymore, and are making leaps and bounds in the arts and sci
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
Re:I don't feel his pain (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course they have a right to let non-lawyer emploees handle assembling case records, fielding calls from opponent lawyers, and so on. The US has a legal right to send its troops into battle armed with nothing more than sharpened sticks and trash can lids,* but what does it say about the balance of power if we were fighting any foe where t
No surprise. Trolls don't feel pain. (Score:3, Informative)
I would guess it has something to do with personal information about him being illegally obtained by the RIAA which led directly to him losing thousands of dollars. Would you not complain? Guilt or innocence is moot when the police kick in your door without a warrant. Then again, I RTFA. I guess that's too much to expect of some folks though.
Calling downloading "civil disobedience" is an insult to those
Oh look, it's the thief who steals from the public domain. He's crying a
Re:I don't feel his pain (Score:3, Interesting)
"Volume business" (Score:2)
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?
breifly?? (Score:2)
;-)
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.
Re:Someone tell me if I am wrong, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
are you trying to be funny? copyright was not intended to give basically perpetual profit to a corperation. it was originaly, what, 7 years? it's now life of artist, plus 75 years. that's 75 years that *record company* is able to sell the song exclucively at pure profit. no artist royalites.
your copyright system is a equally screwed up as your patent system. both need a serious overhaul, soon.
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").
Thank you DirecTV (Score:3, Interesting)
so what happens.... (Score:5, Funny)
Making it difficult to trade (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet the musicians will see none of this (Score:4, Interesting)
100% profit (after lawyer's fees)!
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?
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.
I'm no expert on US law... (Score:3, Informative)
Kjella
it isn't the downloading that gets you in trouble (Score:3, Informative)
how to beat the riaa (Score:5, Funny)
i haven't bought a single CD since i fired up Napster in 1999
my formula (using eMule) for not being caught is two-fold:
1. load your shared folder up with porn
2.if you must download linkin park or evanescence, the kind of stuff the riaa is sniffing?:
a. stop all of your downloads except that song you want with the most sources and the best connections
b. suck it down in under a minute
c. immediately get it out of your shared folder
d. if you do it fast enough, all the porn suckers you have cultivated will flood out anyone trying to get that drop of water pop song in your sea of masking porn
remember: the riaa only goes after those who make pop songs available, not those who download it
and speaking of pop songs?
i have the BEST solution for beating the riaa on that subject matter:
i embrace world music, i let my mind wander
currently, i'm into filipino music (i live in new york city)
the thing to do is is to expand your musical interests to things beyond the usual pop crap, and you are also therefore using the new file sharing technology to its greatest benefit: connecting with resources that otherwise would be beyond your grasp in the pre-internet universe
embrace world music, screw the pop crap, and you win two ways:
1. you won't be on the riaa's radar
2. you'll grow new brain cells as you develop an awareness of a world beyond your nation's borders, of music beyond your stupid local pop music industry
there really is a lot of good stuff out there that isn't the usual robbie williams or christina aguilera or kylie minogue crap
free your mind and give the bastards who want to market you sugar water the finger in the process
and for those of you with a holier-than-thou attitude about me ripping off poor third world musicians?
if it weren't for the filesharing networks, I WOULD NEVER BE EXPOSED TO THE ARTIST I AM LISTENING TO IN THE FIRST PLACE
solve that quandry and get back to me with your holier than thou attitude
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 hobbi
No Different than the DirecTV Lawsuits (Score:4, Interesting)
The **AA suing people is no different than what DirecTV [slashdot.org] has been doing [cnn.com] for a few years [directvdefense.org].
The "problem" with these lawsuits is that it will cost you more to defend them than to settle.
Additionally, both the **AA and DirecTV typically sue you civilly where your guilt or innocence is based on a "preponderance of the evidence" [law.com], not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, if their heavy-handed attorneys can make some jury full of idiots think it's 51% likely you did it, then you lose. You get no court appointed attorney and you don't get to plead the 5th ammendment without any negative inference. These **AA attorneys have these cases cookie-cuttered/boiler-plated out and don't care whether you are guilty or innocent. They care about billable hours and whether they think there is enough evidence for them to win.
And when you lose under the DMCA, you lose big time. You not only risk hefty fines, but attorney fees that are often in the tens of thousands. Look at the PACER reports of those people who try and fight these corporations in court -- the defendent typically has one attorney while the plaintiff often has four to six attorneys on their side. Is it NO WONDER nearly everyone settles, even if they are innocent?
So learn from the mistakes of those poor slobs, many who were innocent, but settled anyways.
BE ANONYMOUS.
Because if you get sued by one of the above, you always lose.
If you are gonna do anything that even remotely has the risk of you getting targeted for a lawsuit by one of these big corporations that could care less if 10% of the people they sue are innocent, make sure there is NO WAY it can get tracked back to you.
Profits != illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
> file sharing is bigger than ever--and so are the
> record industry's profits. As a result, it's hard
> to see the suits as anything other than a
> wrongheaded attempt by the old media industry to
> push upstart innovators out of the marketplace
> rather than working with them."
This is a ridiculous argument.
If the record industry is making bigger and bigger profits, that in no way obliges them to ignore illegal downloads of their product.
Like it or not, it is their product; they *own* it. If someone starts distributing it for free, then they'd be mad not to try to stop it happening.
For the record, I think IP laws, as exist in much of the world, are fundamentally flawed and will be substantially revised within the next several years. Business models that they encourage - companies like Eolas with no employees and no tangible assets, holding patents with ridiculous scope, capable of suing huge corporates and/or stopping development dead - doesn't benefit society at all and won't be acceptable to either individuals or major companies in the long run.
The record companies will die out in their present form, because they can't put the genii back in the bottle now. All they've ever offered as pluses to music creators are marketing and distribution; the Internet already handles distribution better than the record companies could ever do, so all they now bring to the table is marketing.
At this point, many established groups - the ones who generate most of the profit for music companies - think they're now big enough to do their own marketing. If these groups stand up and say "We'll do our own marketing", what does the music business have to offer them?
Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of is underwriting their touring costs; a really big group (think "U2") spends big dollars putting a tour together, and would probably appreciate someone else underwriting the tour and would be happy to share the profit on that basis.
Error (Score:5, Informative)
There is an error in the article:
It should read "uploaders" because copyright prohibits unauthorized distribution. I doubt the RIAA can even find a way to sue downloaders. It is probably impossible because there is no way to prove where a file comes from.However, they try to make "downloading" appear to be criminal in their ad campaigns. It is interesting how great an effect this advertising has had. Even one of their victims cannot tell the difference.
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.
A lawyer in Austria defends against RIAA-clone (Score:3, Informative)
The case was based on Kazaa -- the young woman was forced to pay up to 200 Euros per song for future downloads. So this type of craziness is not limited only to USA and Australia -- Central Europe is also under attack.
Re:A volume business? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A volume business? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How??? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why are these suits wrong, exactly? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) It is very difficult to really prove actual loss from people downloading music. The problem is the RIAA wants music to be a commodity (which would have a reasonably predictable demand and intrinsic value) when it's actually a luxury (which is subject to people simply not buying it anymore). Because of this, it's almost impossible to link change in sales with illegal downloads. That makes P2P, and the people who use it, little more than a scapegoat.
2) Give
Re:Why are these suits wrong, exactly? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't put me down on the side of the RIAA - mass subpeonas are a cheesey way of using a loophole in the law. But don't lionize the people who got caught. Civil disobedience is one thing, being stupid and getting caught at it is another. Everybody knows what the RIAA is doing...so by now, the people getting caught are just playing the odds and losing. And I'm still trying to figure out exactly what civil right the music industry is violating anyway...being a bunch of luddites and treating your customers like criminals is bad business, but it's not trampling on anybody's rights.
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