IFPI Threatens UK Academic For Linking To Article 182
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."
Their strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
hubcaps are causing hate mail?
How does an article this incomprehensible make the front page?
Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Hardly a threat. (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: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.
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: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.
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:Their strategy (Score:1, Insightful)
If they threaten you, you pay up. Think about it, they WILL continue with the case even if they have no evidence, even if you reason with them, even if it's obvious you didn't do it. They'll keep going after anyone. Children and grannies or even dead children and grannies. Maybe you'd win in court but they will force you to have to fight, you'll have to at minimum give up massive amounts of your time, probably have to spend a fortune too. Maybe they'll spend 1,000 times more but they'll do it even if they're going to lose, because they're insane. You think you stand a chance to reason with them? It's cheaper to just pay up.
(That is how they want you to think. That is the point)
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...
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The concept of "goverment funding" (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 -- he simply linked to a site featuring criticism.
When will they learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do as they do... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's amazing..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Every time I think these dinosaurs have reached an unsurpassable level of outrageousness and chutzpah [slashdot.org], they keep topping themselves. Do they not realize that every time they open their yaps, they lose more and more credibility and probably make downloaders and file sharers even more determined to persevere?
You know, you can argue about copyright law and the industry's legal tactics until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that the world has changed and these suits are going to have to eventually adapt or die. There's a whole generation of young people out there for whom file sharing, if it carries any "moral" weight at all, is looked upon as, at worst, a "sin" on a par with speeding or jaywalking. Rightly or wrongly, millions are growing up freely sharing their music as they see fit, and they scoff at being compared with hardened criminals for doing so. You're not getting this genie back in the bottle -- a "law" that is routinely and easily ignored by a significant proportion of the populace has no teeth.
Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned? (Score:3, Insightful)