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)
It's called a "Chilling Effect" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see if they would make a threat...
Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 alwa
Re: (Score:2)
So how does a citizen constitute this "messing with the insane guy" activity? By living in USA? The "don't drink at the same bar where RIAA is standing" kinda doesn't work, they'll subpoena the ISP, get the name written
Re: (Score:2)
kids have buying power too (Score:2)
Well, kids also have media buying power these days. Just because the law draws a distinction between adult and child, doesn't mean that the business world does the same. In fact, there are lots of other examples proving th
Re:Their strategy (Score:4, Funny)
I do - but now I always wear a seat belt. Same way that when downloading, I make sure I use proxies and encryption
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Their strategy (Score:5, Funny)
Damn, god's a terrorist.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Requiring worship is the ultimate form of arrogance, and arrogance is clearly a human quality -- certainly god would be above that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DNA is digital, and since god only created the world 6000 years ago, he may as well have used DNA which has been around much longer ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he already has?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I'm an Atheist and even I don't buy the Biggest Hippie Ever didn't hate anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't there plenty of passages in the Bible (OT, specifically) where he directs the Hebrews to kill their enemies or others? Here's a few from evilbible.com:
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that one clear reading of this text is purely a statement of natural law, the universe as created by God. Homosexuals infect themselves with deadly diseases, and thus die as a result of their actions. No killing required on the part of believers.
You're a homophobe and a moron. Animals are known to engage in homosexual acts, so there's nothing unnatural about it in humans. Maybe if god didn't like ho
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:Their strategy (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
With those words, you're claiming that there is more to terrorism than merely aiming to scare people for some goal. However, now you also s
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: (Score:2)
The way the British authorities used to treat Northern-Irish catholic suspects, improsoning without probable cause and due process, torturing until they agreed to sign false confessions, etc. was every bit as outrageous then as the current US authorities' conduct now. Two differences:
Re: (Score:2)
Missing Word (Score:2)
I think that in order to support that assertion, you need the word "British" in front of the words "government" and "public".
Do as they do... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of the Internet?
If enough bloggers sta
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can easily turn around and call them a copyright DENIER.
Re: (Score:2)
When everyone's a Pirate, only Pirates will fight the Terrorists :)
I mean hey... Pirates kill people and steal physical objects. Terrorists kill people and create FUD about conducting legitimate activities. Copyright infringers don't kill people, and neither do entertainment conglomerates (well, for the most part in both cases). So, remove the obvious lie, and if copyright infringers ar
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the concept of terrorism can be applied when there's no shocking violence involved. That's what the very core of terrorist means is all about. Otherwise we would have to invent another word. I mean, how else would you distinguish something like a terrorist attack from something like what RIAA is doing? So unless you feel like there's no point in distinguishing real terrorist events from something else, I'd suggest to drop that concept regarding this article.
I think an appropriate definition of terrorism might be "to attack (a) broadly rather than in a targeted manner, (b) randomly rather than rationally, and (c) with savage and disproportionate, rather than measured, force, all in order to achieve widespread fear among a class of people rather than to accomplish clearly defined strategic objectives".
The RIAA's litigation campaign is clearly terrorism under that definition.
Yes it is a metaphor, in the sense that it usually involves economic rather than physi
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you're right. I don't like it either. But god dammit, they use terrorist to describe hanging up some mooninite posters, we should at least be able to stretch it THIS far. After all, the word "terrorist" is alot like a prostitute's vagina; it's so stretchy by now you could park your Camry inside and still have room for your passengers to get out.
Re: (Score:2)
People who actually have a good case have no reason to make a lot of fuss. Those who make a lot of noise probably have weak cases, which they probably weaken by the fuss they make about them. e.g. even if they made it to court the judge might dismiss the case on the basis of the plaintiff's behaviour.
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 terr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
currently, copyright laws are changed all the time so copyrights have practically stopped expiring. attempts to do the same with patents are ongoing. this happens bec
Re: (Score:2)
the legal and political system is defined by the body of law in general, and by the laws that governs copyrights in this particular case. so you can't talk reform without talking about the problems with copyrights (and related rights) as well. to me, the strategic issue is the peddling of "intellectual property", the extension o
protection money (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Rico can't help, he's busy leading the Roughnecks, don't you know anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Never. It happened in Britain. They may have their own statutes, but RICO isn't applicable.
Cheers
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
hubcaps are causing hate mail?
How does an article this incomprehensible make the front page?
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's google's cache [66.102.9.104] just in case.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm?
Does the size of the hubcaps determine how much hate mail you can get?
*goes outside and removes hubcaps...uses one to supplement tinfoil hat*
The E-mail Exchange (Score:2, Informative)
Interestingly, Birch posted a comment in response to another person's question about creating backups:
Andrew
Thank you for clarifying these are my personal views not those of the IFPI, RIAA, BPI or others.
In response to Mark I actually think there is nothing wrong with making a copy for your own use, in a sense side-loading to an iPod or similar is an extension of that use. Under current copyright legislation there is a need for customers to be allowed that facility but without it giving rise to them then making multiple copies for sale. The very specific instrument that allows the one and not the other is the difficulty in drafting any amendment.
Paul
Revolver Records
So he supports fair-use and time-shifting, but not linking to sites on the web. Yay for stupid opinions!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, though, that The Stone Roses never mentioned the phrase "moral rights", let alone commenced action for breach of contract.
It would also be an utterly contentious point that said video was a "threat to the integrity of the work". Many people have voiced the belief that it was more the re-release of Sally Cinnamon that pissed the band off, something their label was perfectly within their rights to do, and that the whole "painting the o
I may be wrong ... (Score:5, Informative)
But isn't the IFPI the International Federation of Phonographic Industries?
I think the UK equivalent of the RIAA is the The MCPS-PRS Alliance [mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk]?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I may be wrong ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you siblings for the BPI pointer. I forgot about them.
Meh, I was half 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: (Score:2)
A climate of unreasoning fear is beneficial for them. Fear encourages people to settle rather than countersue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please... (Score:2)
This is only appropriate when talking about ridiculous business models. For instance, an appropriate use would be:
1. Sue customers for downloading music
2. ???
3. Profit
This story seems to be about public relations and not a particular business strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's Alanis? (Score:2)
Hey, Alanis, THIS is ironic.
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: (Score:2)
Is anyone else flabbergasted by the BPI chief's statement that "allowing indiscriminate criticism of the RIAA is inappropriate for a Government funded institution"? 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.
Yes I was totally shocked by it. And offended. And outraged. These are some evil people.
Re: (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 --
When will they learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 ada
Favorite part of TFA (Score:2)
Magical Mystery Slashdot Fortune Cookie Machine (Score:2)
Got this fortune cookie from the Slashdot Magical Mystery Slashdot Fortune Cookie Machine for this article. Could there have been anything more appropriate today?
A Government funded institution (Score:2)
Seems to me that if there was ever a government funded institution, it's the RIAA member companies themselves, with their ever lengthening monopoly rights over artist created media, and continuing erosion of Fair Use rights.
I hope he reminded the RIAA: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the next phase in the war on copyright will be cold callers from india "Hello mr smith, this is PETER from RIAA just calling to let you know you have been selected to not be sued, this special offer comes at just $2000"
Re: (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: (Score:2)
But even in the US, a universtiy is certainly going to protect its employees right to freedom of expression.
Possibly, but I can see why the RIAA/IFPI/et al think that threatening his uni might work and that anyone working for a uni doesn't have a right to speake against corporations (particularly protection rackets).
I seem to recall that universities in the US have run away scared and offered money when threatened by the RIAA and not protected their students and staff (or even helped the RIAA sue them) even the innocent ones. Also, academic research is increasingly run for the benefit of corporations in the
Re:Hardly a threat. (Score:4, Informative)
Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned? (Score:2)
What has susprised me however is that the RIAA lawyers have not been utterly disowned by the rest of the legal profession. It is precisely their kind of behaviour that has caused the status of lawyers to plummet from respe
Re: (Score:2)
What has susprised me however is that the RIAA lawyers have not been utterly disowned by the rest of the legal profession. It is precisely their kind of behaviour that has caused the status of lawyers to plummet from respected professionals to something really appalling that I don't even want to name here. I'm sure that you've felt that taint/stigma yourself too, despite all your great work in recent years --- you cannot be happy that professional "colleagues" at the RIAA are doing what they are doing. So why is there no movement in legal circles to lance that particularly nasty infection in the body legal? It's not the only example of lawyers losing their sense of proportion, but it has to be one of the most putrid and hateful, and certainly the one with the highest profile. Aren't the RIAA lawyers subject to any ethical, moral or social standards at all? Doesn't the profession have any standards of conduct of its own, beyond mere adherence to the letter of the law? Does nothing else matter? Am I the only person to find the lack of professional censure of RIAA lawyers nothing short of incredible? Lots of questions. I wish I knew the answer.
I do believe that once they are dumped by their client, these lawyers will have a tough time trying to reenter the legal profession.
Re: (Score:2)
I see that even you yourself hesitate to censure your legal brethren, while being perfectly happy to target their client. I'm afraid that's not good enough.
I'm afraid that your reading is not good enough, as I have never hesitated to censure the RIAA's lawyers for their misconduct.
Being my adversary and fighting hard doesn't make one a bad guy.
Conducting onesself improperly and in violation of legal ethics and ordinary standards of morality does make one a bad guy.
I have never hesitated to point out to many instances in which the RIAA lawyers have shown themselves to be bad guys.
My post suggested that they will be ostracized by the legal profession.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the real question is why the bar itself hasn't taken action against these lawyers. Surely it seems that if the same lawyers are continuously bringing meritless lawsuits on behalf of the RIAA and dismissing them when it becomes clear the defendant won't settle and the plaintiff's case is sorely lacking evidence that their professional conduct is at least questionable and worthy of investigation. It's my understanding the courts generally don't like to have their time wasted with nonsense where the plaintiff is clearly lacking a credible case and it's in the bar's interest to reprimand the lawyers involved in perpetuating this behavior.
You guys are showing a little naivete.
1. There is no single "bar". There are 50 different state bars.
2. Until the RIAA lawyers start getting slammed by judges, no one is going to assume that their conduct is frivolous or unethical (as you and I know them to be). Keep an eye on Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com] where the Court has slammed them hard. But there are going to have to be a lot more cases like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually aware there are 50 separate state bars, but haven't there also been multiple cases in some states? And to further demonstrate my admitted naivete of legal matters I have more questions.
I thought many of these cases had been brought in federal courts? I'm aware of there being separate jurisdictions, but I would hope courts also aren't unaware of decisions that occur in other jurisdictions. My question is why the courts haven't seemed to notice the recurring pattern of behavior that you descr
Re: (Score:2)
'm actually aware there are 50 separate state bars, but haven't there also been multiple cases in some states? And to further demonstrate my admitted naivete of legal matters I have more questions. I thought many of these cases had been brought in federal courts? I'm aware of there being separate jurisdictions, but I would hope courts also aren't unaware of decisions that occur in other jurisdictions. My question is why the courts haven't seemed to notice the recurring pattern of behavior that you describe in your blog in How the RIAA Litigation Process Works [riaalawsuits.us]. At least to people like myself who only see a small fraction of the high profile cases that get posted on sites like Slashdot, it's a little dumbfounding that behaviors such as the John Doe cases and ex parte discovery motions (with little supporting evidence) are even being entertained let alone granted.
1. Yes there are multiple cases but almost no victories on either side.
2. They are all in federal court.
3. What decisions? I'm not aware of any decisions. I do not know of a single fully contested case that has been decided either way.
4. Courts deal with the case that is before them; they do not look for trends.
5. It is dumbfounding to me as well that the ex parte discovery motions have been granted, since they are clearly insufficient legally. It may be that some such motions have been denied... but I
Re: (Score:2)
Send it to Paul Birch's IFPA masters at the British record companies!
Re: (Score:2)
Internet: O RLY?