Slashdot Log In
RIAA File-Sharing Lawsuits Top 10,000 People Sued
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Apr 30, 2005 06:50 PM
from the maybe-there'll-be-cake dept.
from the maybe-there'll-be-cake dept.
An anonymous reader writes "While Firefox broke the 50,000,000 barrier today, the RIAA broke a more
dubious barrier this week: It has now sued over
10,000 file sharers for copyright infringement, making it a good time to ask
if the RIAA will ever throw in the towel. Taking an academic look at
what's best for the industry, this
economics article shows the financial upside to P2P file sharing. And
on the flip side, this
legal article argues that file swappers have a constitutional right to pay
much smaller penalties than the millions of dollars they can be liable for under
copyright law, making the RIAA's lawsuits much less profitable."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
throw in the towel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't your corner only throw in the towel if you're getting your ass kicked? From what I understand, the RIAA is settling nearly each of these cases out of court for a substantial profit. If that's the case, why would they ever throw in the towel?
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Insightful)
> these cases out of court for a substantial profit. If that's
That is exactly correct. So far one person has stood up and resisted settling out of court.
So a press release saying the RIAA has sued 10,000 people is a complete fabrication. The RIAA has threatened to take people to court for everything they own over IP violations, and the people have backed down and paid multiple-K settlements instead.
They haven't paid the RIAA through judgments, they haven't paid *fines* to the RIAA, they haven't paid legally required fees to the RIAA, they have paid a *settlement* to the RIAA in order for the RIAA to not go ahead with legal action.
Repeat after me: The RIAA have not yet sued anyone. They have applied extortion using the threat of a costly legal battle involving megacorporation vs one individual.
Parent
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Insightful)
The mere fact that the RIAA knows who is doing the file sharing is a result of them filing lawsuits. Judges have limited the scope of the RIAA's legal activities at least twice. The first action required the RIAA to file a John Doe lawsuit, rather than merely requesting customer identities from ISPs under the DMCA. The second action, filed last year, requires the RIAA to file separate lawsuits for every John Doe they wish to challenge.
The RIAA is obviously suing - if they didn't, they wouldn't know where to send the extortion (err, settlement) letters.
Parent
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:4, Informative)
Or to put it another way, if, based on the IP log, there is a 51% chance it was you, then that's proof it was you.
Absolute proof is not required.
Parent
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Informative)
Basically they can subject your computer to forensic analysis (which is much better than people often think it is), and they can ask you under oath. That, combined with their logs -- which will in part be verified by the ISP -- all seem convincing.
Plus, they're a big industry association with a good reputation. You're just some guy, and are probably a music pirate. They have a lot to lose if they aren't straightforward, and copyright suits are so open-and-shut, especially factually, that there's not even a good reason for them to make it up.
On the whole, much as I dislike them, I'd generally be inclined to believe that RIAA's evidence was accurate, if the matter had progressed that far, unless some significant hole in it could be found.
There's a reason why so many people settle. Because they really did it, and they know (or are advised by counsel) that they stand no chance in court.
If I had a client in one of these matters who really hadn't done it, then it might be worthwhile to fight, but it doesn't make much sense to do so when they're right.
If only they were bringing trademark infringement suits or something, where it's not quite as plaintiff-friendly.
Parent
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Rule 34 allows this. It's often used to require parties to give copies of all relevant documents to the other side. But it can also be used to inspect things, such as your computer.
Discovery rules do accomodate concerns about abuse, so it'd be difficult to use them to engage in outright espionage, I think.
I always thought I'd be great at that. I can split hairs with the best of them.
You can ask questions other than those with yes or no answers. And you can get in trouble for avoiding them too creatively.
See the thing about civil litigation is, the entire system is designed so that there are no secrets, and no surprises. Each party knows all the relevant facts about the case, way in advance, so that the case can be dealt with as rapidly as possible while still being fair.
Congratulations-you proved it came from my DSL line. Now prove it was MY computer, and that it was ME.
Like I said, probability is sufficient. If it was probably your computer, and it was probably you using it, then it was. Once a probability has been shown, it's up to you to refute it.
Also failure to comply with discovery -- e.g. hiding evidence -- can end up with you in jail for contempt of court, if carried too far. And it makes the judge really pissed off, which means that whenever he could be lenient, but isn't required to be, he probably will not be.
And your lawyer, faced with your shennanigans, may end up quitting, forcing you to find new representation, if someone will take you.
Parent
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. And you're going to, or else, like I said, you end up in trouble for contempt.
Either way, a nuke-n-pave as soon as they actually sue will probably take care of it. Unless you really think they'll pay $10,000 for a lab to look at my HD with an electron mocroscope. (Besides- WHICH HD?? I have 3 in my computer right now. The boot drive doesn't have squat on it, and they are welcome to look at it all they want. The others can removed in less than 2 minutes.)
They'll request it all. And they'll likely ask you under oath if you erased anything. And what it was that you erased. And why you decided to erase it.
The fact that you took action that would destroy evidence, in direct response to the commencement of a suit, strongly implies that you're liable.
Trust me -- better men than you have tried to foil discovery.
Like I said, an open WiFi AP or a trojaned computer certainly refute it.
The former likely will not; most wifi traffic over wifi installed in homes is probably not that of third parties. The latter might, but only if it were trojaned at the time, and on the whole, it's still a fairly improbable circumstance. You're going to have to work hard to convince the court that it really wasn't you.
Only if they can prove (there's that word again!) you did it!
Failure to comply is easy to prove. Ignoring a request too long, or explicitly refusing to comply is sufficient, unless the judge decides that the request wasn't proper.
Parent
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's that you, at the time had one. They just want to look at it now. If you didn't have one, you need only say so. But don't lie, since then you start getting into trouble.
You seem to keep trying to lie in order to escape justice. This usually comes out in the end, and it doesn't work well for you.
3) Contempt Of what? RIAA?!? If it's "Of Court", then it is the COURT ordering I turn over the computer, and I'll send it to the court, NOT the RIAA.
If you don't comply with a discovery request, the requestor goes to court to get a court order demanding that you comply with the discovery request. If you still do not do so, you are in contempt of court, and the court may fine or jail you until you turn it over to the party making the request. The court doesn't want to see the computer. Frankly, it likes it when people settle.
Looking at evidence is the job of the parties; they winnow it down to what they cannot agree on. Then, if there is anything they can't agree on, that gets decided in court.
Point is, they don't know what "it all" is. Can't ask for something you don't know exists.
That's why the request is made in a very open-ended fashion. They'll just say something like 'all computer storage devices you had on such and such a date.'
The purpose of discovery after all is to fill in gaps in each side's knowledge.
Besides, do you know I run a business off that computer, and I have my own and other's personal email on it? I'm sure there are some laws that protect my (and other's) privacy, as well as my livelihood.
That just means that they have to be careful in how they conduct their discovery. You can't avoid it, however.
And I have no moral problem lying under oath to those bastards.
Fair enough, but perjury is a crime.
What differentiates a situation where I am UNABLE to comply from a situation where I AM able, but FAIL to comply??
Providing an adequate explaination to the court as to why you are unable to comply, and getting the court to accept it.
Parent
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, something even better occurs.
First, we're talking about civil suits brought by a civil plaintiff such as RIAA, not criminal suits brought by the United States. So this also means we're looking for liability; not guilt.
This is also why the burdens are different. In a criminal suit, you generally have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is much harder than merely proving liability by a preponderance of the evidence, as is the norm in civil suits. (An intermediate step is proof by clear and convincing evidence)
Anyway, in a scenario such as you describe, what is actually likely to occur is that A and B are jointly and severally liable. The idea is that the plaintiff shouldn't lose just because he can't narrow it down between such a small and defined group of plaintiffs. So A and B together have to pay the sum of the damages (no doubling of the amount, mind) and can then work it out between themselves who did it, with the liable party repaying the non-liable party.
You'll find that US law is quite favorable to civil plaintiffs.
Ok, you're a lawyer. (I'm certainly not.) What is your specialty?
If this answer doesn't prove I'm a lawyer, probably nothing will.
As it happens, lawyers sometimes aren't allowed to claim to have a specialty, as the rules governing the profession are greatly concerned with misleading actual or potential clients and the public. Even when we can, it holds us up to a higher standard of conduct than usual.
So, if you're simply asking what sorts of cases I generally work on, then I generally work on copyright and trademark matters. And of course, like most lawyers, I also end up with some other sorts of cases at times.
Parent
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Funny)
I love the ambiguity in this statement.
Parent
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's never been about stopping the P2P flood. It's always been about making money.
Parent
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's never been about stopping the P2P flood. It's always been about making money.
Rubbish. The money an organisation the size of the RIAA is doesn't care about the dribs and drabs that they can get out of individuals. It's about (a) stopping the sharing of music that the record labels think is costing them so much and (b) the RIAA capitalising on the record label's belief so that they can justify their existence further and make more money out of the record labels.
Artists no longer need the major labels for distribution and that's what scares them. The lawsuits are just trying to fit the genie back in the bottle.
Parent
The RIAA Will Never Quit (Score:5, Insightful)
Profits from suing (Score:5, Insightful)
How right you are! Imagine, 10k lawsuits. Let's assume that each one of them settles for an average of $5k (a pittance compared to what they could get by copyright law, and I believe many of these settlements are much higher).
At $5k a pop, 10k of these settlements is worth $50,000,000 dollars.
How long will it be before the profits from lawsuits exceeds that of music licensing for the RIAA? Is it really that far fetched to imagine? Settlements are better business than records ($5k vs. $9)...
Perhaps, like antivirus companies spinning virus out into the wild, the RIAA will begin quietly sponsoring P2P programming efforts in an attempt to expand their new market (defendants)...
These are strange times...
Parent
Re:Profits from suing (Score:4, Insightful)
How much do the lawyers get?
Parent
Re:Profits from suing (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Profits from suing (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably $500 investment for a $5,000 profit. Not a bad return on investment. I don't think they will throw in the towel on that rate of return anytime soon.
Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Doesn't really matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, the RIAA can't keep up forever.
Re:Doesn't really matter... (Score:3, Funny)
ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all music translates well to concerts. Not all artists want to or have the health/lifestyle that permits them to tour or play live continuously. Some depend on album money and honestly wouldn't produce any music witho
Average Joe doesnt care (Score:5, Interesting)
i fit home systems for a large PC company and the first thing customers ask me when i have installed their broadband and PC is
"where can i download MP3s ?"
"illegal or legal ?"
"i dont care"
Re:Average Joe doesnt care (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The towel will be tossed (Score:4, Insightful)
However, as time goes on the effects will diminish and they will look even more foolish.
You fund this by buying CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You fund this by buying CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I believe 10,000 lawsuits by the same entity in the span of less than two years indicates that something is broken in the legal system.
Parent
New business plan... (Score:5, Funny)
2) Release some songs on p2p networks
3) Wait for it...
4) Wait for it...
5) Sue 10,037 people for a profit. ("...the RIAA's probably collected over $30 million from individual file sharers.")
Absolutely perfect. I see no flaws.
They will stop.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They will stop.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Sure but there are plenty of others (Score:5, Informative)
Ok problems:
1) How do you know those files are what they say they are? There's plenty fo files with fake names on filesharing networks. Sometimes it's people being assholes, sometimes it's small bands trying to pimp their shit, sometimes it's people who mislabeled because they are dumb. Since they don't download and check there's no real way to know.
2) For that matter, how do you know that list came form the right computer? Some networks, like Kazaa, aren't all that good at returning the correct list of files. You ask them for a list of files on host X, you get a list from host Y. How do you know this list is actually from the correct computer?
3) For that matter, how do we know the company they pay isn't making it up? These people get money for finding this stuff, there's incentive to find bigger lists of files. How do you know they are adding to those list or in some other way pumping it up to get more cash?
4) How do you know the ISP gave you the right data for the IP? Espically with dynamic IPs, this can be hard to tell. Sure some geek says this is what it is but how do you know he's telling the truth? All you've got are some easily altered text logs. For that matter how do you know the logging software was working right?
5) How do you know it was a certian computer behind that IP? Given the prevelance of wireless APs, it's easy to see that someone might ahve been using a connection without the owner's knowledge or consent. Where's the proof that it was actually a computer owned by that person that did it?
Basically what they are saying is these guys we pay gave us a list that might or might not be truthful that might or might not have come from this IP that might or might not belong to this person that might or might not have been them using it. Ya, THAT'S a strong chain of evidence.
Another defence would be to try for jury nullification, or argue on appeal, that the law they are suing under is unconstutional. The statutory damage are absurdly high. Well the constution states in ammendment 8 that "nor excessive fines imposed,". Seems the law allowing for high statutory damages in in violation of this. Since all laws must conform to the constution, it should be thrown out (and thus the case dropped).
Along those lines, there's other legal case history (as cited in the
This is not at all an open and shut issue. We do not have some highly trained computer crimes police optaining incontrevertable proof of MP3s on the person's computer and then the justice system imposing a resonable penalty. We have a corperate instrest group, who's members have been multiple times convicted of illegal practices such as price fixing, presenting a very shaky chain of evidence and asking for outrageously excessive awards.
If it got fought in court, it is not at all certian the RIAA would win.
Parent
Vote with your wallet (Score:5, Interesting)
When the RIAA started these lawsuits a few years back (what was it? 1999? 2001?), I was shocked and outraged. I couldn't believe what lengths these corporations would go to in prosecuting what amounts to a few cents' worth of theft per song. The defendants, while they did execute illegal act(s), are being punished far beyond the damages they caused.
What can one do, then? I decided to stop buying music CDs. I no longer listen to the radio, and hardly ever download music from p2p. I believe that since these lawsuits started several years ago, I have bought a total of about 3 CDs. Instead, I spend my time with more productive activities such as programming or spending time with my wife.
I know this isn't an option for many people, but it works for me. By refusing to purchase CDs, I vote against the RIAA with my wallet. By not listening to the radio, I don't support the stations that license the same music. You, as a reader of slashdot, might do well to try to find something like this to voice your disapproval. Heavy-handed tactics used as a business model = lost customers.
You don't have to stop buying CDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Vote with your wallet (Score:5, Informative)
There is a solution to get your music legally (in the United States, don't know about other places) without funding the RIAA; just buy used CDs and tapes. Your local library might have some CDs and tapes that you can borrow for a few weeks and listen to. In this scenario, you can get your music legally without giving the RIAA any more cash. Try it before the RIAA bans the resale of music.
Now, this idea isn't effective for the latest music available, but you should be able to get lots of old CDs of many genres and musicians.
Parent
Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl (Score:3, Interesting)
Can anyone actually comment on the legality of downloading what you already "own" in another format?
I am a fairly old fart and mostly I have downloaded music that I have already paid for, mostly old vinyl records and some that I have on video
Just what are the legals of this situation in the USA? What are the legals elsewhere, europe & Australia?
Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you are personally making the copy from the actual physical CD or LP you own, owning the music in a different format is not a defense. If you personally rip your own CDs to MP3s, however, then you're actions are legal under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
Parent
In honor of a certain recent movie release (Score:3, Funny)
Shoot! It's hard enough to fight a behemoth conglomerate like the RIAA without it having the most useful thing in the universe on hand.
download now, pay later? (Score:5, Interesting)
Abstract:
When a minimum statutory damage award has a large punitive component, the danger arises that the award's punitive effect, when aggregated across many similar acts, will become so tremendous that it imposes a penalty grossly excessive in relation to any legitimate interest in punishment or deterrence.
i believe this means the RIAA is suing for ridiuclous large sums of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars for each mp3, even though in actuality the damages to the RIAA is much much smaller than what they're sueing for. a similar type of incident occured before in a court case:
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, where the Court held unconstitutional a jury's punitive damage award of two million dollars to a plaintiff who suffered four thousand dollars in actual damages from the defendant's deceptive trade practices.
the author of the legal document is simply making an argument that the ruling of the BMW v Gore case should also apply to this case. the actual damages to the RIAA are a closer to a few dollars per song rather than the hundreds of thousands they're suing for. it will be very interesting if anyone being sued actually takes this kind of approach.
The xxAAs aren't going to stop until ... (Score:3, Insightful)
They're in the business of sueing people until they don't have a reason to do so anymore. That's what they've been doing since the nineteenth century and before.
Every advance from the piano roll to the MP3 has been met with the kind of dogged, to the death, resistance normally encountered in a Pit Bull arena.
When you're stealing other people's creativity and have none of your own, you defend your right to be a parasite with legal anti-piperazine.
Of course, every now and they they go too far and get their wrists slapped, like the last time they were convicted of price fixing in California.
They emptied they warehouses filled with every piece of back catalog crap that time. "We ripped you off. Have this audio dog, uh, wonderful vynil recording of "Milton Freebish sings 'Sony and Cher'" album to make up for it."
You want's to get them to cease and desist, you have to figure out a way that they can keep on collecting money for other people work every second of every day.
That's when they'll shut up. Not before. They're thieves egardless of how they justify it. And YOU are going to have to find them a new pocket to live in.
OK (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted that copyright infringement is against the law and should be pursued more by the government like other crimes that the government has established, I wish the government would rerecognise their belief in a free economy and that no company has any right to profit nor compensation for loss of profit.
I don't do MP3, so I'm free of this, but the core here is not copyright infringement, but rather the price of distribution of a product. This is pretty much exclusively what the RIAA companies make money on. The sale of an aluminum disc impregnated in plastic. However, these guys are getting their music in an inferior format with a different distribution channel at a much lower cost of distribution.
Am I missing something, or is this how supply and demand works? I pay 80+ dollars a month for cable and about 40 for broadband internet that satisfies a good deal of my music concerns. I just paid almost $2,000 for my car stereo in my new car and I buy blank CDs in bulk. In the past week I spent about $150 in concert tickets.
What the fuck else do these people want from me? Its getting to the point that it almost appears more productive to simply go to prison or jail the rest of ones life, but even then your subject to chronic searches and whatnot to make sure your not doing what your "supposed" to do while there.
In summary, fuck you RIAA. Provide at some bare minimum a competing product to p2p downloads, or just go away. Music has lasted before you, and will outlast you. Your relationship with the music industry is entirely up to you. So long as you are providing a valuable product to consumers, you will exist. So long as you sue your customers, your annoying.
Re:OK (Score:4, Funny)
It's easy. Since we've already eliminated buying the disc, there are two possibilities:
Now the basis of any sane moral calculus is this: Do the most good for the most people. Since the RIAA doesn't profit in either case, you can disregard them. Since downloading the disc is going to make you happy and nobody sad you are morally justified in downloading music. QED
Parent
RIAA and the long-tail (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, RIAA, I'll wager, is more concerned with preserving blockbuster artists than in promoting obscure ones. It's easier (and more ego-boosting) to ride the back of a Britney Spears than it is to promote a thousand no-name bands. Moreover, its more cost-efficient for music distributors to sell 10 million copies of one album than hassle with selling 15,000 copies of a 1000 artists. Even in a digital age, creating a distribution relationship with 1000 artists is harder (and less sexy) than having a single relationship with a megastar .
Fragmentation of people's musical interests is not in RIAA's best interests even if it expands the total music industry by more effectgively matching content creators to content consumers.
Other statistics I'm interested in. (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of the suits have gone to court, rather than being extorted... urr... "settled" out of court?
Of those that weren't settled out of court, how many are slated to go to trial?
Of those that have gone to trial, what are the results of the trail? How many traders were found guilty? What evidence has the RIAA presented thus far?
THAT is the information I'm more interested in. They can sue as many people as they want. I want to know what the results of those suits are.
Bright Side. (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
The lure of being in those industries is the money that can be made... now there is a cultural revolution against that business model. The time is right for revolution...so to speak.
We keep talking about what is right and what is wrong, but we seem to skip over the facts. The facts simply stated, are that the law supports an outdated business model. The music and film industries cannot continue to force their ethics on the populace when the populace is revolting. Music and video content is simply not worth what is being charged. The current distribution and licensing practices DO NOT work in the information age. They used to work, but no longer. When anyone with a basement and some cheap electronic technology can duplicate what big industry is charging huge dollars for is common place as it is today, the old business models don't work.
Its time for the music and movie industry to get into the 20th century (yes, I said that right). Its time for them to get with reality. Sure, they deserve to be paid for their work, just like the rest of us, but like the airline industry, they do not deserve to be propped up by government so they can survive. If they cannot survive the changes on their own, so be it. Its time for a change, the old ways are not working.
Still, I have not seen or read any evidence that file sharing has damaged either industry, yet they seem to have the government's permission to harm anyone they feel like. This smacks of conspiracy and business based totalitarianism.
Sure, you can tell me that I'm wrong, that I have not respected the rights of these industries, but I have done something that you did not expect.... I have stated that its time for evolution or revolution. I don't particularly care if they go broke... there are literally millions of artists that want a cheap and easy way to get their art to the masses without having to deal with those big companies and their bias.
Anyone that thinks this is about the law is just kidding themselves... this is about evolution. It is time for thing to change. I'm tired of paying taxes just in case I decide to break a law, I'm tired of being thought to break the law before I actually do, I'm tired of people trying to enact law to prevent me from breaking other exisiting laws.
If business finds that the current laws are unenforcable, they need to look at what they are doing and how they are making their money. Small businesses have to weigh the value of persuing a patent infringement case against larger companies and individuals against what is good for the business. The music and video industries have SO MUCH MONEY that they don't have to worry about it... they just bring the litigation because the cost is a pittance against what they stand to gain. The patent and copyright laws have, in essence, broken the anti-trust laws, in order to protect the very rich and powerful, those that don't need protection.
They have successfully perverted the intent and design of the laws they use to protect their profits.
IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE... EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION
YMMV
Profitable? (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA is currently settling for $1/song + legal fees. The lawsuits aren't a revenue stream, and sharers are almost all paying under $5000. $1500 (average sued sharer shares 1500 songs, other costs are for legal fees) * 10,000 = $15 million. For a multibillion dollar industry, this is nothing.
The disparity between the offered settlement and the potential liability could easily constitute a coercement of the violators to choose the settlement, and I hope that this point comes to light (is there really a choice to take a lawsuit? If the RIAA wins, then the liability is too huge. Paying a few grand and getting out is almost always the better choice). The sued party is pretty much being denied the right to a trial because the liability is too high. The right judge could illuminate this point and really change the law for the better (said by someone who generally condemns judicial activism)
In a small European country... (Score:4, Interesting)
10.000 people sued (Score:4, Insightful)
A great day for the music industry.
When I grow up, I want to be a music industry lawyer!
Re:Networks? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:How about trying to 'fix' it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent