Record Company Collusion a Defense to RIAA Case?

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Is collusion by the record companies a defense to an RIAA case? We're about to find out, because the RIAA has made a motion to strike the affirmative defense of Marie Lindor, who alleged that "the plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in accordance with a uniform agreement, and through common lawyers, thus overreaching the bounds and scope of whatever copyrights they might have" in UMG v. Lindor."

Legal collusion

[by Anonymous Coward]

The collusion here appears to be legal rather than economic so I'm not certain the anti-trust laws can be applied.

Here is why it *IS* economic collusion:

[Morgaine (4316)]

If the RIAA labels were actually competing among themselves, then any one of them would be happy to see the others suffer alleged loss of sales. Paying RIAA lawyers to safeguard their alleged competitors' profits is therefore direct anti-competitive collusion, rather than mere pooling of legal costs: they pay shared lawyers to perform actions which they know will support their "competitors".

If real competition between labels existed, then individual labels would reduce their own prices to make official purchases as attractive as file sharing, and they would provide vast band sites to attract the purchaser, and broaden their music spectrum away from the incredibly narrow current crap, and entice fans into buying the physical albums and accessories later for profit, as fans like to do. (Often much later in life, when they have more money.) In a nutshell, they would compete on product.

If you stand back from this whole scene and try to see it through the spectacles of a free market and competition analyst, you'll find none of those elements present in their music marketting. RIAA labels simply do not respond to drop in sales by reducing their prices or raising their quality and music coverage, like indies do.

It's often described as a cartel, but some cartels are relatively shallow and defensive, whereas this one effectively has the entirety of public media in its grasp and the ears/wallets of politicians too, and has a strategy based on offence and intimidation. It is about as malevolant and anti-competitive as you can get without breaking kneecaps. And while they don't break kneecaps, they certainly have no compunction about destroying lives economically, based on legal theories which they lobbied to create.

Their slimy lawyers will probably slither out from under a charge of anti-competitive economic collusion because the legal system is driven by technicalities rather than substance. But the RIAA labels are certainly guilty as sin of it. They lost any concept of competition between them long ago.

Re:Here is why it *IS* economic collusion:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032)]

If the RIAA labels were actually competing among themselves, then any one of them would be happy to see the others suffer alleged loss of sales. Paying RIAA lawyers to safeguard their alleged competitors' profits is therefore direct anti-competitive collusion, rather than mere pooling of legal costs: they pay shared lawyers to perform actions which they know will support their "competitors". If real competition between labels existed, then individual labels would reduce their own prices to make official purchases as attractive as file sharing, and they would provide vast band sites to attract the purchaser, and broaden their music spectrum away from the incredibly narrow current crap, and entice fans into buying the physical albums and accessories later for profit, as fans like to do. (Often much later in life, when they have more money.) In a nutshell, they would compete on product. If you stand back from this whole scene and try to see it through the spectacles of a free market and competition analyst, you'll find none of those elements present in their music marketting. RIAA labels simply do not respond to drop in sales by reducing their prices or raising their quality and music coverage, like indies do. It's often described as a cartel, but some cartels are relatively shallow and defensive, whereas this one effectively has the entirety of public media in its grasp and the ears/wallets of politicians too, and has a strategy based on offence and intimidation. It is about as malevolant and anti-competitive as you can get without breaking kneecaps. And while they don't break kneecaps, they certainly have no compunction about destroying lives economically, based on legal theories which they lobbied to create. Their slimy lawyers will probably slither out from under a charge of anti-competitive economic collusion because the legal system is driven by technicalities rather than substance. But the RIAA labels are certainly guilty as sin of it. They lost any concept of competition between them long ago.

Excellent comment, Morgaine. Thank you.

I predict that they will not be slithering out of this one. Their brief is entirely frivolous, and will not make a positive impression on Judge Trager.

And by the way, they do destroy lives, and more than just economically. Many of the people victimized in this onslaught are ill equipped to deal with the stress and anxiety the RIAA's lawyers have caused them.

Re:Legal collusion

[kaschei (701750)]

I somehow doubt the courts see illegal file-sharing as "trade." If they were suing rival record companies for certain reasons, yes, but I don't see that prosecuting copyright cases jointly as a restraint on trade.

Re:

[KoshClassic (325934)]

Ah, but the plantiffs in a class action lawsuit must pass the legal hurdle of class certification before their lawsuit can proceed to trial. Why do the member companies of the RIAA not have to be certified as a class before their lawsuits can proceed? Instead, simply by showing up together and saying "We're the RIAA!", they skip this step.

We all saw it coming.

[sabernet (751826)]

Who didn't know they were going to eventually use this? This is why the RIAA and not Empire, BMG, etc... brought all these suits, so they'd have this last ditch effort to break away should this finally explode in their faces.

Still, I wanna shake this woman and her lawyers' hands for this.

Re:

[Baricom (763970)]

The RIAA is not bringing the suits. When was the last time you saw a suit captioned Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. v. John Doe?

Re:We all saw it coming.

[absoluteflatness (913952)]

This is why the RIAA and not Empire, BMG, etc... brought all these suits...

There's a reason why the case mentioned above is not RIAA v. Lindor, but UMG v. Lindor.

As far as I remember, each of the music piracy lawsuits have been brought by individual record labels, and not the RIAA. It seems that the claim here is that the labels are unfairly colluding under the RIAA umbrella, each pursuing suits in the same manner and using the same attorneys, but at least nominally acting as separate entities.

Re:We all saw it coming.

[rtb61 (674572)]

The be more realistic they are attempting to hide behind the RIAA, so all the negative public reaction is directed at the RIAA and it's lawyers, rather than the music publisher and the artists in question who are allowing the work to be used to target those least able to defend themselves.

Perhaps an alternate track(sic) might be to high light the publisher involved in each civil suit as well as the greedy self serving worthless artists whose content is being cited for those civil cases.

Should not an effort be made to pursue those artists to see how they feel about their music being used to terrorise children and bankrupt their parents, I wonder what share do the so called artists get of the uncontested civil suits ;).

Re:

[jombeewoof (1107009)]

If I had points I'd mod you up.

I don't so I'll add an example of why you are correct.

Metallica.

I was a huge Metallica fan back in the day, bought all their good albums 2, 3, in the case of their first as many as 6 times.
They stopped putting good albums out when I was in the 4th grade. (black album being good is debatable)

When I heard that they were going nuts about people downloading their music, I wondered to myself why would I pay for their music yet again to have it on yet another medium.
I've already bou

Metallica vs downloads

[Half-pint HAL (718102)]

[bought tape and CD] And now they want me to buy it again, just so I can play it on my computer.

No, I don't think they ever said "please don't rip the CD to MP3 using readily available tools". Downloading is not really and more convenient than home ripping, and home ripping can only be done by people who own the music. (Well, anyone who has borrowed a copy can too, but that's a side issue.)

Downloading's a bit different in that you don't need to have the original to download an MP3. The vast majority of

Re:

[zotz (3951)]

"Downloading's a bit different in that you don't need to have the original to download an MP3. The vast majority of downloaders don't have the originals. Ergo, lost profits."

Not having the original does not equate to not having purchased the original and not having the legal right to that purchase. There are many things that can cause one to not be in possession of the original which one purchased.

Furthermore, you may be in possession of an original that is not suitable for ripping for any number of reasons

Re:

[Reziac (43301)]

So what about all my old vinyl that has not been and will NEVER be released on CD? don't I have a right to format-shift it just as I would with a CD? how do they lose money if someone else happens to do the format-shifting for me?

The artist who made my favourite album just queried its publisher on my behalf, and was informed that no, it would NEVER be released on CD. This makes no one any money, so where's the loss if someone rips the thing and we who own the LP download it? (In fact, the artist sent me cop

Re:

[zaydana (729943)]

The problem is, the artists have no say over how their music is used. They can cry all they want, but at the end of the day their music belongs to the record label, and what they think doesn't count.

The artists asking the RIAA to stop would be like a soldier asking their country to not go to war. You don't pay out on the soldiers when you don't like that a country is fighting a way - you get angry at the people that made the decision to go to war.

Re:We all saw it coming.

[rmstar (114746)]

Such stunts just divert attention from the fact that the RIAA, and their colleagues in other countries, are winning this fight. They are actually marching through, encountering very little resistance. That someone actually up to this and wins his suit, or even manages to make the RIAA change some technicality in how it prosecutes (because if this woman wins, that is what will happen: they'll just change a technicality) is a complete distraction and matters zip in the grand scheme of things. A whole industry is emerging around the task of tracking, finding, and extorting file sharers. It works fantastically well.

It just isn't being said often enough: if you are sharing copyrighted files using standard networks (bittorrent, emule, etc), you are playing with fire. Sorry, but everything else is wishful thinking.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032)]

the individual labels bring the suits because it is the individual labels that own the copyrights being violated. The RIAA has no legal standing to sue someone for violating BMG's copyrights -- and in a way, that's the argument being made here, that the RIAA is an organization that is acting more like an agent of collusion than as a trade organization.

That is correct.

The individual record companies in UMG v. Lindor [blogspot.com] are UMG Recordings, Inc., Warner Bros. Records Inc., Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, Motown Record Company, L.P., and SONY BMG Music Entertainment. But the lawyer for the plaintiffs takes his instructions from the RIAA, and the settlement authority comes from the RIAA, and if one settles with them the settlement payment is payable to "RIAA Client Trust Account".

It may perform some functions of a trade association in other contexts;

Plenty of competitors face common civil opponents

[ScentCone (795499)]

I don't think we'd have to work too hard to find lawsuits (especially class actions, obviously) that inlude two or more nominal competitors sharing resources when facing a common opponent in civil court, or when serially dealing with similar issues on an ongoing basis. Most industries have trade associations that exist precisely to allow members (who frequently compete with each other) to lower their collective overhead on commonly needed marketing, representation, lobbying, etc. One might even say that labor unions (and the meta-unions) - which represent intra-competing parties - are a similar beast. If there was a solid reason to argue that being a member of a trade association somehow torpedoes your copyrights, trademarks, or any other IP turf, that would already have been rabidly pursued.

Re:Plenty of competitors face common civil opponen

[sumdumass (711423)]

Labor unions have exemptions from the anti trust laws and such. Several other industry/arenas do to like Baseball and the likes. Class action lawsuits can only be a class action if a judge allows it so there is somewhat of an exemption there too.

But this isn't really like a Class action lawsuit or trade union. This is more like all the grocery stores in a town deciding one day that too many people are stealing milk. So they create a fictional association to protect themselves that goes into each home with or without permission to see if there is milk and if the milk was properly paid for. And then if it wasn't, they determine what kind of container the milk is in, the store who sold it (or should have sold it) sues that person for an obscenely large amount of money and offers to settle for a smaller large amount of money. But both sums of money are more then the value lost by the actions.

Currently, something like that is probably against the law. The defense being offered using colluding isn't going to say "i'm not guilty", it is going to say the evidence was collected illegally by companies acting in an illegal manor against US law for profit above the amount of actual damages and it cannot be entered into this trial. So then UMG says this person distributed our copyright covered materials and here is the evidence which is all gone because of the collusion, so you go, They have no evidence, can we just dismiss this and get on with our lives, The judge says sounds like a good idea and bangs the gavel.

Now this doesn't really touch on their right to sue or anything the accused might have done, it touches on the entering computers in a questionable manor and then attempting to extort funds from people, some of which didn't even have a computer at the time they were accused. So the question is, did the record labels and RIAA collude in a way that was against the law (if it harms one person/consumer, it probably is) and if so, can the evidence they gather when working in that manner be admissible to the cases that they brought about? Generally evidence is evidence except on occasions when civil rights were violated or it was obtained illegally by a party that would benefit.

Re:Plenty of competitors face common civil opponen

[XaXXon (202882)]

Except, it's more like someone bought some milk and then magically made more, free duplicates of that milk and gave it away to neighbors. But now the grocery store doesn't get your money. And then they claim to be doing it in the interests of the dairy farms, but (not so secretly) aren't really giving much of the money for the milk to the farms and sure aren't giving any of the lawsuit money to the farms.

All I'm really trying to say is that there's no theft involved. It's just copyright infringement.

Re:Plenty of competitors face common civil opponen

[mr_matticus (928346)]

No, it's not like milk at all. If you're going to go there, and I don't think you should, it's more like Coke or Pepsi.

Your magic, free Pepsi machine is knowingly interfering with the undisputed property rights of Pepsi. Pepsico holds the exclusive rights to make Pepsi. Coca-Cola holds the exclusive rights to make Coke. You do not have the right to give away more Coke or Pepsi than you purchased. If you bought a bottle and magically made more, congratulations, but you can't give away or sell even a single drop more than that one bottle of soda.

The rest is true about the RIAA and their greed and general worthlessness. But you're skipping the part where you consider that what you're offering for free isn't yours to offer. You can make something similar (as long as it's not derivative) and give that away for free. You can record a cover of a song and give that away without worrying about the RIAA (you may need permission from other entities). You can't give away something that has commercial value and is owned by someone else.

Re:Plenty of competitors face common civil opponen

[QuantumG (50515)]

Your magic, free Pepsi machine is knowingly interfering with the undisputed property rights of Pepsi. Pepsico holds the exclusive rights to make Pepsi. Coca-Cola holds the exclusive rights to make Coke.

Except that only you, and maybe a few other misinformed people, think Pepsi have any right over the Pepsi Cola recipe. Or that Coca-Cola have any right over the Coca-Cola recipe. It's funny that you chose this example, because recipes are an example of something that doesn't have copyright protection and a perfect example of what happens when you don't give companies a monopoly over an idea... you get competition.

I, personally, drink Regal Cola. It's made locally (Australia) and costs about 40% less than Coca Cola. It tastes closer to Coca Cola than it does to Pepsi Cola, and I've found it has a crisp taste that I haven't found in other cola varieties.

If it was found that Regal Cola had similar ingredients to Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola, the law would provide no "protection" to any of these players. As such, I have the choice which product I want to buy. I can choose which I prefer because they are essentially the same. This can't be said for music.

History of Collective Rights Organizations

[WhiskeyJuvenile (534710)]

Given RIAA appears to be trying to do to sound recording rights what ASCAP, BMI and SESAC have done to performance rights, I would expect that the antitrust claim probably has some legs under it, given the consent decree resulting from the DoJ Antitrust Division's lawsuits against ASCAP and BMI in the '40s and '50s.

Does prior ruling validate her claim?

[by Anonymous Coward]

If previous cases ruled in favor of the RIAA showed payment distributions being equal to each label within the RIAA, regardless of which labels specific copyrights had been violated, I think she'd have a pretty good claim there.

I'm not going to do any legwork at this late of night, but past victories for the RIAA, depending on the specifics, might come back and bite them on the ass.

One can only hope...

While I Agree..

[VE3OGG (1034632)]

While I agree with some of the sentiment expressed in other posts, especially to the effect that this is similar to a trade group, there seems to be one defining aspect in this case, namely the tying together of separate copyrights to pursue litigation.

While on the surface, it might be argued that the RIAA is nothing more than an aforementioned trade group (something that is both legal and desirable in many cases), tying ones copyrights into a collective pool is a bit more of a sticking issue.

The companies represented by the RIAA represent 99% of the major American labels (the only reason I do not say 100% is there may be one or two, but the majority are). Upon tying their copyrights together, they effectively stifle competition. How so?

Well, to use a (likely flawed) analogy, imagine if Microsoft and Apple decided to pool all of their resources and patents and copyrights. Now suppose a third party (for profit) company tried to get into the market. Apple may not have prosecuted initially since they did not have access to the patent/copyright pool, and probably wouldn't see this interloper as a direct competitor to be worried about. MS, however, would. So they open up the full force of the patent/copyright pool of both companies and cherry pick the most grievous ones. The company is financially sunk. This couldn't happen without the help of Apple's patents/copyrights too.

Now, I know patents != copyrights, but in a way, it is very similar. The RIAA has access to every song in every catalogue to every major artist. This allows them, by default, to prosecute across borders. It isn't BMG, Sony, and Dreamworks each launching separate suits, it is one company that can attack with a full frontal assault. Essentially, the power has been centralized, which gives too much power to the RIAA, and makes it impossible to resist against them reliably.

Essentially, while we are dealing with intellectual property (ugh, I hate that term) theft, and some of these people may well be guilty, the spirit of the law that was enacted was meant to deter those from doing this, not to crush the offenders into oblivion. And I think that last point is quite important, and also something that many have lost sight of. The laws were created as a deterrent, and as a method of punishment, much like the stocks were of yore. The laws were NOT created (in this country) as a method to crush the individual offenders into the ground (at least, save execution... and that is another issue altogether).

My 2c

Re:

[the_womble (580291)]

imagine if Microsoft and Apple decided to pool all of their resources and patents and copyrights

Like a cross-licensing agreement? It happens in lots of industries.

Semiconductor manufacturing for a start. Even if a would be new entrant had the huge amount of money needed to build a fab, they would still have to pay a huge amount of money on licensing patents. The established companies in the industry have cross licensed their patent portfolios so they do not have to pay this, so they would have a lasting

Re:

[VE3OGG (1034632)]

I would disagree strongly with your opinion: there are multiple barriers in place to try and enter the market in music. When was the last time you walked into a *major* record store and saw a large selection of local music? I can say (anecdotally) never. I am in them quite frequently, and not just one particular one, but multiple across the country. Some may pander to local artists in an effort to make a good impression on the local community, but for the most part, ask to order an independent label CD and

Re:

[Weedlekin (836313)]

"Imagine if you will Microsoft, Sun, and Apple were to get together and begin prosecuting those who infringe on their copyrights (ISOs of Windows, Solaris and OSX). However, it is *not* MS, Apple or Sun prosecuting, it is a thirdparty that was created as an industry group."

And let's imagine for a moment that they called this industry group "The Business Software Alliance", or BSA for short, and that it had a US web site at: http://w3.bsa.org/usa [bsa.org],
but unlike the RIAA, it operated at an international level. If

Re:While I Agree..

[kocsonya (141716)]

> The bottom line is that it's okay for people/corporations to band together to protect their interests.

Is it? I thought that if all petrol stations in a country decided that they band together and *all* of them slap a 500% margin over the petrol you buy would not be OK. It would definitely protect *their* interests, wouldn't it?

Copyright and patent law was created in the interest of advancing arts and science, *not* in the interest of guaranteeing corporate profit margins.

Defense or not, it is definitely True

[unity100 (970058)]

That defense basically explains the situation. Stuff like these are always in contradiction to law of reason. Modern laws are built upon the philosophy that no fraction, group whatsoever should be able to be higher than the others in any possibility modern life has to offer - be it wealth, be it protection be it any right. It doesnt mean that the record cartel is actually a group that with hard work or chance a person or some people can set up a record company and get in. As a group, they are still way too privileged when it comes to business and law, and unfairly so. This contradicts with equality basis the modern society was built upon.

A Super-Trade-Group?

[VE3OGG (1034632)]

Many are crying fowl that this sort of behavior is perfectly legal, but I would like to point out one thing (I mentioned this in another posting, but thought it deserved an entire post for I believe it to be a very scary point).

Imagine if you will the beginning of the free market's existence. Individual companies and groups barter for goods and services. If someone steps on the toes of another, the person who is wronged takes that person to court, and the transgressor is perhaps found guilty, irrespective of anything else he may or may not have done or is doing at the present. Fine.

Fast forward to the present. Now, instead if you step on the toes of one company (because so few major companies are one person alone), an industry group comes in with a warrant, and searches your computer. Not only do they find infringing material for the original plaintiff, but they also find about 500 other songs belonging to other members of their trade group. Well, they simply have the warrant expanded to search the rest of your network and proceed to sue your pants off for those 500 songs that they found. This means that the process has become streamlined in favour of the companies. This is not good.

Now, go a little further into the future. Not only are there trade groups, but Super-Trade-Groups. Perhaps ones dedicated to the entire entertainment industry (MPAA-RIAA-Shakespearean Theatre Company AA-ad nauseum AA) or perhaps there is just one big-super group. Think of it as a catch-all group that includes the MPAA-RIAA-Microsoft-Apple-Book Publishers-Knitting Pattern Companies-Recipe authors-TV broadcasters-GE-GM-IBM-and any other acronym in any industry).

Everyone has broken the law in some way or another. Imagine though, if a super-group could walk into your life, find all of those transgressions, and can now say: pay up (in installments of course, and there might even be an interest-only version of the payment schedule). This would mean a guaranteed source of income, and not only that, but it would also assure them that they could treat you like a criminal at any point.

If such behavior became common, it might even pose as a catalyst to lower the requirements for a warrant -- to the point where the super group can simply have a catchall carte blanche that they can use as they see fit to protect America from pirates and terroristas...

Welcome to 2084, Orwell's sequel.

Cue the /. RIGHTS commentary.

[danZbar (989499)]

Two wrongs make a RIGHT:

I've purchased x number of CDs for an average of z dollars (a price which was illegally inflated by an average of 200%).

I've downloaded y number of albums which were...free.

If xz < yz/2 then I suppose I ought to be immediately dumped into the furnaces of Mordor.

If xz > yz/2 then I am a moral individual and the RIAA can suck it.


It's their RIGHT:

Hey, it's their content. They can dictate what should be done with it. This is America. Constitution. Blah blah blah blah blah if you don't like it, gyet out.


They'll never understand what is RIGHT:

They don't see how badly they've sullied the reputation of every artist they represent, the entire process of making money from playing music, and the beloved image of the American rock star. They'll just keep on beating a dead horse, because they're old, and stupid, and ugly, and they have small wieners, and they don't really care about musicians (let alone music), and did I mention they have small wieners?


We are RIGHT:

Hey, it's our hot music. We do what we want. We do what we want. We fly by the seat of our pants and eat copyright law for breakfast. You aint bad. We bad. We download full length films the day before they come out and watch shitty screening cams that forever ruin the experience of the film, but at least we don't give the MAN our money that we made by selling downloaded music at flee markets. Yeah, look at us. We do what we want.


The desire to profit isn't RIGHT:

Artists can't expect to make money from making music, and shouldn't expect to. They should want to make music because they love it. Yada yada yada...love is all you need.....yada yada yada....the marketplace corrupts.


Newer models are RIGHT:

Just accept that CDs are promotional items to drive other types of sales, and stop suing grandmas. You can't stop progress, and you can't come up with DRM that some pimply teenager won't hack within a few weeks.


The RIGHT thing here is to do what you feel is RIGHT, no matter what the legal RIGHT:

Your right to point and click and use your ears *feels* as legitimate as (or more than) theirs to enforce their right to restrict *every* listening of a song to some type of commercial transaction, yet legally it isn't. Think about the artist. Think about the label. Think about the music. Think about your bank account. When you love an artist enough, you know you'll spend money on them. This is the compromise most of us make. This is the compromise the industry has to get used to.

Re:

[Half-pint HAL (718102)]

If it can't be done without technology, it can't be a right. I can't make a perfect copy of an obscure dance CD without tech, so it can't be my right.

If we repealed all copyright tomorrow, we couldn't make it retroactive as people in the past were given a contract by the law for x years. Holywood production would cease -- why spend x million on a film which will be available for free on the net after the first public showing? Why spend x thousand recording an album when it might only sell one copy (to MrUp

I'm tired of these defenses.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Just settle or admit that you are wrong. The RIAA is doing the right thing by protecting their intellectual property. Even though the only record label represented by the RIAA that doesn't try to sell all crap is Warner Bros. (Madonna is the only musician with any talent and by far the best singer ever), it is still wrong to make unauthorized copies. It is like stealing from a thrift store. It is mostly junk (except for Madonna, she is the best!), but it is still wrong. Downloading music without paying *does* cut into the profits of the labels and artists (all of the artists deserve further pay cuts for low quality product except Madonna). If you couldn't obtain it for free, you would pay for it. It is capitalism working without proper regulation such that those who invest time and money (time is money) into a product can't earn a profit. I think there is somewhat of an inelastic demand for music. If you raise the price by cutting out the free stuff, you will still see demand.

Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
--
Madonna has the best voice and content creation ability.

Re:

[huckda (398277)]

the RIAA has no intellectual property...

each individual record company does...

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I was simplifying. The RIAA represents the record labels in the protection of the intellectual property (copyrights). Also, WTF? Why am I being modded funny? I was serious! I anticipated being modded 5, Insightful.
Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
--
Madonna is the only talented artist.

Re:I'm tired of these defenses.

[Mister Whirly (964219)]

"I bet if you started using their logo"

You mean the swastika?

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I agree that they have a right to defend their copyright, but the punishment is not proportional with the "crime"

The have repeatedly asked students to quit school [techdirt.com]. Apparently the RIAA can't wait untill they get a job to pay them. The RIAA needs money so badly, that they think it's worth destroying kids hope of a real life.

They have also sued 12 year olds [foxnews.com], and even dead grandmothers [afterdawn.com] aren't safe...

Re:I'm tired of these defenses.

[mariushm (1022195)]

If you couldn't obtain it for free, you would pay for it.

Not necessarily. I would borrow CD's from friends or trading with them, or I would gather 5-10 friends and buy one record with them and so on.

Some people don't realize there are millions of people who really have other priorities in life then to buy a CD for 30 dollars when they earn 300 dollars a week or even less and the rent is 200 dollars and the various monthly fees are 60 dollars. But they would buy at least one CD a month if the CD was 9.99 dollars.

Some people don't believe in buying records when the music on those records is freely available on FM radios, they would copy it anyway from the Internet, but these people would gladly go to a concert if it was possible. For example, I would NOT pay 40 dollars for a Yanni CD but I would pay 100-150 dollars without blinking for a concert ticket if Yanni or Mike Oldfield concert in my country. These are concerts where you "feel" the music, if you're at a live concert.

Furthermore, I believe that downloading music often increases sales, because I can't remember how often I'd recommended bands and albums to other people, which later on have purchased tracks or albums from iTunes. I may not be buying, but I'm referring people.

Check out the forums of Digitally Imported for example, and see what people are saying at various tracks, you'll see lots of comments like "Wow! Where can I buy this mix?" Would you consider that by listening to that mix on DI.fm, that artist lost a sale? He won hundreds just by gaining popularity and getting his work known.

Re:

[dave562 (969951)]

Replace RIAA with Open Source and replace "music pirate" with Microsoft. Is it okay for Microsoft to help themselves to Open Source code? I mean after all, those silly developers released their code under the GPL, but what if Microsoft doesn't feel like following the GPL? Obviously those stupid developers shouldn't have put their code out there in a such a way Microsoft could help themselves to it. Right? To follow your own logic, the original copy of the code remains intact and still has plenty of use

Re:I'm tired of these defenses.

[21st Century Peon (812997)]

Ok, then put it another way: Why do you deserve to have the song for free? (Just to be clear on my general position - RIAA = bad, but paying people for their work = good, though I'm not getting into a row about relative revenue-pie-slice sizes)

Re:

[dave562 (969951)]

And with the way the laws are written, if they want to broadcast or share that content with others, they need to pay to do so. The one person who bought the CD doesn't even come close to paying for the production cost of the CD. The process of making music keeps a lot of people employed. If you like an album enough to listen to it more than once, you should purchase it. If you don't want to buy the entire album then you should pay to download the tracks off of iTunes. I pirated a lot of warez in my tim

Re:

[scumdamn (82357)]

I didn't know that the commercials we hear just pay for royalties. I thought it actually cost money to hire engineers, DJs, morning show personalities, etc and had to pay for the energy to broadcast all those watts. You know, I even thought the building upkeep and maintenance cost money! Can you imagine what a rube I feel like now?

Re:

[ronadams (987516)]

Good thing I said the commercials exclusively pay for royalties. Reading comprehension is fun for you and for me!

Re:A defense?

[o2sd (1002888)]

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.[1]

Re:

[IConrad01 (1105603)]

Great. Now my room-mate's head just exploded. Thanks. Do you know what it costs to get blood out of a hard-drive??

Re:A defense?

[NoPantsJim (1149003)]

Do you know what it costs to get blood out of a hard-drive??

Long story short, after three acquittals I can proudly say as a free man that yes, yes I do.

Re:A defense?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what it costs to get blood out of a hard-drive??

Long story short, after three acquittals I can proudly say as a free man that yes, yes I do.

Hans Reiser, is that you ?

Re:A defense?

[bobby1234 (860820)]

Emancipation Proclamation,

I don't listen to hip hop music!!!

Re:That's great.. no wait...

[ZombieRoboNinja (905329)]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/moti on+to+strike [thefreedictionary.com]

motion to strike n. a request for a judge's order to eliminate all or a portion of the legal pleading (complaint, answer) of the opposition on any one of several grounds. It is often used in an attempt to have an entire cause of action removed ("stricken") from the court record. A motion to strike is also made orally during trial to ask the judge to order "stricken" answers by a witness in violation of rules of evidence (laws covering what is admissible in trial). Even though the jury is admonished to ignore such an answer or some comment, the jury has heard it, and "a bell once rung, cannot be unrung."

First result of a Google search for "motion to strike." It would have been faster to look it up than to post a complaint.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032)]

The FSF is not in the exclusive paid service of a group of for-profit corporations. That's the real point of the motion - this is collusion by a group of corporations. The FSF would likely be classified as a watch-dog group, like the ACLU. The distinction is one which is difficult to codify into law succinctly, but has clear moral differences. That's one of the key problems with laws - they attempt to codify behaviors into a language which is unable to accurately depict intent.

Thanks, Overzeetop.

There's no comparison at all.

Here we have 4 multinational corporations who control 80% of an industry. They have pooled all of their copyrights and joined forces in a blood pact not to reach a separate settlement with any defendant. Their settlements are nonnegotiable. It is their way, or the highway.

It is textbook collusion, which has one purpose and one purpose only -- to take the value of their copyrights, which are each lawful monopolies, and leverage and combine them into a gre