Slashdot Log In
RIAA Walks Away From Another "Discovery" Case
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jan 18, 2009 08:12 AM
from the seeking-the-light-switch dept.
from the seeking-the-light-switch dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You may recall that the RIAA walked away last week from one of their 'discovery' cases seeking the identities of 'John Does' who attended Rhode Island College. We have just learned that they walked away from another one, BMG Music v. Does 1-14, in Greensboro, North Carolina. 2 of the 14 John Does had settled, but the other 12 — who hung tough — will never be identified to the RIAA lawyers and will not have to pay any 'settlement.' This adds fuel to the debate over whether the RIAA has finally seen the light or is still sneaking around in the dark."
Related Stories
[+]
RIAA Backs Down In Austin, Texas 230 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In November, 2004, several judges in the federal court in Austin, Texas, got together and ordered the RIAA to cease and desist from its practice of joining multiple 'John Does' in a single case. The RIAA blithely ignored the order, and continued the illegal practice for the next four years, but steering clear of Austin. In 2008, however, circumstances conspired to force the record companies back to that venue. In Arista v. Does 1-22, in Providence, Rhode Island, they were hoping to get the student identities from Rhode Island College. After the first round, however, they learned that the College was not the ISP; rather, the ISP was an Austin-based company, Apogee Telecom Inc., meaning the RIAA would have to serve its subpoena in Austin. The RIAA did just that, but Apogee — unlike so many other ISP's — did not turn over its subscribers' identities in response to the subpoena, instead filing objections. This meant the RIAA would have to go to court, to try to get the Court to overrule Apogee's objections. Instead, it opted to withdraw the subpoena and drop its case."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Objection (Score:5, Funny)
I object to the verb 'sneaking' in TFA.
It suggests purpose, strategy, and some level of intelligence.
Re:Objection (Score:5, Funny)
I agree with you about "sneaking"; I was thinking more along the lines of "groping".
But then I realized "groping in the dark" had too many positive connotations.
Mmmmmm.... Boobs
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Objection (Score:4, Funny)
Molesting?
Think of the kiddie diddlers who you compare with RIAA ilk! How dare you! They ought to sue you for bringing the pedos on the RIAA level..
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmmmmm.... Boobs
For more info, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Tits [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How about "crashing through the underbrush"?
Pity the (2) fools. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pity the (2) fools. (Score:5, Interesting)
I second that statement.
I actually got a letter a little over a year ago which was one of these you are in deep s$%t for downloading music. Only issue it was addressed to "Occupant". I almost wet myself laughing. In my over exuberance I tore up the letter. I will probably regret that move for many years. It is something to be framed.
The best part is. I have never ever downloaded music from the net illegally. I still like that physical quality of a CD.
Oh Nothing happened. There was ZERO follow up on the letter by the sender.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
re: RIAA
Nuke them 'til they glow, and then shoot them in the dark. They are no better than communists.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are no better than communists.
One could argue that the RIAA is a lot worse than the Communists were. Consider the Soviet Union: The Communists were voted out of power despite all the vote rigging that the party in power always does everywhere, and they accepted the vote. This wasn't a fluke; it has happened in most of the countries that had Communist governments. The RIAA and MPAA were never elected to their positions, and we can't vote them out. They'll be around longer than any Communist governme
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess you are not counting all those millions killed under the State as a "bad" thing.
Re:Pity the (2) fools. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish you would have saved it as well. It seems to be a well kept secret of how often this type of intimidation is used under the guise of 'legal threats'.
A year ago, I received a Cease and Desist letter about some domains that I owned. The level of accuracy was similar, as it was addressed to my name but a different address, apparently pulled from the phone book. The letter was threatening all sorts of off the wall things; civil charges, punitive damages, and CRIMINAL charges among others. You can read the letter here sent by
Caton Commercial [demystify.info]
Sure, I could have played along and used the same legal system to smack down the lawyer for making such unfounded threats(it would fall under ethical rules of the bar assn), but instead I decided to post it for all to read.
In that period of time, when searching for the name of the company who sent it, the letter comes up in the top 4 results, along with a link to all the court cases the company is involved in in the local county courthouses publishing of cases. According to my logs, almost 10,000 people have read the letter since its posting.
oops...
Parent
Re:Pity the (2) fools. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My name is John Occupant you insensitive clod! :)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the two people who paid up are now wishing that they hadn't.
That was my first thought as well.
Is iit over yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Any chance they could sue to get their money back? If the settlement letter they paid off is bogus (and it demonstrably is in this case since the RIAA dropped the discovery and walked away from it, which says they had no intention of following through with prosecution) it seems to me that the RIAA gained the money through something resembling fraud.
I'm not sure if it would be fraud, or extortion, or whatever - but it just seems to me that the RIAA doesn't have a legal claim on the money. "Pay us and we won't take you to court." So someone pays. But they didn't take the non-paying people to court and dropped the case. So the settlement letter is absolutely bogus. Shouldn't be too difficult a point to make in front of a judge. IANAL though, so I might be very wrong, but it seems that way.
Parent
wised up ? More likely found a softer target ... (Score:3, Insightful)
As has been posted here, the RIAA is changing its target from suing individuals to (trying to) sue ISPs who do not do the their dirty work (checking, tracking, denying access) for them.
Small ISPs who cannot do that (too few customers -> no business) will simply die from the RIAAs litigations, and the bigger ones (who can deal with a few less customers) are softer targets, as they have got less to loose (as opposed to an individual which can loose upto a few times his yearly income), especially not when simply ending a customers contract on the first sign of RIAA related trouble.
Lets hope the Judges are allready sensitivised to the RIAA to such a level that even seeing their paperwork will give them an instant itch ...
The calm before the storm (Score:5, Interesting)
My piratey sense is tingling
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that can be safely assumed. Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to represent the RIAA. Lawyers are free to refuse cases if they can't reconcile the need for zealous representation with their own personal code of ethics. (Except public defenders, but that's a whole different ball game, and beside the point here.)
So yes, Mr. Ogden probably does
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
NYCL, does it? (Score:3, Insightful)
This adds fuel to the debate over whether the RIAA has finally seen the light or is still sneaking around in the dark.
Does it? Really? Or, does it point to them just not having the money in this downward spiraling economy to continue these frivolous lawsuits while they, in parallel, scramble to redesign their digital content schemes?
I have a feeling that this is going to be a lull for a few years while they regroup, retask and come at the file sharers again, or seek legislation to aid their fight; the latter being less likely under the incoming administration. The RIAA (and MPAA) are not going down without one hell of a fight. This type of battle may be ending, but evil never sleeps and is constantly trying to devise new ways to overcome good. These idiots are just confused and don't see the good in what file sharing does for their (still growing) sales.
To quote Frank Herbert, "This is all far from over..."
Re:Do not steal (Score:5, Insightful)
When someone shoots a photograph of your house, did they steal it? It seems you don't understand your own sources.
I know that despite the intense advertising campaign to call downloading music theft, legally the definition of theft requires depriving someone of their property, intellectual or otherwise. To deprive someone of any such item, they can't use it after you steal it. Therefore, while copying music is damaging to the RIAA, the RIAA's tactics of pretending that music copying is theft is just plain dishonesty.
Copying music is already illegal, so there's no need to add in theft charges. Just like there would be no need to add in murder charges for copying music because you are proverbially killing the artist.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless if you're stealing from the garage band up the road, or a RIAA member - it remains stealing.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it's questionable as to whether it's legally stealing. But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut -
Yep, you forbidding me from freely sharing my knowledge with Bob is the worst kind of intellectual slavery.
taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
Copying something is very different from taking something.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong. Who think that when I want a product, I don't have a right to just take it - even if the taking incurs no physical loss for anyone else.
Then people must be realizing that what they've been taught is nonsensical [micheleboldrin.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it's questionable as to whether it's legally stealing. But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut -
Yep, you forbidding me from freely sharing my knowledge with Bob is the worst kind of intellectual slavery.
taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
Copying something is very different from taking something.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong. Who think that when I want a product, I don't have a right to just take it - even if the taking incurs no physical loss for anyone else.
Then people must be realizing that what they've been taught is nonsensical [micheleboldrin.com].
I think that the point the RIAA is trying to make is that by depriving them of the money they would have made from selling the CD to you, you're in essence stealing it.
Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. It's your business, and if they want to prevent you from downloading it they should make it harder. Of course, it'd make better economic sense for them to realize that people will download because it's easier, and because most of the stuff they're producing is crap and not worth the price
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the point the RIAA is trying to make is that by depriving them of the money they would have made from selling the CD to you, you're in essence stealing it.
I'm pretty sure that point has been completely discredited, it's fairly obvious that downloads do not equate to lost sales. (Their point also raises the absurd question of, buying from their competitors instead of them also deprives them of sales they could have made, so is that stealing from them?)
Of course, it'd make better economic sense for them to realize that people will download because it's easier, and because most of the stuff they're producing is crap and not worth the price of a CD, but still. I'm not holding my breath. It'd be nice if they realized that and adjusted their business model to suit, but I doubt it'll happen.
These companies are big enough that they might have a hard time going out of business fast enough to avoid having that realization forced on them. Well, at least in normal economic times.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut - taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
I am reminded of a proverb/quote/saying I heard once:
If I have a penny and you have a penny and we exchange pennies, now you have a penny and I have a penny. But if I have an idea and you have an idea and we exchange ideas, now you have two ideas and I have two ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't stealing their property, you are stealing their money. If I take your wallet, empty it into my pocket and hand you your wallet back I've not stolen anything from you, right? You still have your wallet. This rather unclear concept in today's society of "money" is really quite abstract and you can't be prosecuted for stealing abstract things, now can you? Only physical property. So while your wallet is yours, the money in it is just an abstract concept and free for the taking.
NO, it is not. (Score:3, Interesting)
Theft deprives a property owner of the use of something they already own, whether that something is goods or money. Copyright infringement does
Nonsense. (Score:3, Informative)
No, it isn't! It is copyright infringement! The two are legally quite distinct from one another, for good reasons! See my post just above a little bit.
I am not defending the copying of copyrighted material. But I *AM* putting it in its proper perspective. It is NOT stealing or theft. It may be wrong, but it is not theft.
Further, your defense of a by-now-almost-bankrupt business model for the music industry
Re:Do not steal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to believe someone is actually defending the actions of the RIAA, but I checked your posting history and no, you aren't joking. Although technically you are correct and under existing law you could use the term thieves, you conveniently ignore the fact that the RIAA has run the campaign more like a protection racket than as a legitimate campaign to prosecute (or educate, depending on which RIAA shill you believe) the supposed offenders. They've collected "evidence" illegally, ignored court orders, used questionable legal arguments and arguments based on legal principles that do not exist. Any time anyone actually chooses to fight them in court they walk away in order to prevent a precedent from being set. The large corporations backing the RIAA can't or won't adapt to the changing market and instead are attempting to use legislation to cling to a failing business model. The existing body of law was largely set before the internet came into being, and subsequent changes have been heavily influenced by the same large corporate copyright holders. Your average person doesn't understand IP and your average congressman knows who is buttering his bread. Their entire campaign is a sterling example of how a large moneyed interest can abuse the entire legal system both in the courts and in their efforts to influence the lawmaking process itself.
All this leads me to one question: Why are you so mindlessly insistent that the law is just?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
who says it's worth $0.99?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not just continue conventional copyright protection for commercial use -- restaurants, television commercials, and so on -- while allowing unlimited personal use? Even without non-commercial use, there's still a revenue stream, albeit a smaller one, and still an incentive for artists to create popular music.
Plus, artists will always have live events and merchandise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you apparently don't understand, I'll explain what's happening: The record companies are throwing the mother of all hissy-fits over the obsolescence of their business model. In the old days, there were no record companies and artists made their living by *performing*. Then along came radio and the phonograph. The music industry was born, which was based on selling overpriced pieces of plastic, along with radio revenue. The pieces of plastic evolved into CDs and eventually cost the consumer on average
A bailout would be better for the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
If, instead of claiming that people are stealing their music, the RIAA would accept the simple fact that their product sucks, their marketing strategy sucks, their whole business plan sucks, then they could claim their problems are the result of the economic meltdown and get a few billion $$$ from Washington. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Do not steal (Score:4, Funny)
There, fixed that for you...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Whaah. If you would use the term properly, no one would object.
What has been taken? Perhaps property rights have been infringed upon, but nothing has been taken.
There is a difference
Re: (Score:2)
*Copyright infringement is not theft*
Reading Merriam-Webster, I find "stealing" to be:
1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
So you don't think that copying music without paying for it is appropriating it without the right to do so?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Appropriate (or "take") is still implying the same thing -- the taking of a physical object. It has nothing to do with creating a copy.
In fact, here's a dictionary, to back me up:
Appropriate \Ap*pro"pri*ate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
Appropriated; p. pr. & vb. n. Appropriating.]
1. To take to one's self in exclusion of others; to claim or
use as by an exclusive right; as, let no man appropriate
the use of a common benefit.
Creating a copy does not exclude others from creating a copy, so no.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To take to one's self in exclusion of others; to claim or use as by an exclusive right; as, let no man appropriate the use of a common benefit.
Hmmm. Exclusion of others. That means it's not theft if we play it loud enough for the neighbors to hear?
Re: (Score:2)
An honest one? Seriously, it's a popular crime. Sooner or later he's going to get one that is guilty (at least, in the informal sense).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it honest to sell out your client? You realize that a lawyer's job is to be a zealous advocate (though within the bounds of the law), don't you? A lawyer is not the judge and jury. It's not the attorney's role. Everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter how guilty. And even if found guilty, there is the question of how much punishment the guilty person deserves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Careful here, how does copyright infringement force people to continue making music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And slavery isn't fucking theft either. It's goddamn kidnapping, assault, probably some rape, all sorts of other crimes, but it's not theft.
Re: (Score:2)
It's doubtful the John Does spent a single penny. I know that I would not, until my name actually appeared on a court document. Meanwhile I'd be hiding.
Also: Recall that RIAA may win a case, but they still have to collect the money.
Good luck trying to find me.
I hear Canada is a nice place to live.
This is not our problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll go the "Anonymous Coward" route...
My fiance works for a music distributor. They make an everyday wage and they're about to layoff 400+ people from their offices. Oh yeah, my fiance also has Multiple Sclerosis. Her MASSIVE medical expenses are paid for through health insurance provided by her company, which she will lose if she gets laid off.
So...THANK YOU for stealing music!!!
I'm sorry, but maybe you should be speaking to people and campaigning for healthcare reform and universal healthcare. (for my part, I graduated college into this recession, have no job, and am also uninsurable at any price. I'm quickly plummeting toward the precipice with 2k/mo in Rx. )
If it wasn't the downturn or the pirates it would be something else, but your husband would have eventually lost his job (thus his insurance), and from there it's a quick drop into disability.
The injustice here is not your hu