RIAA File-Sharing Lawsuits Top 10,000 People Sued 490
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."
Re:Networks? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, they have [google.com].
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.
Re:Vote with your wallet (Score:1, Informative)
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)
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.
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.
Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
Re:Profits from suing (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:3, Informative)
But discovery doesn't extend to everything -- it's only really for things relevant to the case at hand.
So... how are you going to use their books to prove that you didn't do it? If you don't have a good reason, the request will be challenged, and you'll lose.
Re:They will stop.... (Score:3, Informative)
You need a factual dispute to get and keep your case before a jury. If it is generally agreed that you uploaded files and can't produce a license to distribute them, there is nothing left for a jury to decide.