NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The defendant in a Tampa, Florida, case, UMG v. Del Cid, has filed counterclaims accusing the RIAA record labels of conspiracy and extortion. The counterclaims (pdf) are for Trespass, Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 USC 1030), Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. 501.201), Civil Extortion (CA Penal Code 519 & 523), and Civil Conspiracy involving (a) use of private investigators without license in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 (a)(2)(C); (c) extortion in violation of Ca. Penal Code 519 and 523; and (d) knowingly collecting an unlawful consumer debt, and using abus[ive] means to do so, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a et seq. and Fla. Stat. 559.72 et seq."
You know, its about time this happened - I've been wandering how the RIAA's actions up to this point were any different from Mafia tactics. Pay us "protection money" or we'll sue. Good on 'em.
Just good lawyers? Screw that, how do we help them? Do they have a donation site setup. Do they need any information to stick it to the RIAA? Someone has balls, let's help them.
Well, it's either that or pay them $5000 up front and then $300/hour after that.
Someone has to pick up the tab for the lawyers time, the overhead of getting that law degree, their WestLaw subscription, the rent and power bill for their office, the salary of the receptionist, the salary of the secretary and the salary of the paralegal.
You pay them a 30% cut for a normal case and 50% for one that goes to appeals because a lot of them don't generate any money at all. All of you "non paying people" are subsidizing each other.
You can always pay them by the hour (like any other professional) if you don't like the contingency arrangement.
It's different because there is an actual law against copyrigth-infringement, and most of the people threathened are actually guilty of breaking that law. Now, this doesn't make it rigth. It just means current copyrigth-law is bad law.
Copyrigth-law, as currently written, makes everyone a criminal. But only the ones that RIAA (or other large copyrigth-holders) choose to go after, get punished. Which means essentially, that *THEY* are the ones who decide, by criteria dictated by them, who gets punished and who not.
That's not how it's supposed to work; elected politicians are supposed to decide what is legal and what not. But by deciding that "everything" is illegal, they've efficiently handed the keys over to RIAA et al
"Everyone" is very sligthly pushing it, but it's not far from the truth. I was at a lecture about IT and law, and the professor asked those people who have ever willingly broken copyrigth-law to raise a hand. Literally 95% of all hands went up. IT-students have more reason and more expertise, so may be sligthly over-represented, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of current 25-year-olds are guilty of breaking copyrigth-law atleast once in the last year.
We should remove or change laws which we do not intend to uphold. Otherwise we hand over the power of defining de-facto law to those deciding what and whom to investigate. (because if everyone is guilty, by deciding to investigate someone you are de-facto deciding to punish that person)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 05 2007, @08:28PM (#19405799)
Sadly, I know that you have been reading (and have posted in) the last few dozen stories and are just being an asshole, but I'll try to recap some of the main points here. Ray can (and has) done it many times and better than I can. He's also a lawyer, whereas IANAL. Be that as it may...
> How in the hell is legally protecting your rights by suing infringers who are distributing your copyrighted materials, and offering them a settlement to avoid court cases, an example of "Mafia tactics" or "protection money?"
They abuse court processes by:
* Doing things ex parte whenever possible, making sure that the other side never has a chance to be heard in court.
* Improper joinder of unrelated cases, for which they have been sanctioned in Texas. In spite of having been enjoined by the court, they have routinely ignored that ruling and simply avoided litigating in Texas.
* Unfair settlements. Although they have acknowledged in the press that they "occasionally" find innocent defendants, they pursue even their weakest cases in court until it's obvious they're going to lose. Then they try to get a dismissal without prejudice to avoid having to pay your legal fees. This means that you can either: a) Pay a ~$3,500 settlement or b) Pay a lawyer even more than that to represent you in court. If you're innocent, you end up paying no matter what. Yes, after a long and hard court battle, Debbie Foster *finally* won reasonable attorney's fees, but she's pretty much the only one so far. Usually, they cut & run and you're just out of luck and out of money.
In short, they do precious little to make sure that the people they sue are guilty, they torment anyone they sue in court (even going after your family if you prove to be innocent), and they twist every court rule they can get away with (hint: getting sanctioned & ignoring court orders is NOT something a reputable lawyer does).
So no, I'm not going to condone this "Won't someone please think of the poor RIAA!" crap when the RIAA come preaching this hypocritical holier than thou bit with respect to copyright law, only to turn around and ignore any laws or court orders that stand in their way.
Now please crawl back under whatever bridge you came out from under.
Besides, I AM an artist. If I were signed with a label/distribution company/other organ, I would make >10 per unit sold. I much prefer that people burn or download my album, then buy me a beer. I get more out of it that way.
Also, 15,010 angry nerds can't be wrong.
http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-a merica/riaa-wins-worst-company-in-america-2007-245 235.php [consumerist.com]
[/rebuttal]
Okay, fair point, the RIAA are just doing their job. We'll disregard for the moment it's a job that doesn't need to be done. In this case, the only thing the RIAA are guilty of is boundless enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the low-income single mothers on the receiving end of the lawsuits don't see it that way.
Okay, I've lost the thread of my argument, so I'm just going to say what I originally intended to say.
Clearchannel.
Money talks. Independent labels can't afford to get music on the radio in America, because they don't have the resource to buy the airtime or lobby the execs. The internet is their only hope. The RIAA, as far as I can work out, is accidentally crushing independent artists while they're going after the roaches. So, sure. Blame the RIAA-haters for depriving artists who already have record labels, have a valid form of income. I'll keep blaming the RIAA for keeping the little guy down with its' clumsy antics.
No, please do cheer. You can't get a victory unless someone fights back, and it has to be someone getting victimized by the RIAA to have real currency. We've gone years now without someone stepping up to the plate, so I would consider this to be a huge step. We've needed this for a long time.
What happens if the judge determines that the evidence collected by the RIAA in this particular case is sufficient and rules in favour of the cartel?
It's quite possible from a legal perspective. This would create a precedent that is only going to encourage the RIAA to sue more and more.
From a moral perspective this is much like seeing a disturbed, criminally insane child accidentally discharge a gun and kill someone, and reward him by giving him an AK-47 in a crowded shopping mall.
This time, the RIAA can't drop the suit without prejudice as soon as it starts to look like they'll lose.
Who says they have to drop the suit? They can settle outside the courts and the defendant who has filed the counter-claim will be offered a large enough sum of money that they can't resist, who will then drop the counter-claim.
dont cheer yet, filing counterclaims is not the same as winning the case agaisnt the RIAA
Still, it'll be fun to watch them crap their pants and try to settle with the person for megabucks. If they flinch, their extortion plans are all over, as getting hit with a lawsuit from them will be like winning the lottery.
Oh c'mon, it's not like we ain't seen laws being bought and sold so far, and we've seen laws retroactively making illegal activities legal, why do you think combining them is impossible?
If you look at Section 72 paragraph 14, subsection 8 sentence 2 (3f33.v2.7) of the Florida code (version 23.4.2a) you will clearly see that it is superceded by Federal code 4323F.2b4#*R, page 492 subsection B, paragraph 12, sentences 3-7.
Obviously he emigrated due to disagreements he had with the current government of Kashyyyk allowing companies such as the RIAAArrrarraaa or the MPAAAaaarrrrarar to run rampant within the vast loopholes of the law while they sit in their painted-in corner attempting to tie their hands behind their own back.
Whereas the Ewoks were developing their own music infrastructure within a program called iWok (which has an internal distribution service for various music genres such as Wok & Woll).
There are way too many ties between the people who write the law and the people who make money knowing the law. Politicans aren't about to put lawyers out of work by making the legal system intelligible to the common citizen.
Having non-lawyers write laws will result in really poorly-written laws with plenty of loopholes. The law is like every other specialized field; it develops its own language for a reason.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 05 2007, @06:45PM (#19405069)
Most of the victims just roll over because they can't afford to pay a lawyer. The RIAA doesn't go after people who can defend themselves. On the other hand, if this case and a couple of others are won in court then the RIAA won't be able to use its cheap tactics any more.
Their supposed expert (actually he is an expert, just not on what he is testifying to) and their investigators only sound good until they are properly challenged. In other words they're only good enough to fool most of the victims and maybe a credulous judge.
The answer? Portable HDDs and sharing them around your with your friends:)
In truth, I think you're right about that. Peer-to-peer served to get massive collections of music into the hands of, well, the masses. Now there are millions upon millions of 50+ Gb private stashes out there. The biggest threat the music industry is facing is the large, portable hard drive... whether it's in an iPod or not. I mean, in the time it takes to grab a few tunes from Limewire you can jack in a portable USB drive and commit copyright infringement on a Biblical scale.
The RIAA waves a piece of paper and says "Look, at 11:28 on March 23rd 2007 Zaphod was making 'Stairway to Heaven' available for downloading on the Bittorrent network".
Zaphod: "Err, no, I wasn't."
RIAA: "Yes you did, we have a piece of paper!"
Zaphod: "Give me ten seconds and I can show you a piece of paper saying anything you like."
RIAA: "We have database logs and screenshots!"
Zaphod: "Give me five minutes with a computer and I'll show you database logs and screenshots of anything you like."
RIAA: "We have bizarrely detailed logs from your ISP showing that we downloaded a file from your computer at 11:29 on March 23rd 2007!."
Zaphod: "Yes, it was a picture of me buggering your mother."
RIAA: "..."
Really, I don't understand why the *AA's 'evidence' in these matters is relevant, let alone compelling. Do they have some sort of infallible tool for proving exactly what files Zaphod had on his computer?
Well, it hangs on what the judge deems "reasonable proof". If the mafiaa alone produces a log, it's clearly easily forged. If the defendant does, it's the same. When the ISP, a non-aligned party, produces evidence, it usually holds some meaning.
IANAL. In civil cases all the plaintiff has to do is convince the judge that their claims are "probably" true. In a criminal case you have to prove a lot more. As far as I am aware screen shots, log files, etc. aren't considered any real evidence in a criminal case since they are so easily forged, but they are allowed in a civil case.
Let's say my kids are out playing in my yard and they throw a ball and it breaks a window of your car. If you sued me you wouldn't have to prove they did it, just that it's likely that they did.
I think these charges, should they have merit might just stop the RIAA in its tracks. At the very least, experts would be far less willing to work on their behalf for fear of a damaged reputation and/or potential jail time. I know that in PA, acting as Private Detective without any kind of bond and licensure is a FELONY. I can't imagine doing so in Florida wouldn't be a crime either. We shall see about the outcome. My guess is that these charges will be whittled down and not much will become of this. I would really like to see this fought to the bitter end.
Thing of beauty. One of the few legal documents I can actually read.
It appears few stones have been left unturned in the counter complaint. It clearly alleges that the RIAA have been using scare tactics to maintain their control on music distribution. The interesting thing is that they have to now prove they didn't. Given that they the big RIAA members have been convicted of collusion in the past, I can't help but see this one becoming a really big nasty mess for them.
Given the U.S. Justice system runs slower than treacle, don't expect the RIAA to be pulled through the coals for a while.
Despite what we all like to think of RIAA, they have on staff some of the best lawyers money can buy. Surely they have contingency plan layout just for this?
That's because AFAIK he/she is a lawyer and has been involved in one of these RIAA cases (to what extent I'm unsure). Just look at the prior article submissions! Here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org] being obvious examples.
Just so you know, the submitter's name is Ray Beckerman. He is a New York lawyer who has represented his share of RIAA victims and he has posted many articles updating us on the progress of these cases, including the one where he asked us to respond to the RIAA's "expert" witness who had basically admitted in a deposition to having essentially no scientific basis for his findings.
Because his clients are generally not wealthy and cannot afford thousands of dollars on experts and legal fees, he's turned to those of us in the technical community who are sick of the RIAA's bullying legal tactics, and I believe he found an Ask Slashdot helpful for once, in spite of the trolls (surely that must be a first...).
If you want to know about the cases he's involved in, he posts about those (and others) over on his blog [blogspot.com]. Or just talk to him when he shows up on Slashdot [slashdot.org]. He's a nice guy, he reads (and responds to) pretty much all replies to his posts, save maybe the trolls. And if he seems a bit curt at times, it's because the RIAA is also watching him. That's right, they've taken note of his blog and possibly other things and tried to twist the things he says and does to use against him in court. I can't see how it's even relevant (it probably isn't), but the RIAA lawyers aren't known for playing nice (or even by the rules, if you look at all the stuff they try and pull ex parte; one Texas judge got mad at them for trying to "defraud" the state of filing fees).
In other words, he's a good lawyer, and one of our few allies in the fight against the RIAA. Very, very few people can afford to represent themselves in court, even if they're innocent, and the RIAA is taking every advantage of that fact:(
I, for one, intend to do pretty much anything in my power to help him out.
Um that's why people share files. Most of the RIAA music doesn't sound good for the ears, and we're sick of paying for a whole CD to get the one good track on it that they never release as a single!
So because the odds of me getting struck by a stray bullet while you fire at targets in your back yard, is so low im more likely to get killed in a freak zebra crossing, it should be legal to fire at targets in your back yard in a poplulated area?
Just because its rare, doesn't make it right. Murder, as it turns out, is pretty damn rare. Does that make murder right? If its right, it would become more common and suddenly, its wrong! Where does such logic lead?
You compared an event the probabilistically won't happen to an event that has happened.
Stop it, they don't apply to each other.
"...it should be legal to fire at targets in your back yard in a populated area?" if the odds are that low to hit ANYBODY, then there would be nothing wrong with firing a gun in your backyard. Of course you would be paying for any property damage.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 05 2007, @07:25PM (#19405397)
Just for fun I decided to test this theory when someone like you said this to me four years ago. I videotaped some fratboys playing drunk soccer, and then copied and pasted the clip repeatedly until I had an hour and a half long video. I then called the video "Shaolin Soccer.avi", put it in a Gnutella share directory on my computer that I connected to the university network (there were no other files in the share directory) and within three days the university had forwarded me a letter from the MPAA stating that I was sharing the movie "Shaolin Soccer." I had a good laugh with the residential networking guys about it. Together we told the MPAA to go fuck off.
I haven't been struck by lightning yet.
While underestimating your opponent is always bad, so can overestimating them. Why would a company have thought out legal action any better than they think out IT infrastructure, employee health care, etc.? How many times have you seen a company completely blow a truly big decision before? Why assume the legal department is any better?
Don't forget that the RIAA isn't just using employee lawyers, they've hired litigation firms. And, just like any good contractor, those firms certainly have glossed over any pitfalls of their strategy in order to convince the RIAA to pay them lots of money to do what they do. And do you think the RIAA lawyer who rubber-stamped this process had the time and the background to realize that there might be something wrong with the way they were proceeding? How many data center managers and CIO's have you seen rubber-stamp a great IT idea that turned out to cost the company 10-times the original estimate, and result in lost productivity and higher maintenance costs? Why assume lawyers are any different?
Certainly the RIAA lawyers have not done a good job for their clients. Their strategy decisions seem calculated to increase the total amount of legal fees expended, and nothing else.
E.g., in Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com], at a time when the defendant's attorneys fees totalled $55,000, and the judge was preparing to calculate how much of that was "reasonable", the RIAA served a raft of motions and other dilatory requests. The result of this boatload of litigation activity:
-in 2 1/2 months the RIAA's exposure leaped from $55k to $114k
-the judge issued a new decision attacking the RIAA lawyers' motives, veracity, and intellectual integrity, and
-the judge ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which will no doubt be described in detail in the judge's order.
I'm estimating the RIAA paid $100,000 for those "additional services".
About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Informative)
Someone has to pick up the tab for the lawyers time, the overhead of getting that law degree, their WestLaw subscription, the rent and power bill for their office, the salary of the receptionist, the salary of the secretary and the salary of the paralegal.
You pay them a 30% cut for a normal case and 50% for one that goes to appeals because a lot of them don't generate any money at all. All of you "non paying people" are subsidizing each other.
You can always pay them by the hour (like any other professional) if you don't like the contingency arrangement.
Parent
I for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's different because there is an actual law against copyrigth-infringement, and most of the people threathened are actually guilty of breaking that law. Now, this doesn't make it rigth. It just means current copyrigth-law is bad law.
Copyrigth-law, as currently written, makes everyone a criminal. But only the ones that RIAA (or other large copyrigth-holders) choose to go after, get punished. Which means essentially, that *THEY* are the ones who decide, by criteria dictated by them, who gets punished and who not.
That's not how it's supposed to work; elected politicians are supposed to decide what is legal and what not. But by deciding that "everything" is illegal, they've efficiently handed the keys over to RIAA et al
"Everyone" is very sligthly pushing it, but it's not far from the truth. I was at a lecture about IT and law, and the professor asked those people who have ever willingly broken copyrigth-law to raise a hand. Literally 95% of all hands went up. IT-students have more reason and more expertise, so may be sligthly over-represented, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of current 25-year-olds are guilty of breaking copyrigth-law atleast once in the last year.
We should remove or change laws which we do not intend to uphold. Otherwise we hand over the power of defining de-facto law to those deciding what and whom to investigate. (because if everyone is guilty, by deciding to investigate someone you are de-facto deciding to punish that person)
Parent
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think I've ever seen someone type with a lisp before.
Parent
Have you been paying ANY attention, troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
> How in the hell is legally protecting your rights by suing infringers who are distributing your copyrighted materials, and offering them a settlement to avoid court cases, an example of "Mafia tactics" or "protection money?"
They abuse court processes by:
* Doing things ex parte whenever possible, making sure that the other side never has a chance to be heard in court.
* Improper joinder of unrelated cases, for which they have been sanctioned in Texas. In spite of having been enjoined by the court, they have routinely ignored that ruling and simply avoided litigating in Texas.
* Unfair settlements. Although they have acknowledged in the press that they "occasionally" find innocent defendants, they pursue even their weakest cases in court until it's obvious they're going to lose. Then they try to get a dismissal without prejudice to avoid having to pay your legal fees. This means that you can either: a) Pay a ~$3,500 settlement or b) Pay a lawyer even more than that to represent you in court. If you're innocent, you end up paying no matter what. Yes, after a long and hard court battle, Debbie Foster *finally* won reasonable attorney's fees, but she's pretty much the only one so far. Usually, they cut & run and you're just out of luck and out of money.
In short, they do precious little to make sure that the people they sue are guilty, they torment anyone they sue in court (even going after your family if you prove to be innocent), and they twist every court rule they can get away with (hint: getting sanctioned & ignoring court orders is NOT something a reputable lawyer does).
So no, I'm not going to condone this "Won't someone please think of the poor RIAA!" crap when the RIAA come preaching this hypocritical holier than thou bit with respect to copyright law, only to turn around and ignore any laws or court orders that stand in their way.
Now please crawl back under whatever bridge you came out from under.
Parent
Re: storing the balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya, a copyright infringement website defends copyright infringement. Who'd've thought. also, this lesson has been learned before [techdirt.com].
Besides, I AM an artist. If I were signed with a label/distribution company/other organ, I would make >10 per unit sold. I much prefer that people burn or download my album, then buy me a beer. I get more out of it that way.
Also, 15,010 angry nerds can't be wrong. http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-
[/rebuttal] Okay, fair point, the RIAA are just doing their job. We'll disregard for the moment it's a job that doesn't need to be done. In this case, the only thing the RIAA are guilty of is boundless enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the low-income single mothers on the receiving end of the lawsuits don't see it that way.
Okay, I've lost the thread of my argument, so I'm just going to say what I originally intended to say.
Clearchannel.
Money talks. Independent labels can't afford to get music on the radio in America, because they don't have the resource to buy the airtime or lobby the execs. The internet is their only hope. The RIAA, as far as I can work out, is accidentally crushing independent artists while they're going after the roaches. So, sure. Blame the RIAA-haters for depriving artists who already have record labels, have a valid form of income. I'll keep blaming the RIAA for keeping the little guy down with its' clumsy antics.
Parent
Unlicensed private investigators... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think that this should at least make the RIAA use legal and more robust techniques to win cases.
dont cheer yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:5, Funny)
It's quite possible from a legal perspective. This would create a precedent that is only going to encourage the RIAA to sue more and more.
From a moral perspective this is much like seeing a disturbed, criminally insane child accidentally discharge a gun and kill someone, and reward him by giving him an AK-47 in a crowded shopping mall.
Parent
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:5, Insightful)
*shrug*
Seen it happen before, will happen again. Gee.
Parent
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, it'll be fun to watch them crap their pants and try to settle with the person for megabucks. If they flinch, their extortion plans are all over, as getting hit with a lawsuit from them will be like winning the lottery.
Parent
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Please... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
"This Space Intentionally Left Blank"
I'd like to see you argue that point.
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
In Alabama, ANAL is strictly prohibited by Penal Code 5432.427c(a).
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
You hit Troll for 1
Troll hit you for -3
You used Administrative Beatdown on Troll
Damaged Troll for 775 (overkill 759)
Troll is Defeated!
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it, that does not make sense!
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
Whereas the Ewoks were developing their own music infrastructure within a program called iWok (which has an internal distribution service for various music genres such as Wok & Woll).
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
I think superseeding is what got that guy in trouble in the first place.
Hopefully, it will earn him a jury of his peers.
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Having non-lawyers write laws will result in really poorly-written laws with plenty of loopholes. The law is like every other specialized field; it develops its own language for a reason.
Parent
The reason this hasn't happened before ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Their supposed expert (actually he is an expert, just not on what he is testifying to) and their investigators only sound good until they are properly challenged. In other words they're only good enough to fool most of the victims and maybe a credulous judge.
Re:The reason this hasn't happened before ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In truth, I think you're right about that. Peer-to-peer served to get massive collections of music into the hands of, well, the masses. Now there are millions upon millions of 50+ Gb private stashes out there. The biggest threat the music industry is facing is the large, portable hard drive
Sneakernet isn't dead: it just got bigger guns.
Parent
Why are *AA logs worth anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA waves a piece of paper and says "Look, at 11:28 on March 23rd 2007 Zaphod was making 'Stairway to Heaven' available for downloading on the Bittorrent network".
Zaphod: "Err, no, I wasn't."
RIAA: "Yes you did, we have a piece of paper!"
Zaphod: "Give me ten seconds and I can show you a piece of paper saying anything you like."
RIAA: "We have database logs and screenshots!"
Zaphod: "Give me five minutes with a computer and I'll show you database logs and screenshots of anything you like."
RIAA: "We have bizarrely detailed logs from your ISP showing that we downloaded a file from your computer at 11:29 on March 23rd 2007!."
Zaphod: "Yes, it was a picture of me buggering your mother."
RIAA: "..."
Really, I don't understand why the *AA's 'evidence' in these matters is relevant, let alone compelling. Do they have some sort of infallible tool for proving exactly what files Zaphod had on his computer?
Re:Why are *AA logs worth anything? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why are *AA logs worth anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say my kids are out playing in my yard and they throw a ball and it breaks a window of your car. If you sued me you wouldn't have to prove they did it, just that it's likely that they did.
Parent
This is music to my ears . . . (Score:5, Informative)
I just read the complaint (Score:4, Interesting)
Thing of beauty. One of the few legal documents I can actually read.
It appears few stones have been left unturned in the counter complaint. It clearly alleges that the RIAA have been using scare tactics to maintain their control on music distribution. The interesting thing is that they have to now prove they didn't. Given that they the big RIAA members have been convicted of collusion in the past, I can't help but see this one becoming a really big nasty mess for them.
Given the U.S. Justice system runs slower than treacle, don't expect the RIAA to be pulled through the coals for a while.
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:4, Funny)
Inconceivable.
Parent
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:5, Funny)
(my gift to you)
Parent
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:4, Funny)
A spoon manufacturer?
Parent
Re:No! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:hmm look who posted this (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Yes, Ray is a lawyer fighting the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Because his clients are generally not wealthy and cannot afford thousands of dollars on experts and legal fees, he's turned to those of us in the technical community who are sick of the RIAA's bullying legal tactics, and I believe he found an Ask Slashdot helpful for once, in spite of the trolls (surely that must be a first...).
If you want to know about the cases he's involved in, he posts about those (and others) over on his blog [blogspot.com]. Or just talk to him when he shows up on Slashdot [slashdot.org]. He's a nice guy, he reads (and responds to) pretty much all replies to his posts, save maybe the trolls. And if he seems a bit curt at times, it's because the RIAA is also watching him. That's right, they've taken note of his blog and possibly other things and tried to twist the things he says and does to use against him in court. I can't see how it's even relevant (it probably isn't), but the RIAA lawyers aren't known for playing nice (or even by the rules, if you look at all the stuff they try and pull ex parte; one Texas judge got mad at them for trying to "defraud" the state of filing fees).
In other words, he's a good lawyer, and one of our few allies in the fight against the RIAA. Very, very few people can afford to represent themselves in court, even if they're innocent, and the RIAA is taking every advantage of that fact
I, for one, intend to do pretty much anything in my power to help him out.
Parent
Re:hmm look who posted this (Score:4, Funny)
You've got to admit it sounds great to the ears
Um that's why people share files. Most of the RIAA music doesn't sound good for the ears, and we're sick of paying for a whole CD to get the one good track on it that they never release as a single!
Parent
Re:more likely to get struck by lightning (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because its rare, doesn't make it right. Murder, as it turns out, is pretty damn rare. Does that make murder right? If its right, it would become more common and suddenly, its wrong! Where does such logic lead?
Parent
Re:more likely to get struck by lightning (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop it, they don't apply to each other.
"...it should be legal to fire at targets in your back yard in a populated area?"
if the odds are that low to hit ANYBODY, then there would be nothing wrong with firing a gun in your backyard. Of course you would be paying for any property damage.
Parent
Re:more likely to get struck by lightning (Score:5, Funny)
To the War on Drugs.
Parent
Re:more likely to get struck by lightning (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The RIAA Has This In Their Pocket (Score:5, Interesting)
E.g., in Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com], at a time when the defendant's attorneys fees totalled $55,000, and the judge was preparing to calculate how much of that was "reasonable", the RIAA served a raft of motions and other dilatory requests. The result of this boatload of litigation activity:
-in 2 1/2 months the RIAA's exposure leaped from $55k to $114k
-the judge issued a new decision attacking the RIAA lawyers' motives, veracity, and intellectual integrity, and
-the judge ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which will no doubt be described in detail in the judge's order.
I'm estimating the RIAA paid $100,000 for those "additional services".
You tell me if that was money well spent.
Parent