US Dept. of Justice May Intervene To Help RIAA 215
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Corpus Christi, Texas, case, Atlantic v. Boggs, where the defendant interposed a counterclaim alleging that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory is unconstitutional, and the RIAA moved to dismiss the counterclaim, the US Department of Justice has sought and obtained an extension of time in which to decide whether to intervene in the case on the side of the RIAA. What probably precipitated the issue is that the constitutional question was raised not just as a defense as it was in UMG v. Lindor, but as a counterclaim, thus prompting a dismissal motion by the RIAA."
So much for the government working for the people (Score:5, Interesting)
This is disgusting. The RIAA goes around harassing random people on the net (with no real evidence to show they were filesharing) and demands an outrageous amount of money per song, and the government continues to *HELP* them do this?
ARRRGGHHH!!
Hello politicians:
We voted for you.
You work for us.
We want you to tell the RIAA to f**k off.
These thugs are harassing people YOU represent and you are letting them.
Stop being corrupt money-grubbing assholes and help us.
(of course I'm not so naive to think politicians will ever actually listen to us, but one can dream right?)
DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I'm missing something here...
English translation, please? (Score:1, Interesting)
How is $750 per song unconstitutional? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How is $750 per song unconstitutional? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will someone PLEASE mod the parent up? (Score:5, Interesting)
FWIW, this document is wonderful reading. The lawyer is throwing every book on his shelf at the RIAA, and when he runs out he heads over to Barnes and Noble and keeps chucking. He's got everything from Lachs, Estoppel, Waivers, Unclean Hands, Racketeering, Statue of Limitations, Failure to Mitigate, Copyright Misuse, Failure to register copyrights, Failure to prove copyrights, Failure to provide notice of a subpoena, insufficient service of process, failure to join necessary and indispensable parties, lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and good God my fingers are getting tired.
If this document is any indication of the caliber of lawyer Mr. Boggs has hired, than I'd say the RIAA will soon be running away at top speed with its tail between its legs. Huzzah!
Re:So much for the government working for the peop (Score:2, Interesting)
The RIAA campaigned for laws that were in the best interest of their respective shareholders. Copyright laws were passed. The RIAA issues lawsuits based on those laws. The Department of Justice carries out the letter of the law. There is no reason to complain about entities that continue to function as they were intended.
Personally, I would be displeased with actions of the RIAA if I was a shareholder. I do not believe that I ever will be, however, as the standard business structure of this industry does not seem to be viable.
Why not a class-action against the RIAA? (Score:2, Interesting)
Could someone file a class-action against the RIAA and/or Mediasentry since apparently everyone in the US is at risk for their extortion practices? The class would be everyone in the US, or everyone in the US with Internet access, who has NOT been targeted by the RIAA... Since the RIAA's tactics are becoming public knowledge as people have defended themselves and counter-sued, and since Mediasentry amounts to nothing more than a bunch of computer hackers, would this be possible? The goal here would not be to extract $$$ (although that would be a nice benefit), but to get an injunction against their practices. (Can an injunction be laid against someone to prevent them from filing more lawsuits?) What about trying to have the RIAA declared to be a malicious litigant ? (I believe there's a better term for this but I can't remember...)
Re:Two (Score:2, Interesting)
Samwise went on to be mayor of the Shire for 49 years after the ring was destroyed. He died several years later.
Re:With respect to RIVTH (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why not a class-action against the RIAA? (Score:1, Interesting)
Mayhap Vexatious Litigant is the term you're looking for, good sir?
Re:I am just going to state the obvious... (Score:3, Interesting)
Folks around here have been saying that the "sell stuff for a profit" model is dead for the record industry for almost a decade now. But I rarely see people hazard a guess as to when this will happen. Legitimate download resellers like iTunes are making a ton of cash, and I think most Slashdotters would claim that piracy doesn't actually significantly affect record sales, so we can't say that it's piracy that will kill the beast.
Perhaps you're claiming that this will be the case because the market will be taken over by indie musicians who distribute their stuff for free. The problem with this theory is that the market is already saturated with unsigned artists who sell their stuff directly and or givie it away, yet there are still a lot more artists who want record deals than get them. Slashdotters like to claim that artists can use the mighty power of the Internet to promote and distribute their music, but the record labels are doing this, too... the mighty power of the Internet is rising all the boats.
If you think it's obvious that the business model is dead, then great -- but do you have an estimate of when the record industry will go away?
Re:I am just going to state the obvious... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying the business model they've relied on is good and ought to be supported. I'm also not saying that downloading music is immoral... but it IS illegal. As a consumer, put your money where your mouth is... or in this case, DON'T put your money where your mouth ISN'T. They'll have to change their business model when it stops working. And in fact, they ARE changing their business model. They're changing it to get money by suing those who break the law by illegally downloading music. You can make them change THAT model too by just not downloading their music. What do you think would happen if we just showed the RIAA et al that we just don't CARE about their music? They'd lose any economic clout that they currently have and wither away, or change until they can find a way to engage the consumer's interest again.
But don't blame the RIAA for your choice to buy their music, or for your choice to illegally download it! You're just playing their game either way.
And here we have Eminem suing Apply for copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Counterclaim: RIAA = Cartel (Score:4, Interesting)
These Cases Should Never Be Getting This Far (Score:5, Interesting)
These cases should never have gotten past the John Doe/Ex Parte stage. You know, that point where the RIAA goes to court in secret, files a case they never intend to pursue, and sues dozens of John Doe IP addresses just to force ISPs to have to release private identity information that they can't get otherwise. These cases should be opposed at that point on all of the following basis -- as well as other's I can't even think of. For a good starting point, however, attack the RIAA at this point where their case is the weakest on the following points:
Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. What the RIAA is claiming is not actionable under current law.
Using unlicensed investigators in the state where the defendant resides. Media Sentry is not licensed to perform investigations in most states, and some right-minded states have laws against this. In short, any evidence provided is tainted.
The illegal joinder of otherwise unrelated defendants. This has been ruled against already by a federal judge in Texas.
The requirement to turn over identity information as justified by the Cable Act of 1984. A judge in a case against one of the colleges shot this one down, pointing out that many of these systems aren't actually cable networks, and that even if they are, that the requirement to turn over subscriber information means only to the federal government itself. The RIAA should be suing under the DCMA, which only allows them to issue take-down notices. In short, there is no law supporting the turning over of subscriber identities to the RIAA in the first place.
John Doe defendants may not reside in areas under the jurisdiction of this court, and as such the court has no right to reveal their private information. Any information turned over by an ISP should go directly to the judge, and he (she) says absolutely NOTHING about any identity outside of its jurisdiction.
The whole John Doe process from the beginning is a fraud on the court, because the RIAA has no intention of using the information gleaned in the instant case. Once they have it, they instead take it and attempt to extort money from thousands of people with threats, lies, and intimidation. The courts should be no part of this. All identity information revealed should only be allowed to be used in the case it was revealed as part of.
The RIAA's contentions of continuous and ongoing copyright infringement are not at all supported by the facts, which show only a snapshot of a single instance at one point in time. This lie was uncovered when the computer in question actually was destroyed in a fire MONTHS BEFORE the RIAA contended that the infringement they'd detected was still ongoing. This was an apparent fraud to get around the statute of limitations, which would have expired otherwise. The RIAA should be SEVERELY sanctioned, and all their cases thrown out of court, over this contention. At the very least, they should have to prove more than once instance with the same user before being allowed to make this bald faced lie!
The RIAA's arguments of irreparable harm have been ruled as exaggerations by one judge recently, on the basis of that they are easily compensated by money. In short, another exaggeration that rises to the level of another bald faced lie!
The RIAA's dogged contention that identification of the Internet account holder leads inevitably to the identification of the copyright infringer is deeply flawed. As such, they end up extorting and harassing many innocent people. Better evidence must be provided before subjecting ANYBODY to their "driftnet litigation process".
The RIAA is yet to present any evidence to show that their evidence collection methods are flawless, while there are many examples of them suing the wrong people based in this collection method. In short, they haven't provided sufficient good evidence to be allowed to continue with what they're continuing with.
The RIAA's belief
Re:You forget you can't spell DMCA without the *D* (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately the asshats of the world would quickly do an end run around this: they would simply feed their bribes to a proxy stooge who is living and registered in the area in question who would then pass them onto the target bribee.
Personally, I am getting fed up with these so-called "elections" and I am beginning to lean towards an old idea once used in ancient Greece: a system of "sortition", whereby the representatives of the population were selected simply via lottery, which guaranteed some semblance of representation of all social castes. I would add some rudamentary "pre-qualifications" (i.e. being able to read, write and answer some simple logical questions about the most basic common sense things in order to exclude complete dolts who drool on their shoes) but otherwise I think this would improve the process of selection of our representatives by orders of magnitude by removing the correlation of money and electability. Not to mention it would drastically improve the representation for the common, working people.
Of course one has to worry about their susceptibility to bribery after the turkeys are already in office, but that is another discussion. That and the corporate control of mass media. And so on.
Re:You forget you can't spell DMCA without the *D* (Score:3, Interesting)
Reporter: "Will things get better now that the Taliban have gone and the N.Alliance has taken control of this area?"
Refugee: "The Taliban ask questions and shoot. The N. Alliance shoot and ask questions." (paraphrased)