Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

RIAA Will Finally Face the Music In Court 282

Posted by kdawson
from the discovery-channel dept.
Falstaff writes "Exonerated RIAA defendant Tanya Andersen is expected to refile her malicious prosecution lawsuit against the RIAA today. The refiling will mark a significant watershed in the RIAA's fight against P2P users because for the first time, the group's tactics, secret agreements, and fee splitting with MediaSentry are likely to come to light, thanks to discovery. Andersen's attorney says he'll be 'digging into agreements between the RIAA, RIAA member companies, MediaSentry, and the Settlement Support Sentry. Part of that will involve looking at compensation, like how much MediaSentry gets from each settlement. "I'd love to know what kind of bounty MediaSentry got paid to supply erroneous identities to the RIAA," Lybeck says.' The judge has barred further motions to dismiss the complaint, which means the RIAA will have to face the music. 'Unlike the thousands of lawsuits filed so far, the RIAA does not have the luxury of walking away from this case if there's a real chance of embarrassing information being released. "Once discovery happens in the cases the RIAA brings, they run," Lybeck says. "This is our case now, and they can't run."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Will Finally Face the Music In Court

Comments Filter:
  • by j.sanchez1 (1030764) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:36AM (#22752194)
    The judge has barred further motions for dismissal, so unless the RIAA decides to settle--a move Lybeck believes is in the group's best interest--the case will proceed through discovery and to trial.

    Hopefully she won't settle for the carrot that the RIAA would probably dangle in front of her. She has the opportunity to bring all these lawsuits to a screeching halt.
    • by BUL2294 (1081735) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:47AM (#22752336)
      The RIAA could easily dangle a $1-2 million carrot in front of her, and probably will. While we all know she shouldn't take it, most sane people (and probably her lawyer) would say "take the money and run" to not have to deal with this issue for the next 5 years...

      Call me a pessimist, but her case against the RIAA will not change their tactics because they will buy their way out of the mess.

      Now, if some DA or AG were to file criminal charges against the RIAA (God knows the FBI won't), then that would change their ways... But, alas, we live in the Corporate States of America.
      • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:05PM (#22752520)
        That's not necessarily a victory for the RIAA. Because what works once works twice, too. In other words, being sued falsly by the RIAA might be the jackpot.

        I'm fairly sure we'll soon see lawyers hopping onto it, specializing in counter suits against the RIAA if they simply try to buy their way out of an embarrassing trial. It's easy money for them.
        • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:47PM (#22752940) Homepage
          hm...
          RIAAmbluance chasers?

          better name?
        • by Kazoo the Clown (644526) on Friday March 14, 2008 @01:27PM (#22753380)
          Seems to me that an enterprising hacker or two might end up teaming up with an "innocent party" in order to set the RIAA up for just such a case...
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by immcintosh (1089551)
            Just don't get caught at it if you don't particularly enjoy prison.
      • by Entropius (188861) on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:28PM (#22752760)
        So we outbid them.

        Get a million people together (shouldn't be hard if all the torrent sites make note of the campaign) to chip in $1 or $10 each to make a matching offer: "We'll pay you to take this to trial."

        Even if the RIAA outbids The Internets, it's still a PR coup -- "Look at what they were willing to do in order to hide stuff..."
        • by Buelldozer (713671) <cliff@NoSpAm.gindulis.net> on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:49PM (#22752956)
          That is a DAMN good idea. I'd easily contribute $20 or more to a cause like that.
        • by Robber Baron (112304) on Friday March 14, 2008 @01:34PM (#22753450) Homepage

          So we outbid them.

          Get a million people together (shouldn't be hard if all the torrent sites make note of the campaign) to chip in $1 or $10 each to make a matching offer: "We'll pay you to take this to trial."

          Even if the RIAA outbids The Internets, it's still a PR coup -- "Look at what they were willing to do in order to hide stuff..."
          That's a terrible idea. What does it say about the constancy of Justice? That it can be perverted and sold to the highest bidder?
          • by element-o.p. (939033) on Friday March 14, 2008 @01:40PM (#22753488) Homepage

            That's a terrible idea. What does it say about the constancy of Justice? That it can be perverted and sold to the highest bidder?

            You mean as opposed to what we have now? Oh, wait...
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by afabbro (33948)
            What does it say about the constancy of Justice? That it can be perverted and sold to the highest bidder?

            Well, duh.

          • by pyrr (1170465) on Friday March 14, 2008 @02:14PM (#22753808)

            It wouldn't be about selling justice to the highest bidder, it would be about offering someone who was wrongly accused and maliciously prosecuted by the RIAA an incentive to take a gamble and see justice done. If all the RIAA has to do is flash some large bills and have their legal problems go away, then justice isn't served.

            The proposal to raise money to encourage the plaintiff to not settle her case and let the courts decide the matter would create a nice hedge for the plaintiff just in case the RIAA makes her a better offer than what a jury might award. It's important for this case to proceed, because without taking the RIAA to task on its methods in a case that forces it to come clean on everything, it's basically a corporate sniper, shooting down one individual after another, bamboozling courts with technobabble, and in most cases the individuals don't really have the resources to take their cases to court even if they may have been wrongly accused. Ever notice how they've been picking on mostly lower-income people, students, the elderly, young families, children, single parents-- the very folks who are the least likely to have the resources to wage a court battle and are most likely to settle whether they're guilty or not?

            Airing the RIAA's dirty laundry in regards to its methodology is the only way to help individuals who are being picked-off one by one. And getting together and pooling resources in order to defend the collective of internet users who may find themselves in the RIAA's crosshairs is really our best hope of having a fighting chance to defend ourselves against false, nebulous accusations that could cost any one of us thousands of dollars whether we shared anything or not. If their methods are really that sloppy and inaccurate, nobody should assume that just because you PERSONALLY didn't share, that you're immune. I don't lose sleep over my former roommate's filesharing over my network (my house, I paid the bills for everything, and shared it under the rent), but if the RIAA's methodology isn't airtight (and it obviously isn't), I want the world to know...just in case.

      • by hAckz0r (989977) on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:54PM (#22753012)
        Less we forget that she can still get that $2 million+ at the conclusion of the trial? If the RIAA thinks that a mere $2 million will cut the trial short and hide their dirty laundry, then they have seriously under estimated the wrath of a woman who has been royally PISSED OFF. Knowing what they put her through I can't imagine her settling before the RIAA's bag of tricks are all spread out on the table for everyone to see. Can you just imagine what a jury would think? Thats when the real music (that they don't own) begins to play.
    • by AGSHender (696890) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:57AM (#22752440) Homepage
      My girlfriend worked for Judge Brown last summer as a law student, and she had a consistently favorable opinion of her. Judge Brown is a Clinton appointee and is on the more liberal side of the bench compared to a couple of the other federal judges working in the same building.

      She's fair and doesn't put up with bullshit from lawyers or defendants. If she finds in favor of the RIAA, it's going to be on the basis of the law and not because of pressure on her. At the very least, she's going to be very suspicious of their arguments and have some critical things to say about them and their tactics in open court--even if they do win in the end.
      • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:39PM (#22752856) Homepage

        Judge Brown is a Clinton appointee...

        It was Clinton who gave us the DMCA. Not just Republican administrations are corporate puppets.

        • by Dragonslicer (991472) on Friday March 14, 2008 @01:04PM (#22753100)

          It was a Republican-controlled Congress who gave us the DMCA.
          Fixed that for you.
          • by Ash Vince (602485) on Friday March 14, 2008 @02:25PM (#22753934) Journal
            Might be worth bearing in mind that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have taken huge campaign donations from RIAA associated companies.

            http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00000019&cycle=2008 [opensecrets.org]
            http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008 [opensecrets.org]
      • by Plutonite (999141) on Friday March 14, 2008 @01:12PM (#22753184)

        My girlfriend..
        Heh, I almost read the rest of your post. Nice try there ;)
    • by RyoShin (610051) <tukaro AT gmail DOT com> on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:02PM (#22752484) Homepage Journal
      I agree, and the best way to do this may be societal support. I don't know Ms. Anderson, so I have no idea what qualms she has about a material settlement out of court. She may very well be willing to do this for the long haul, just to make the RIAA STFU & GTFO.

      However, even if she's set on this, showing support from the outside will help her (and her lawyer, who I'm sure is hoping for a nice chunk of change) to reaffirm her will. If she's not completely set on it, outside support would help her see that this has effects reaching more than just the time the RIAA forced her to waste.

      The best way I can think of to do this is a personal letter. Something short, personally signed, saying "You're fighting the good fight, tally ho!" and made via snail mail. Obviously, getting her home address might not be the best idea. Does anyone know a good way to go about this? Perhaps send mail to the law firm/individual representing her?
  • by AbsoluteXyro (1048620) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:36AM (#22752196)
    I fully expect the RIAA to do everything in it's power to hide any so called "embarrassing" information, probably successfully so. I hate to be such a pessimist but the fact of the matter is multi-million dollar corporations will always have the upper hand in this sort of thing. I got my fingers crossed though, hopefully someone will finally slay the dragon.
    • by Bryansix (761547)
      Just remember... The soft spot is right on the neck.
    • by hedwards (940851) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:48AM (#22752348)
      Which isn't much, unless their attorneys can convince the judge not to allow investigation into these charges. Which they shouldn't be able to, the only way that they're going to be able to avoid answering them is by witness tampering or other methods of obstruction of justice.

      Which isn't good, if there's one thing which judges don't like it's having their cases tampered with in that manner. I'm just surprised that it's taken as long for the judges involved to start getting cranky about being used.
    • by Phrogman (80473) on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:12PM (#22752578) Homepage
      Actually, if a defendant is unable to produce evidence because it appears to have been deleted when it should be available, a court will usually take that into consideration and may assume that the defendant did that to hide something, and thus hold that against them. The reverse is of course true for the prosecution if they are likewise unable to produce evidence, although the courts will hold an individual to a more reasonable requirement than a large organization which is expected to maintain a higher standard.

      Its only if they have a reasonable data retention policy already in place, and can show that the deleted or destroyed information or records were destroyed in accordance with that plan - and that they have been following that plan rigorously and not just in this one instance, that they can justify not producing the records. If for instance they have formally established and been following a records retention policy whereby they state they will destroy email records after holding them in backup for say a 5 year period (higher in some industries where its specified by law how long you must preserve those records), and have done so and thereby cannot produce records from before that period, then a judge should not hold it against them during discovery. They made a plan, stuck to it prior to entering litigation, and the court has to recognize there is a cost associated with maintaining and backing up such data that should have a logical limit when the utility of that data has been reduced by the time that has passed. If however they have not followed that policy, don't have such a policy, or give the appearance of selectively applying it to hide potentially damaging evidence, they can have it held against them (possibly with the assumption that the information in question was damaging), and they can be fined by the court. They can even have the court summarily find in favour of the prosecution. They can be fined if they cannot produce the evidence in a reasonable period of time, and will usually bear the brunt of the cost of producing those records - no matter how difficult or expensive that may be - as long as the other side can produce sufficient cause to justify the importance of that evidence to their case. Sometimes the other side can be required to pay for some of the cost of course, if its reasonable. This can be extended well beyond physical records and emails, to include IM traffic, chat logs etc, all of which an organization bears a responsibility to back up and maintain. You can even be held liable if your backups cannot be restored due to changes to technology over time - you are expected to transfer those backups to a new format, or maintain the old equipment required to restore them etc. If you failed to place backups in offsite storage and they were destroyed in a fire, thats your fault too for not taking reasonable precautions and storing the backups elsewhere. I expect a few companies are going to get bit badly in the next few years when they cannot produce backups of all the IM traffic that passed over their networks for instance - because if anything that happened during those IM sessions has any bearing on anything legal, its a record that needs to be backed up, period. If you and I discuss a business deal, and then I send you an email that just says something like "About our conversation yesterday, lets do it" and the lets do it implies a verbal agreement to pursue a business deal, that email is a legal record, same thing if we agree via IM chat :P

      So simply removing evidence by destroying it is not necessarily of any benefit to an organization when they hit the courts. The courts can and should take a very dim view of someone who deliberately destroys damaging evidence :P

      IANAL, but I used to work for some who dealt with records retention, discovery etc, and picked up some of the details. Its surprising how many companies and organizations do not have and do not follow a logical retention policy with regards to data (apparently about 40%
      • by Phrogman (80473) on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:14PM (#22752606) Homepage
        Oh I forgot, the moment a company enters litigation, they are also supposed to place a Hold order with regards to records created by their organization - ie, absolutely no one deletes or destroys anything. Ie you dont delete email or backups
      • by Bobb Sledd (307434) on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:53PM (#22752988) Homepage
        I don't agree (not necessarily with you but with general policy) that all things must be logged and archived. IM is the one thing I think should not be logged unless it serves a specific purpose. It is not the same as an email message. I think it is unreasonable to expect to log and archive IM.

        It is more analogous to telephone conversations. Most telephone conversations are not recorded and kept for any real length of time either (although, they *can* be, and can be used in court also). There is no expectation that IM messages would be logged, whereas it's reasonable to expect email messages to be.

        However, if IM is purposely or inadvertently logged... it should certainly be discoverable.

        Just my $.02
  • by iknownuttin (1099999) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:37AM (#22752202)
    Lybeck tells Ars that he'll be digging into agreements between the RIAA, RIAA member companies, MediaSentry, and the Settlement Support Sentry. Part of that will involve looking at compensation, like how much MediaSentry gets from each settlement. "I'd love to know what kind of bounty MediaSentry got paid to supply erroneous identities to the RIAA," Lybeck says.

    I see...

    1. Get contract to find copyright violators.

    2. The "???" is: Just grab folks that may look guilty.

    3. Profit!

    • by jamstar7 (694492)
      Oh my god, you killed a South Park meme. You bastard. j/k

      I'm just hoping the discovery phase of things actually find something instead of random paper shredding by the guilty.

  • RIAA Karma (Score:5, Funny)

    by imstanny (722685) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:38AM (#22752208)
    RIAA's current Karma: Troll.

    Judge Says: Overrated.

  • So... (Score:3, Funny)

    by controlBreak (1218314) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:39AM (#22752220)
    Is it wrong that I'm excited about this?
  • Now, it's time for 'the rest of the story'....

    This will be more than interesting. I hope that they have all the legal advice and tech advice necessary to pull the fingernails off of the **AA legal team, one at a time, no pain killers.
  • by auroran (10711) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:43AM (#22752276)
    I'd love to see the RIAA face their own music.
    That alone should be suitable punishment for the stuff that they've tried to inflict on the general public. :)
  • by Volante3192 (953645) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:43AM (#22752278)
    The judge has barred further motions to dismiss the complaint, which means the RIAA will have to face the music.

    Since the RIAA already owns the music, I guess this won't really frighten them much.
  • by Orange Crush (934731) * on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:43AM (#22752284)

    IANAL, but it sounds like the RIAA is going to want to settle and prevent discovery from happening since they don't want all the sordid details of their dealings brought to light.

    But that makes me wonder . . . if they do in fact settle, won't this just embolden all the other lawsuit recipients to file against the RIAA too? They can settle malicious lawsuits to keep them from going to trial to their heartss content (*snicker* we know they don't have hearts), but ultimately they're going to have to either WIN a malicious prosecution suit or stop engaging in malicious suits alltogether, no?

  • by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:44AM (#22752302) Homepage Journal
    The RIAA and MPAA, as well as their counterparts in other countries, have been pressuring legislators, ISPs and Universities to block all filesharing. But much filesharing is completely legal, and needs to be kept that way.

    For example, many Open Source installers are available via BitTorrent. Their use of p2p is crucial to their success, because it reduces distribution costs.

    P2P is also crucial to the success of struggling musicians who offer their music online for free, as a way to promote themselves. Direct HTTP downloads can lead to bankrupcy if their songs become sudden hits. I myself offer Bit Torrent downloads [geometricvisions.com] of my piano compositions.

    (While I presently work as a software engineer, I'm studying piano with the aim of changing careers into music. You could really help me out if you shared my music over the Internet.)

    In your letters to your legislators, please emphasize the legal uses of P2p.

    • by whoever57 (658626) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:57AM (#22752438) Journal

      I myself offer Bit Torrent downloads [geometricvisions.com] of my piano compositions.
      And the RIAA would love to shut you down, since you represent competition to the RIAA member companies. Perhaps you even represent a trend that will destroy the RIAA and the RIAA is like a cornered wild animal -- at its most dangerous.
      • Wounded animals should be put down. It's the merciful thing to do.

        And I feel very compassionate for the RIAA, so I'd love to be merciful.
  • Whale Song (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Himring (646324) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:45AM (#22752318) Homepage Journal
    For ages human story, communication -- the very thread of humanities' tale -- has been handed down via song. I learned in linguistics that of the few things which both separate us from other species and that we have in common is song: in common because both humans and other animals use it and separate as we add language and "tale". Odd how, in modernity, something such as music has come to this.

    I suppose it is natural. If, for some reason, all humans perished today and whales evolved to become the dominant species and have song and tale and language. If they then go on to develope technology. Will they one day sue?
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by LordKaT (619540)
      What in the fuck are you droning on about?
    • by Smauler (915644)

      Wait... birds don't sing any more? The MAFIAA must have got to them! The whales will be next, mark my words.

      Also, if you count my imitative monotone grunts as "song", you're more generous than most. I don't think I'd come out too well in this poll : Who do you want to continue singing, a) Smauler, or b) a nightingale.

  • by MoreDruid (584251) <moredruid@g m a i l .com> on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:46AM (#22752326) Homepage Journal
    ...till the fat lady sings (provided her song has been paid for)
    • Too bad Hillary Rosen ain't their prez anymore. Though I don't know whether I'd want to hear her sing. Croak, maybe.
  • by peipas (809350) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:51AM (#22752368)
    In light of resistance from the courts, the RIAA will probably shift its resources toward the legislative branch.
  • by mpapet (761907) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:52AM (#22752378) Homepage
    It may be fun to win one small battle, but the RIAA companies still control media distribution.

    From the RIAA's perspective, this has been a wildly successful strategy because it successfully struck fear into the hearts and minds of consumers.

    • by rijrunner (263757) on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:56PM (#22753022)

          Except, in this case, full discovery is not going to lead to a small win. If it is determined that they have knowingly engaged in illegal activity - and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that their investigation fits that category - then, they are in a pretty bad spot. A security company not licensed in a state can not engage in investigations in that state. That is illegal. They can not install root kits across state lines, that is illegal also. Hacking is illegal. While the RIAA can claim that they themselves did not commit these acts, it is a reasonable conclusion that they would have encountered any number of these questions in any due diligence prior to awarding security contracts. It is also reasonable that they are aware of the legal issues because of that whole Sony root-kit mess a few years back.

          And lawyers who are providing legal advice how to break laws are called co-defendants, not attorneys and they do *not* have attorney-client confidentiality in conspiracy and RICO cases where they are named as co-conspirators.

          The fear goes away if you know they have no evidence they can present in court.

          The RIAA is a trade organization. If you can crack some of their larger members away - and that is quite possible - then the RIAA loses its ability to speak for the industry. The RIAA has not paid out a single penny from any settlement it has won. Add on a lot of punitive damages and criminal charges and the RIAA can be broken quite decisively.
  • by Basilius (184226) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:52AM (#22752390)
    It is common for judges to promote settlement in cases where the victor seems obvious in order to reduce the load on the court system.

    In this particular case, pursuing it to the full extent should actually REDUCE the burden on the court system by severely restricting the RIAA's ability to file new suits.

    The only way I could see a settlement working in the long run is if it's equivalent to an unconditional surrender with all sorts of guilt admissions. I just can't picture the RIAA agreeing to that, and the plaintiffs should not settle for less.

    THIS is the opportunity. Do not let it slip through your fingers.
  • by JK_the_Slacker (1175625) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:53AM (#22752392) Homepage

    PLEASE tell me it's William Hung!

  • by 3seas (184403) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:56AM (#22752426) Journal
    Start encouraging your favorite artist to go a route of sales & distribution and royality collection outside of the RIAA.

    Though there may be contracts holding them to the RIAA directly or indirectly, such contract will either become expired or after this case, be challenge-able.
  • by pak9rabid (1011935) on Friday March 14, 2008 @11:57AM (#22752442)
    The RIAA Will Finally Face What They Like to Call Music in Court

    There, fixed that for you.
  • Jig's up, asshats. Payment in full upon the sound of the gavel on wood.

    Or on your head, it'll sound the same due to the fact that it's made of the same stuff as the bench is. XD
  • If she doesn't get bought, her attorney will be. If he isn't, the bar will have formal complaints lodged against him and barristers will be bought out and he will lose his license to practice. The judge will be bought. We are talking about people who have no problem spending 30,000$ on a sandwich. I don't think buying out everyone they need to is going to be difficult. I really am praying to god that it doesn't happen, but I'm so damn jaded about this stuff at this point.
    • by scubamage (727538) on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:17PM (#22752630)
      The judge has barred further motions for dismissal, so unless the RIAA decides to settle--a move Lybeck believes is in the group's best interest--the case will proceed through discovery and to trial. Unlike the thousands of lawsuits filed so far, the RIAA does not have the luxury of walking away from this case if there's a real chance of embarrassing information being released. "Once discovery happens in the cases the RIAA brings, they run," Lybeck says. "This is our case now, and they can't run."
      Her lawyer's words are very discouraging - she already has settlement in mind.
      • by gknoy (899301)
        I interpreted that as meaning that the "group" referred to the RIAA -- and it probably is, at least on the surface, in their best interest to settle in a manner which keeps this quiet. And, it probably is also in her interest, too -- less legal bills, money right now, possibly even more than she might get from a lawsuit.

        OTOH, if she tries to fight for The Greater Good or something, this might not get settled. Still ... if someone offered you $10 Million to settle, wouldn't you consider it? I know I sure a
  • Chances (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Friday March 14, 2008 @12:23PM (#22752714)
    Yes, there is the the chance that she will settle.

    But from what we have seen from this woman, well... I think it's pretty obvious that she is very pissed and she will not settle for anything less than victory in this.

    If I were in this position, I would be recording every phone call and saving every e-mail. I hope they're dumb enough to try to threaten or bribe her, because she seems like the kind of person who is going to make that kind of information public and make the RIAA look much worse than they already do.

  • by jskline (301574) on Friday March 14, 2008 @01:23PM (#22753342) Homepage
    Don't count all your chickens before they're hatched. I suspect that even if you can successfully resist temptation that will be placed in front of you to "settle", they have enough tricks of their sleeves. I for one will acknowledge that people can be bought... And; this includes people in power and the courts. Who's to say that they don't somehow manage to wrangle a venue change and get this changed to another jurisdiction and court somewhere that will be favorable to them.
    They still have a lot of money and I would not put it past them to make sure their little cartel stays in good order. They have more average Americans, and even most artists to fleece!
  • ITS ON (Score:3, Funny)

    by scubamage (727538) on Friday March 14, 2008 @02:08PM (#22753760)
    Ok, so the RIAA served her.
    Now, she served them back.
    So, by definition, it is now 'ON!'
  • by YetAnotherBob (988800) on Friday March 14, 2008 @08:21PM (#22756718)
    Victory over the RIAA and their agent/thugs means nothing.

    RIAA is a front organization. It is just a way the record companies to use to interface with the legal attack dogs. They have no real assets to give up. They pass all their ill gotten gains back to their masters.

    If there is a serious legal setback, then RIAA just dissolves, and comes back tomorrow under another name. The legal pit bulls, and the record companies who control all this carnage will remain untouched. To really make it stop, you need to have the courts pierce the 'corporate veil' to make the operators responsible.

    The whole mess only stops when the individual record companies who are sponsoring this blatant attack on their own customers are financially penalized.

    Sending a few lawyers and CEO's to prison would also help. But, that isn't going to happen.

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.

Working...