Ray Beckerman Sued By the RIAA 725
An anonymous reader writes "Ray Beckerman, known for questioning the RIAAs legal tactics (also for frequent Slashdot contributions), was sued by the RIAA over his blog Recording Industry vs. People. In question is the 'vexatious' claims that the RIAAs legal tactics is a 'sham.' Beckerman is quoted as saying that the litigation against him is 'frivolous and irresponsible.'"
RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
My Favourite Part (Score:5, Interesting)
NYCL Posts? (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA
has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs
This also makes it sound like that's exactly what they're trying to stop, him actually informing people (us) about their baseless cases. I wonder if they're going to seek a gag order?
Re:Dumbasses (Score:3, Interesting)
> Too bad NYCL can't comment on the suit.
Hm.. that actually might be why they did it. If they can relate all of his other cases to this one, such that he can't comment on them, either, as they're involved in the pending one, then he can't cheerlead on here in topics related to his cases.
Re:Vexatious (Score:5, Interesting)
So can Ray sue them for professional libel for stating that all of his claims are baseless?
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Er... yes. Special classes of people do have special rights and responsibilities. I don't think that has anything to do with how such people were created, or if any equality might have been used in their creation.
We empower agents of the public trust more than the common man. I don't think that makes them better people. But with great power... should come great oversight. The greater responsibilities should come at the price of some privacy. I'm not saying we should place cameras in anyone's home, but I wouldn't necessarily be against cameras in their public workplaces.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).
It could probably be argued that internet based file trading actually reduces the income of these gangs. The profit is all about being the middle-man. Whether that is illegal gangs selling pirate DVDs, groups like the RIAA or torrent websites funded by advertising dollars. Since the widespread adoption of broadband internet, and the development of easy to use filesharing tools, many of the people that would have used the gang funding guy who comes to the city's commercial districts selling DVDs will now opt to use online fire sharing. Of course, it is not always entirely clear where the torrent advert money ends up, but it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:3, Interesting)
The appointment of judges is different depending on where they are being appointed. In most areas they are not voted in or out, especially in general elections. At the federal level (especially the supreme court) they are supposed to be a check against the elected officials, and not have to answer to the voters, but instead to the law and how well their judgment holds over time.
As for holding people to different standards, I tend to believe that there should be laws that increase punishment for any law broken by a politician or someone trusted to enforce and uphold the law. If someone breaks the law while acting as a law-enforcement officer, they should not only be given the normal punishment for the offense, but an additional punishment for the damage they caused to the public opinion of their fellow officers. Instead it seems that the law holds them in higher regard and doesn't believe that they commit offenses in the first place, so rather than being punished more harshly than the general populace, they are given more lenience.
Lawyers usually know where their boundaries are, though they like to dance on the line a lot. If the court told him to keep his mouth shut and he kept posting to his blog, he'll deserve the according punishment. If he had every right to believe he was not out of line in posting to the blog, it's very likely that he'll come out ahead on this one. It seems very likely that this is just another example of exactly the behavior he was commenting on in the first place, but it's really up to the court in this case.
Google 'SLAPP' (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe strongly in the idea of free speech, and don't much care for censorship or other speech restrictions. That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals.
Lawyers are held to a much higher standard of conduct than "mere mortals." Although it is ultimately decided by each state's bar association, you can find the ABA's model rules of professional conduct here [abanet.org]. Virtually every accredited law school teaches those in Professional Responsibility.
These rules are, incidentally, a large part of the reason that slimeball lawyers tend to have a short shelf life. They create something of an ethical minefield for attorneys, and govern everything from what an attorney is allowed to say to the media during trial, to what his duties to non-clients are, to what sort of information he can disclose about a case.
Without having a copy of the actual complain handy, I can't say exactly what the RIAA is accusing Beckerman of, but the quotes from the Wired article make it sound like a meritorious claims and contentions [abanet.org] issue; in effect, they're saying Beckerman violated his ethical duty to only make meritorious arguments by dragging out the trial with motions, claims, etc. that he knew were not valid.
For what it's worth, I've followed Beckerman's blog somewhat closely. And if my speculation about the actual claims being levied at Beckerman are true, I'd be inclined to say that this isn't just a case of the pot calling the kettle black in some general "the RIAA is bad!" kind of sense. It seems to me that, in that case, they'd be violating the exact same rule they're accusing Beckerman of violating by filing this complaint.
But, I'm just a law student playing armchair lawyer here. Take the above with a grain of salt.
Re:Everyone thank RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, this is a net win for everyone; suing a lawyer is a lot like getting into a car wreck with an insurance adjuster.
OT, but I did have a car accident with a laywer, once. the first words out of the guy's mouth were "hi, I'm a lawyer" or to that effect.
the bastard tried to call it a 'hit and run' even though I did try to work with him on his actual damages. he never contacted me and instead filed hit-and-run on me.
the last laugh was ON him, though; as I had just accepted a job across the country (other coast) and the 2 states did NOT have reciprocal agreements (at the time). when I moved to my current state, they asked 'any tickets, etc, on you?' and I simply said 'no'. they had no way to check and they accepted it. that laywer guy was left holding his (you know what) and got not a penny from me; and my driving record is spotless afaict.
moral: even 'lawyers' can be worked around. not always, but sometimes.
Re:Defending file-sharers (Score:4, Interesting)
As usual, even if the RIAA loses (or eventually drops the case), they "win" in the sense that they send the message that they are willing to make life hell for anyone who opposes them (including other lawyers).
Problem with that is he's already decided that his mission in life is taking on the RIAA. Indeed, in defending himself, he has every right to publically make the case that what he's saying on his site is true, which would get him off the hook for what they're suing. Worse, the RIAA is giving the guy a forum to say these things! In that way, the trial is really about the RIAA - they say it's illegal to say mean things about them (why it would be, I have no idea), he gets to prove that the things he says are totally legit, and he also has the opportunity to try to expose the flaws in their litigation. He'll certainly claim that, ironically, the very suit against him proves his case.
I'd agree with you on the "send a message" aspect if they went after someone who didn't want a piece of them, but since they're taking on a guy who's been hitting away already, all they're doing is handing him the club that he'll use to beat them.
Note I'm not a lawyer, and I have only the best of feelings toward the RIAA...
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Right now Ray's blog is #9 on a simple google search for RIAA. Hopefully all the publicity this is guaranteed to garner will shoot him up to the top. :-)
I kinda doubt it (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I kinda doubt that even the RIAA can be _that_ stupid. (Though, funnily enough, every time I say that, someone or some entity promptly proves me wrong.)
Let's face it, today's lawyers are tomorrow's judges. I'm also going to take a wild guess that even today's judges, no matter how much they enjoy making lawyers work to earn their play, will not take it very lightly when faced with an attempt to bully the legal profession as a whole.
_Especially_ in civil cases, where really the whole standard of evidence is along the lines of "who's better at persuading the judge", you don't want to start from the position of the known bully abusing the legal system and work your way up from there. So the judges are one group they'd be smart to not annoy.
Also let's not forget that lawyers do have very large and powerful professional associations. They don't exist just to provide some exams for their members. And they tend to know the laws, precedents and available avenues. Even _if_ you could somehow bully one or two of them into submission, I think any attempt to basically carpet-bomb their profession as a whole into no longer being able to do its job (on some cases), might find some rather stiff resistance there. Sooner or later you'd find yourself not just against one or two lawyers, but against an entity bigger than yourself and more adept at working the system than you are.
As I was saying, I don't think that even the RIAA is _that_ stupid.
Re:Sigh... (Score:1, Interesting)
Honestly if you think people "stealing mp3's" is harming the industry you don't know many bands. I have SEVERAL close friends who have been able to sustain world tours because they no longer need massive record contracts and promotion agencies to get their message out. Shit, one of my best friends from high school's band (Ra Ra Riot) was just on Conan a few weeks ago.
For the individual musician the industry has never been better, sure you can't make as much money off of selling individual songs, but more people come to shows and the people who come to shows buy tshirts and cds and are generally out to support the band.
I'll even give you that the industry as a whole might not be as profitable, but these days it's many orders of magnitude more egalitarian.
Anyone can Sue Anyone for Anything (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Link to Ray's blog with "RIAA" or "The truth about the RIAA" as the anchor text, and with "RIAA" as the title text. Writing a a few paragraphs of commentary about the situation will help further improve his page ranking as it increases the relevance of the links.
Read the truth about the RIAA [blogspot.com] here.
no, you get a clue (Score:5, Interesting)
im a turk living in a tourism resort in mediterranean coast. my english far exceeds what should i know. therefore im in no way obliged to fulfill your linguistic expectations in regard to english.
another advice - learn to value content over presentation.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, it is not always entirely clear where the torrent advert money ends up, but it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.
And that whole sentence is an example of confusion 101. Any of commercial piracy or drug trade or pimping hookers or modern slave trade or collecting protection money or illegal gambling or sell kiddie porn or whatever the fuck else organized crime do, it makes money. The reason they do commercial piracy and drug trade and pimping hookers and modern slave trade and collecting protection money and illegal gambling and sell kiddie porn is to make the grand total as big as possible, and how much you pirate makes no difference at all on anything else. The only thing that could have a hint of truth is possibly terrorism since it's an expense, but I figure that's probably well funded through legal income diverted to it. There's certainly no reason to believe drug kingpins are more willing to give away their earnings than anyone else. But hey, I guess the FUD is working.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:3, Interesting)
In that case, P2P "do-it-yourself" "piracy" will neatly solve that problem by removing the market from under the commercial "pirates" feet.
In a sense, criminalizing "piracy" will only increase the crime rate...
And who benefits from a "higher" crime rate? Fascists who want to turn $COUNTRY into a police state.
Re:no, you get a clue (Score:4, Interesting)
Here here. I was going to say, "Have you been to the interweb lately? People from places besides the USA can use it too!"
I've traveled significantly more than most people, and I for one can say, any argument to the effect of "Do you think people in XXX would put up with..." is bullshit. People around the world are more than gracious and will go to great lengths to help you if you don't speak the language. I've been to France, Spain, Germany, Japan, Morocco, Mexico, Holland, Almost all of South America. And I've never known more then 10 words of another language (till recently). I've also never had someone treat me badly because of it. Us asshole 'Americans' could learn from their examples.
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I do believe in intellectual property "rights", in an abstract sense, but I do NOT believe that such rights are actually physically enforcable. I don't condone copyright theft ("theft"), and I don't download music unless the artist or label posts it online for download. *However* I tend to think that DRM ("digital locks") and other technical methods of enforcing intellectual property rights are effectively useless, and thus whether or not these rights exist is, I feel, a moot point--- property is worthless if you can't defend it. So while I don't want to break copyrights myself, I really can't be bothered to tell other people off for doing it; they're merely taking the path of least resistance between themselves and the media they want to consume. The most it gets out of me is a shrug. If a company wants to invest millions of dollars into a medium that has no tangible existance, and therefore practically zero security in terms of profit, I figure that's their problem, not mine. I don't have to partake, but I don't really give a damn if they get ripped off, because it's a hole they dug themselves into.
(For full disclosure, I do download tv shows quite often, but most of these are viewable on their respective websites anyways.. that's a bit of a grey area for me, but it's a vice, perhaps a bit of a hypocritical one. Again.. *shrug*. Do as I say not as I do, and all that.)
Re:Sigh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly, I ~have~ created something for the mass market. Here's an interesting point of note:
The people stealing my work are not my customers. The liklihood of them becoming my customers is very small. Therefore: I am not losing anything (the cost to distribute my work is trivial). They are taking nothing from me... They are just using something they have no right to use.
Interestingly enough, this doesn't work both ways: It's almost impossible to take someone who would normally be a pirate, and get them to buy my product. However, poor customer service CAN take someone who is a client, and turn them into a pirate to spite me... But again, at that point, I've already lost the client.
~D
Re:This whole thing is stupid... (Score:2, Interesting)
A lot of my friends are working musicians. I appreciate the need for intellectual property rights and copyright. Travel, equipment, and other expenses must be covered, and the adoring adulation of fans doesn't pay the mortgage. But the RIAA is still wrong.
I think that the volume of exchange possible with internet distribution caught them by surprise. They need to find a new business plan to effectively extract revenue from the market as it is now. It may ultimately be impossible to prevent online free sharing of any data, copyrighted or not. It would behoove the RIAA to accept that the world has changed and find a way to survive in it. Their basic legal theory will eventually be found to be precisely analagous to suits brought by buggy-whip manufacturers against Henry Ford.
Ultimately, the situation will be resolved by a return to the emphasis on live music that existed before that smart-ass Thomas Edison and his silly wax cylinders started the whole mess. Live performances can't be copied, pirated or traded. Recordings of them can, but so it goes.
The internet has made the recording industry obsolete. From the dawn of time performing artists have generated revenue by performing. For a century or so, a unique technological window - the post-Edison, pre-Napster era - allowed them to duplicate performances and generate revenue for the same performance multiple times. Then people started getting rich, and then they got greedy, and now they're just stupid. The window is shutting, the cash tree has dried up, the golden goose is on her last legs. The result is that a lot of musicians and actors are going to have to work harder for less pay, like they used to do. You know, like Shakespeare and those guys. Whoever said that a little starvation was bad for art?
In the future, free online distribution will be seen as a vital part of the marketing plan to drive consumers to see live performances. There will always be a market for recordings, engineered and edited beyond the possibilities of the stage and combined on convenient media with attractive packaging. People will still buy CDs and DVDs, or whatever comes after that, but not in the volumes that they used to. Content providers will have to understand that sale of recordings is not a feasible long-term major revenue strategy any more.
I look forward to the coming of the new age. It will be different than what came before.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:4, Interesting)
industry - the organized action of making of goods and services for sale
When money is "made" for "sale", all similarly backed money loses value. To be considered an industry, the finance "industry" must create money, thereby devaluing its own product. My aversion is to calling it an industry, when it is strictly commerce; the buying and selling of existing money.
The Federal Reserve Bank is the closest thing there is to financial "industry". Even The Fed, however, can not change the simple truth that printing more money devalues that same money. Its an industry that, simply by its existence, is self destructive.
Financial Commerce is a much more accurate term.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and people that PAY for pirated material are douche bags. What's your point? If you're too much of a cheap-ass to pay full price, then steal it via TPB. I realize that people will steal my and others' work and quite frankly I don't care - so long as my name is still attached to it, I'm still getting exposure, which is a good thing even if it's not as good as it could be. If someone else is profiting from my work (ie, not a legitmate reseller where I'm still seeing some of it), then that person can go shove a skyscraper up his ass.
For all of the shit that internet pirates take about moral issues, it's the people that buy bootlegs out of the trunk (boot, you Londoner!) of a car that have the real issue. Not only does the person that produced the content not see a cent, but some random asshole profits from it. "Well as long as I paid something, it's on them to make it right" must be the argument, but that's BS through-and-through.
You make a fair point about the advertisements on the torrent sites. It's a substantial chunk of change, but so are their server costs (especially TPB, that's been raided and moved countries a couple of times). I'm sure the guys running it are doing all right for themselves. BUT the difference is that I'm still not paying for it. The 'premium' (paid) access to some trackers is just as bad as buying bootlegs since you're paying someone who's in no way supporting the content producer for access to said content. The price you pay for each piece of content may be substantially less, but you're still opening your wallet. Of course that kind of paid system COULD be legitimized in a method not entirely unlike a piracy tax of sorts (which the content producers actually see).
Anyways, </rant> If you're going to pirate, have fun. But don't PAY to steal something. It's retarded on so many levels it's not even funny.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you also produce your own clothes ? How do you get around ? If you ride a bicycle to avoid paying for gas and a vehicle do you produce it yourself ?
What DO you live in ? You said you can't get a mortgage so I assume you rent. Your landlord still needs to pay for the maintenance to the property and his costs get passed on to your rent.
You grow your own food, great. So do I. I'm a hobby-chef and my retirement dream is to live on a farm where I can raise my own livestock. Now consider animal feed, soil to grow vegetables in (if you're fortunate enough to live on land with great soil and smart enough to have a compost to produce your own fertilizer then great, I need to buy good soil though because my house sits on mostly clay). How about all of the tools that you need to tend to your garden ?
Thanks for baring with me and yes I am getting to a point. When the US economy collapses the US dollar goes to shit. The price of imports increases and thus the cost of every day goods goes way up. It is nearly impossible to be 100% self-sufficient. It is a worthy goal to strive for but it almost can't be done. There are micro-societies that have experts that grow all of their trees and livestock and produce all of their own basic items for every day survival but a single family just can't do it. They can get close but you'll always need to buy SOMETHING for day to day living. And so you're absolutely wrong if you think that the greater economy does not affect you.
What I want to know is.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you see what happened to the stock prices of Sallie, Fannie and AIG?
Yes the government is making sure that these companies remain able full-fill their insurance and debt obligations, but the investors have been wiped out. This isn't a bail out where the owners get rich and everyone else pays. Share holders have lost all (or nearly all in the case of AIG) of their investments.
The bailout does very little for the owners of these companies. It is punishing in fact. The bailout prevents the rest of the world from feeling the massive and devastating consequences of one of these giants falling. It would destroy economies around the world, not just the U.S.
By destroy I don't mean that people who can afford to invest suffer. I mean most of us loose our jobs, then our houses. No student loans. No mortgages. No insurance payouts for houses flattened by hurricanes. End of times depression everybody suffers consequences.
Re:What I want to know is.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot gives you one line every two weeks. You get more when other people submit your stories.
At least, that's my theory. But there's a better one. You might see this as a "ridiculous and doomed motion," but you're absolutely on the money when you imply this is a desperate act by a doomed elite.
There are many other fine historical examples of this phenomenon (e.g., Chivalry).
What makes this "desperate act" newsworthy (and why Wired is keen on it) is that not only are they seeking sanctions about you, but they're doing so because you keep a blog about your campaign.
We're living in a time when corporations freely foist upon us unconscionable "EULAs" that oblige us to seek arbitration for any dispute with the large owner-corporations. As you know, the advantages of arbitration are that the costs incurred are prohibitive to individuals, and the proceedings are not public, so the owner-corporations can accumulate the benefit of experience at the expense of their client-citizens.
Those so-called "EULAs" are unconscionable for a reason. That reason is the same one that makes Groklaw showcase material for 21st-century citizenship, and what makes your blog (no shame in taking inspiration from the best) so valuable to many people. And that same value has made them both targets for the plaintiffs.
Yes, we read what you have to say because we have an interest in the war. And if we can contribute, we will. That's our duty as citizens. If the RIAA wants to sue thousands of Americans, it has that right. That does not exclude it from the penalties it may incur in doing so. And that certainly does not allow it to turn a public, legal proceeding into some pro-corporation arbitration scheme. The people have a right to public information, and all your web campaigning comes down to that: you publish information on the RIAA's tactics, successful and unsuccessful. I've been able to track the cases, and see among the defense teams who has been paying attention and who hasn't. The RIAA have seen that too. I believe they mocked you in the oral debate during when the Jammie Thomas case was (mis)tried. Since then, I'm confident that your website has helped redress the predatory imbalance the RIAA has been exploiting. And now they're feeling the tide turn.
Without sites like yours, there can be no equity.
P.S., I didn't see your post on Elektra v. Barker either. I guess that helps put a price tag on how much the RIAA's proposed sanctions are really worth.
Re:Reading between the lines (Score:3, Interesting)
If my two-bit knowledge of US law is correct, the RIAA would not get far suing Ray for calling the Media Sentry investigations illegal. That is a legal opinion that may be wrong but he is entitled to present it. And there seems to be evidence that supports his claim.
If the RIAA can show him lying about the facts (perjury!), or excessive delaying tactics, the court could impose sanctions. In practice, however, US courts seem very reluctant to use those. I have followed SCO vs. IBM on Groklaw and it was amazing what SCO's lawyers could get away with.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:4, Interesting)