RIAA Claim of Stopping Suits "Months" Ago Is False 141
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a report on Wired.com, the RIAA spokesman claimed that the RIAA has not filed any new lawsuits 'for months,' and according to the Wall Street Journal report discussed here yesterday, the RIAA stopped filing mass lawsuits 'early this fall.' Knowing that the RIAA has a problem with telling the truth, I did a little investigating, and found out that the RIAA had, in fact, commenced a wave of lawsuits just last week. Why would anyone believe anything their spokesperson says? This is an organization that has a tendency to misspeak a lot, if you know what I mean, even when under oath."
CNet has a copy of the RIAA's new form letter that it will ask ISPs to pass on to alleged copyright-infringing users. It says, in part, "This letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' rights to recover or claim relief for damages incurred by this illegal activity, nor does it waive the right to bring legal action against the user at issue for engaging in music theft."
Fixed. (Score:4, Informative)
>>> This is an organization that has a tendency to mispeak
"RIAA is an organization that has a tendency to [lie, intimidate citizens, and extort money] a lot, even when under oath." There. Fixed that for ya. ;-)
Is this "takedown" even relevant to the ISP? (Score:5, Informative)
Reminder: I am not a lawyer in the US. This is a discussion forum, not legal advice.
I question whether an ISP receiving this form letter would necessarily be compelled to act.
It is apparently a 17 USC ss. 512(c)(3) notification; however from a careful reading of the letter and from my own understanding, the relevant part of the DMCA to an ISP providing access to one of their residential users using a peer-to-peer service to host and/or transmit copyrighted music files without the relevant permission of the rights holder(s) would appear instead to be 17 USC ss. 512 (a):--
I note that subsection (a) does not contain any provision for "expeditiously disabling access" (i.e., takedowns), and would appear to intend to apply to internet routing in the normal form except where caching or content modification takes place (though ISPs do not have a so-called "common carrier" status, this is the relevant section that provides them with a disclaimer of liability for their downstream customers infringing copyright).
I would appreciate comments on the same. Nowhere in the form letter do I see the RIAA making a threat against the internet service provider, any form of subpoena or open request to identify the user in question, or retain any identifying records for later subpoena. I surmise that this might be because their counsel are aware of the contents of 17 USC ss. 512 (a) and do not wish to appear too hostile to the ISP, as, at least by my reading, the ISP could quite happily junk this, or pass on a friendly warning to the user in question that they've been flagged, and take no further action on the matter.
I would further surmise that they are insinuating that should the ISPs not cooperate willingly, they will push for legislation to compel the ISPs to submit, although this might necessitate an effective repeal of the DMCA, as in letter the DMCA acts as a conditional limitation of liability rather than a prohibition. It remains to be seen if the current legislature in the US in fact will be receptive to this idea.
Reminder: This is not legal advice, merely my own ideas and observations on a discussion forum. Always consult counsel qualified in your jurisdiction before taking action. Doubly so if you're an ISP tech looking at these as they come in and wanting to know if you can killfile them; definitely contact your legal department and seek specialist advice regarding your individual situation.
Re:Hold the phones! (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like the current members are EMI, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group. That is not a long list. I wonder why news sources can't list them. It would seriously help put responsibility where it should be.
My references was wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Re:Hold the phones! (Score:4, Informative)
Simple solution: quit being a customer (Score:5, Informative)
The simple solution to this is to bankrupt the RIAA members. It worked for the big three - they've been producing crap cars for decades now, while the Japanese took our advice that our own people would not receive, and have been producing fantastic, high-quality cars.
That's not to say that the the big three produce all crap - but the high-quality reliable vehicles they do produce (the 'Vette, a few caddies and other luxury cars) are vehicles that Joe Sixpack can't afford. On top of that, the reliable vehicles they DO have and are utilitarian and comfortable (such as Pontiac Vibe, the Saturn Astra) are made by Japanese or European manufacturers (OK the Astra is a rebadged Opel, but it's still not what I'd consider part of the big three).
The RIAA, truthfully, is producing mostly crap nowadays. If an artist can't produce a mega-hit or won't sell out to do so, then they won't get air play. Oh, they'll get signed, but that's only for the label to bind them so they can't go elsewhere to an indie label who will make that long-term investment.
Just say no. Don't listen top top 40 radio, don't buy their crap, and don't download their crap either, because you're only fueling their argument. Just stop being a customer. Buy used records/CDs. Sure, it'll drive the price of used media up a little, but guess what? The labels won't live through a year or two of an outright boycott. They'll try to legislate a used media tax, but there is no way that would fly (right of first sale: when you buy a CD or DVD, you OWN it. They know this and cop to it in their own adverts. Britney spears, own it today on CD! Narnia/Prince Caspian, own it today on DVD! They KNOW you own that copy, not just license it).
Don't even do Rhapsody, because the labels are using them to try to get you to embrace DRM, because then you WON'T own the music, it will be licensed under that model - under contract law, because it's a rental.
Just say no. Spend your money on DVDs - better value. You get an entire movie for less than the cost of a DVD. Check out hulu.com - free movies and TV series archives.
Break the record companies. It can be done. Don't download their crap and they won't have any basis to sue, and don't buy their crap because it will bankrupt them. Just say no. It didn't work for drugs, but it did work for the auto industry and it can work in the music industry.
Re:They didn't lie..necessarily (Score:1, Informative)
Maybe the spokesperson just said "we haven't filed any lawsuits in months" and left unsaid the rest, which is "but it's about that time we did"
That's commonly known as a "lie of omission".
Re:Hold the phones! (Score:3, Informative)
It looks like the current members are EMI, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group. That is not a long list. I wonder why news sources can't list them. It would seriously help put responsibility where it should be.
They can't list them because that's not the whole story. Sony BMG is the parent company of dozens of labels, including Columbia Records, Loud, Epic, Ruthless, RCA Music Group, Arista Records, J Records, and many more, not to mention that they act as distributor for 18 "independent" labels.
Re:Hold the phones! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What is your agenda? (Score:5, Informative)
Whoa, time out! NYCL is the local Slashdot guru on all things RIAA and IIRC, been personally involved in the good fight for quite some time. I don't recall him ever advocating Scientology in the past. Several thousand knowledgable and well-researched posts to Slashdot on RIAA matters over a period of many years just to trick people into clicking on a Scientology ad today would have to constitute the most over-engineered setup of all time.
Not only have I never promoted Scientology, I wouldn't promote any religion, ever. I hate the whole concept of trying to sell one's own religion to others. Just as much as I hate the whole concept of trying to disparage someone else's religion.
Re:Hold the phones! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hold the phones! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hold the phones! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:it's a trick (Score:3, Informative)
They probably weren't expecting that any of the defendants would have any significant defense. They seem to have cherry picked cases where defense was unlikely. They got surprised there. As a business model, it's a failure, but it's entirely possible that it's an unanticipated failure.
It's also possible that they cherry picked the cases they did hoping for a fast series of wind to maximize the terror factor. In the end, we don't know enough to reliably deduce if they expected to profit from the lawsuits directly or if it was just a sort of legal terrorist campaign.
Re:Hold the phones! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What exacaxtly RIAA thinks they are? (Score:2, Informative)
They don't need any. It's 'published' via a public system (the p2p network).
Who authorised RIAA to represent this information as some sort of "evidence"?
Presuming this is presented as a DMCA notification, their clients and the US Government.
Who authorised RIAA to submit all these (illegaly?) collected information as "evidence"?
See above.
Who authorised RIAA that they can submit (illegally collected?) "evidence" to a third party in order to "request" anything from a third party, based on (illegally collected?) "evidence"?
See above. Read the DMCA.
Any lawyer in the house?
IANL but I have received DMCA notifications that should have been directed to others.
Re:Hold the phones! (Score:3, Informative)
They have published a member list.
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members [riaa.com]