RIAA Walks Away From Another "Discovery" Case 164
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You may recall that the RIAA walked away last week from one of their 'discovery' cases seeking the identities of 'John Does' who attended Rhode Island College. We have just learned that they walked away from another one, BMG Music v. Does 1-14, in Greensboro, North Carolina. 2 of the 14 John Does had settled, but the other 12 — who hung tough — will never be identified to the RIAA lawyers and will not have to pay any 'settlement.' This adds fuel to the debate over whether the RIAA has finally seen the light or is still sneaking around in the dark."
Pity the (2) fools. (Score:5, Insightful)
wised up ? More likely found a softer target ... (Score:3, Insightful)
As has been posted here, the RIAA is changing its target from suing individuals to (trying to) sue ISPs who do not do the their dirty work (checking, tracking, denying access) for them.
Small ISPs who cannot do that (too few customers -> no business) will simply die from the RIAAs litigations, and the bigger ones (who can deal with a few less customers) are softer targets, as they have got less to loose (as opposed to an individual which can loose upto a few times his yearly income), especially not when simply ending a customers contract on the first sign of RIAA related trouble.
Lets hope the Judges are allready sensitivised to the RIAA to such a level that even seeing their paperwork will give them an instant itch ...
Re:Objection (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do not steal (Score:5, Insightful)
When someone shoots a photograph of your house, did they steal it? It seems you don't understand your own sources.
I know that despite the intense advertising campaign to call downloading music theft, legally the definition of theft requires depriving someone of their property, intellectual or otherwise. To deprive someone of any such item, they can't use it after you steal it. Therefore, while copying music is damaging to the RIAA, the RIAA's tactics of pretending that music copying is theft is just plain dishonesty.
Copying music is already illegal, so there's no need to add in theft charges. Just like there would be no need to add in murder charges for copying music because you are proverbially killing the artist.
Re:Do not steal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to believe someone is actually defending the actions of the RIAA, but I checked your posting history and no, you aren't joking. Although technically you are correct and under existing law you could use the term thieves, you conveniently ignore the fact that the RIAA has run the campaign more like a protection racket than as a legitimate campaign to prosecute (or educate, depending on which RIAA shill you believe) the supposed offenders. They've collected "evidence" illegally, ignored court orders, used questionable legal arguments and arguments based on legal principles that do not exist. Any time anyone actually chooses to fight them in court they walk away in order to prevent a precedent from being set. The large corporations backing the RIAA can't or won't adapt to the changing market and instead are attempting to use legislation to cling to a failing business model. The existing body of law was largely set before the internet came into being, and subsequent changes have been heavily influenced by the same large corporate copyright holders. Your average person doesn't understand IP and your average congressman knows who is buttering his bread. Their entire campaign is a sterling example of how a large moneyed interest can abuse the entire legal system both in the courts and in their efforts to influence the lawmaking process itself.
All this leads me to one question: Why are you so mindlessly insistent that the law is just?
Re:Do not steal (Score:3, Insightful)
Careful here, how does copyright infringement force people to continue making music?
Re:Do not steal (Score:3, Insightful)
And slavery isn't fucking theft either. It's goddamn kidnapping, assault, probably some rape, all sorts of other crimes, but it's not theft.
Re:Pity the (2) fools. (Score:3, Insightful)
They are no better than communists.
One could argue that the RIAA is a lot worse than the Communists were. Consider the Soviet Union: The Communists were voted out of power despite all the vote rigging that the party in power always does everywhere, and they accepted the vote. This wasn't a fluke; it has happened in most of the countries that had Communist governments. The RIAA and MPAA were never elected to their positions, and we can't vote them out. They'll be around longer than any Communist government, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it. They are private corporations created by other private corporations to "coordinate" their business so that no real market could develop. Judicious bribery, uh, I mean campaign contributions, led to the draconian copyright laws that helped prevent a market in music or movies.
Maybe the move to the Internet will end this whole centrally-controlled system. Or maybe they'll find a way to bring it under control. Stay tuned ...
Re:The calm before the storm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do not steal (Score:2, Insightful)
To take to one's self in exclusion of others; to claim or use as by an exclusive right; as, let no man appropriate the use of a common benefit.
Hmmm. Exclusion of others. That means it's not theft if we play it loud enough for the neighbors to hear?
Re:Do not steal (Score:1, Insightful)
Indeed. A landowner has exclusive rights to the use of his land. When someone comes along and decides to use it for a picnic, they are trespassing. Ergo, copyright infringers are trespassers!
Re:Do not steal (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it honest to sell out your client? You realize that a lawyer's job is to be a zealous advocate (though within the bounds of the law), don't you? A lawyer is not the judge and jury. It's not the attorney's role. Everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter how guilty. And even if found guilty, there is the question of how much punishment the guilty person deserves. I guess you think a lawyer should just say "Yeah, my client is guilty of crossing against the light. Go ahead and shoot him. What a minute, I'll do it myself." [bang]
NYCL, does it? (Score:3, Insightful)
This adds fuel to the debate over whether the RIAA has finally seen the light or is still sneaking around in the dark.
Does it? Really? Or, does it point to them just not having the money in this downward spiraling economy to continue these frivolous lawsuits while they, in parallel, scramble to redesign their digital content schemes?
I have a feeling that this is going to be a lull for a few years while they regroup, retask and come at the file sharers again, or seek legislation to aid their fight; the latter being less likely under the incoming administration. The RIAA (and MPAA) are not going down without one hell of a fight. This type of battle may be ending, but evil never sleeps and is constantly trying to devise new ways to overcome good. These idiots are just confused and don't see the good in what file sharing does for their (still growing) sales.
To quote Frank Herbert, "This is all far from over..."
Re:Thanks for stealing! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Do not steal (Score:1, Insightful)
"No but your appropriating the rights holder's right to distribute"
Uh, no. The rights holder is still fully capable of distributing their own shit. As has been said, "appropriating" the right to distribute in this case would mean that the infringer has taken the ability for the rights holder to distribute. The only thing that has been "taken away" was being the ONLY person able to distribute (aka monopoly) the media. What is this artificial monopoly on distribution called? why COPYRIGHT of course! So what has this dirty internet person done? He's infringed on a government created monopoly (that is in practice these days unlimited, despite there being a technical limit - a limit that gets longer and longer and longer)
So as we've said. He didn't steal anything. he COMMITTED COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Re:Do not steal (Score:3, Insightful)
But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut - taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
I am reminded of a proverb/quote/saying I heard once:
If I have a penny and you have a penny and we exchange pennies, now you have a penny and I have a penny. But if I have an idea and you have an idea and we exchange ideas, now you have two ideas and I have two ideas.
Re:Objection (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmmmmm.... Boobs
For more info, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Tits [wikipedia.org]
Re:Do not steal (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you apparently don't understand, I'll explain what's happening: The record companies are throwing the mother of all hissy-fits over the obsolescence of their business model. In the old days, there were no record companies and artists made their living by *performing*. Then along came radio and the phonograph. The music industry was born, which was based on selling overpriced pieces of plastic, along with radio revenue. The pieces of plastic evolved into CDs and eventually cost the consumer on average over $20 each. The consumer really never had any choice as prices were essentially being set by a cabal of large corporations. Sure, the consumer could hear music for free over ad-supported radio, but the record companies (and occasionally artists) got a cut from that, too. Existing IP law conveniently played nice with this model, since you had to buy a piece of plastic to choose when to play it for yourself or else listen to whatever the radio station decided to play - a process heavily and often illegally influenced by the corporations. (Perhaps you've never heard of payola?) The great thing was, plastic wore out fairly quickly so you would have to buy another. Magnetic tape media was even more unreliable but much more convenient - essentially a wash. When DAT reared it's ugly head, the music industry, not the market, had it killed in congress, since they were afraid people could make infinite perfect copies and kill the golden goose.
Then came the internet and this fear suddenly became reality: instant worldwide distribution with virtually zero production cost. They greedily tried to keep the juice flowing by blocking any effort to sell digital files over the net, but existing IP and copyright law did not play well with the new model. Naturally, piracy was rampant since the average consumer knew a better deal when they saw one and Napster was king. Then they managed to co-opt Napster but I-tunes finally set the standard by negotiating a price of a dollar a track. Please take note that this was a far worse deal for the consumer than a traditional CD, since they didn't even get their piece of plastic just a DRM-laden string of electronic bits kept on as tight a leash as possible. Pent up demand meant sales soared regardless, but so did piracy, which you correctly point out is a better deal for the consumer. However, the consumer finally gets to decide where and when to listen to music - sort of like self-programmed radio without the ads.
Copyright law says the record companies get exclusive rights to sell their pieces of plastic (or digital bits) for a hundred years - a number dreamed up by big corporations with no regard for the public interest. Compare this to patents for pharmaceuticals. Hundreds of millions of R&D dollars, rigorous government mandated and supervised testing and an end-product which often saves lives. For all this effort they get 20 years of exclusive rights, (provided the drug proves safe AND effective, both of which have to be scientifically proven prior to marketing) whereas any moron who pens a ditty basically gets automatic copyright (as per the Berne convention) for a century (no thanks to Sonny Bono). Clearly the interests of the general public got bypassed when it comes to modern copyright law.
It's not that whole concept if IP and copyright law is wrong, merely that it's far too heavily skewed against the consumer and was written without taking into account the realities of the digital age. Why should record companies continue to exist in their current form? Their core business of selling pieces of plastic is in serious trouble because the consumer sees no value in participating in that market. Those days are gone for good. Think: who still uses telegraph? If nobody wants records, why do we need a record industry? Recording and promotion; perhaps, but not so much for records or CD's. The new market is all digital, where consumers can get what they want instantly and on impulse. Nobody needs music to survive - it's a luxury. What will earn record
This is not our problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll go the "Anonymous Coward" route...
My fiance works for a music distributor. They make an everyday wage and they're about to layoff 400+ people from their offices. Oh yeah, my fiance also has Multiple Sclerosis. Her MASSIVE medical expenses are paid for through health insurance provided by her company, which she will lose if she gets laid off.
So...THANK YOU for stealing music!!!
I'm sorry, but maybe you should be speaking to people and campaigning for healthcare reform and universal healthcare. (for my part, I graduated college into this recession, have no job, and am also uninsurable at any price. I'm quickly plummeting toward the precipice with 2k/mo in Rx. )
If it wasn't the downturn or the pirates it would be something else, but your husband would have eventually lost his job (thus his insurance), and from there it's a quick drop into disability.
The injustice here is not your husband's upper management making horrible decisions, then waging a war against an entire generation which is supposed to be their target audience.
The injustice here is that you both have been shackled to a job because of medical care.
As for my side.. Music was once my escape. I would plug in, put the phones on, and just relax at the end of a long and taxing day. It was the one thing I considered sacred in life. The lawsuits from your husband's company wiped all that away and made every melody into the horrific reminder of corporate greed and corruption. Now I can't listen to an english song anymore because I know it was the american music industry which strangled the entire tech sector.
Little factoid:
DMCA was passed in '98, but not scheduled to take effect for two years.
What happened two years later? What sector is now reduced to doing nothing but hollywood's bidding. Why is steve jobs dragging his feet with blu-ray again?
I'm sorry but there's only one thing which takes my mind off the chronic pain i experience right now, and that's the fact that your pet industry put me there by killing off every tech business model which their luddite staff didn't agree with.
Had these same people had their way back at the turn of the twentieth century your husband wouldn't have been working there anyway. They don't appreciate the repeated lessons of history, however, and killed off my jobs before they were born.