RIAA, Stop Suing Tech Investors! 114
The RIAA isn't just suing tens of thousands of music consumers; they've also begun filing lawsuits naming the directors of and investors in tech companies that they believe contribute to copyright infringement. NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "ZDNet urges the big recording industries to stop suing tech investors, and cites the draft legislation that I posted, which would immunize from secondary copyright infringement liability any work done by a director in 'his or her capacity as a member of the board of directors or committee thereof,' and any conduct by an investor based solely upon his or her having 'invested in any such corporation, including any oversight, monitoring, or due diligence activities in connection therewith.'"
Legislation to protect *investors*, hell no (Score:5, Interesting)
I should say - I think that this law suit is bollocks, obviously.
But if you want to prevent this sort of thing, all you need is a law to indemnify inventors and distributors of technological devices and other services against contributory infringement. Why single out the investors and directors for legal protection?
Investors and directors already have far too *much* indemnity against the actions taken with their money, generally speaking. This would set a terrible precedent, potentially causing tremendous harm to society in order to advance a very minor point of agenda.
Go for it! (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA, we know you're running out of money, so by all means start suing well-heeled investors instead of grandmothers living off small pensions.
Hell, I'll even recommend a few law firms that bill starting a grand an hour to help you out.
Quick, dump your stock in... (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's see...
Any computer company (ibm, microsoft, apple)
All online auction sites like eBay (because they are full of nothing but counterfeits)
Any company that sells ethernet cards or cables.
Oh hell, let's sue the mining industry because they produce the copper for the cables, because copper carries signals that could be carrying stolen bits of data.
As you can tell it's pretty damn stupid.
The only companies that profit directly from copyright infringement are in China. Anyone in the US profiting from copyright infringement is exempt under the DMCA safe harbor clause.
Re:Limited Liability? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's the general rule, but there are exceptions. Otherwise, it would be too easy to exploit the legal concept of limited liability corporations to avoid responsibility for your actions. IANAL either but I have come across plenty of people with "clever" ideas they think will limit tax or litigation exposure.
For example, Acme Freight Inc could set up a different subsidiary for each truck it owns with $100 of share capital each, and transfer ownership of one truck and one driver's contract to each one. That way, if there was an accident that particular subsidiary would be sued (but only owns the wreckage of the truck and $100). Acme Freight Inc would then claim that their loss was limited to their investment. Trying to get the courts to accept this scheme is likely to be tough, given that it is both grossly immoral and totally contrary to public policy and the intent of the road accident liability laws.
The subsidiaries have no significant economic capital or operations of their own, and effectively act as agents for the Inc. rather than separate trucking businesses. That sort of situation makes it more likely for the courts to "look through" the legal entity. Of course YMMV and IANAL etc...
In this case, the RIAA has effectively started claiming that the investors knew their service would be used for illegal ends and they set up a separate company to shield themselves from the legal consequences of their actions. Who knows what the courts will decide, but if the investee has a meaningful amount of capital of its own, has separate management and operates independently I wouldn't hold out much hope for this argument.
Re:Limited Liability? (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL but I thought the whole point of corporations was to limit investors' exposure to the amount of their investment.
IAAL... and I was under the same impression.
Re:Oh for crying out loud (Score:4, Interesting)
Lets think about how this would have affected the development of: the personal computer, the VCR, the tape deck, CD burners, torrent distribution, the xerox machine, the printing press...
What's really going on?
RIAA warfare against "piracy?"
or
The RIAA is attempting to buy legislation which would allow them to destroy technologies that allow independent artists to compete with them.
That is their goal. To return to that glorious place they enjoyed for decades. A competition-free zone.
Re:Probably an even worse idea (Score:1, Interesting)
IANAL, so I'd like to ask those are AL in the USA:
Couldn't the defendants sued by the RIAA (as described in this overall discussion) file for a judgement with prejudice, and thereby require the RIAA to pay all legal costs involved?
Could the defendants then file complaints with the appropriate Bar Associations against the RIAA attorney(s) for having knowingly harrassed the defendants, and/or barratry?
Re:Sue Intel! And AMD! (Score:4, Interesting)
It has even been considered here to require a license to have a computer since it's able to play broadcasted TV.
Weird...
offtopic - sig site (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is login restricted on your sig site? Should I apply for a handle?
Re:Silly proposal... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are already laws in place to protect against the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
Name them. (And once you do I will show you why every one you name is entirely ineffective to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits.) The fact is there is big money in filing frivolous lawsuits and the Big 4 record companies are the best customers for this product. They have spent far more on it than they have on product development.