RIAA Trying To Avoid a Jury Trial 183
Joe Elliot writes "Faced with a jury trial set to begin on October 1, the RIAA has filed a motion for summary adjudication of specific facts: that the RIAA owns the copyrights to the songs in a file-sharing case; that the registration is proper; and that the defendant wasn't authorized to copy or distribute the recordings. If the judge rules in their favor, Ars notes that it may turn into a Novell v SCO situation where the only thing left to be decided are the damages. There are some significant problems with the copyright registrations — they don't match up. 'Thomas argues that since she lacks the financial means to conduct a thorough examination of the ownership history (e.g., track the ownership of "Hysteria" from Mercury to UMG) for the songs she is accused of infringing the copyright to, her only opportunity to determine their true ownership is either via discovery or cross-examination at trial.' Ars also notes that the RIAA's biggest fear is of losing a case. 'A loss at trial would be catastrophic for the RIAA. It would give other defense attorneys a winning template while exposing the weaknesses of the RIAA's arguments. It would also prove costly from a financial standpoint, as the RIAA would have to foot the legal expenses for both itself and the defendant. Most of all, it would set an unwelcomed precedent: over 20,000 lawsuits filed and the RIAA loses the first one to go to a jury.'"
Good story (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good story (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm, destruction of your whole business model, financially costly? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
But surely would make future litigation more costly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not that they're "avoiding a jury trial", it's that they're limiting the scope of the trial to things that are actually disputed. If the defendant claimed that she hadn't actually downlo
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good story (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if your business model is fatally flawed and/or obsolete.
The fact is that the labels' current business model is untenable. Fifty years ago it took LOTS of money to make a record. Today it only takes a couple thousand; just about every local band [thestationmusic.com] (link is to friends of mine) in Springfield has at least one CD recorded in a studio and professionally duplicated.
They don't HAVE to sell a million to make a profit - the things only cost a buck or two apiece, anything above that is profit, so long as they're sold at the bands' shows.
The RIAA labels' only current hold on music is that they still control radio and empty-v. THAT is why they killed internet radio and are trying to kill P2P - they can't control it and keep the indies off. These two outlets are the indies' meal tickets and the labels' worst nightmare.
If you're trying to find, say, a live version of The Station's song The Fog [kuro5hin.org] on Kazaa (say someone told you about them), you're likely to find a Radiohead song by the same name, and get yourself sued. But the labels' fear is that you'll be looking for Radiohead's tune and find The Station by mistake. You buy their two CDs (or downloads from iTunes) and you no longer have the money you spent on those two CDs and now can afford one less RIAA CD, since they cost twice as much as most indie CDs sold as shows.
This isn't about "piracy", it's about destroying the competetion.
-mcgrew [mcgrew.info]
Re:Good story (Score:4, Interesting)
To make this comment not a gripe in whole, it does seem quite possible that the RIAA could avoid the trial by jury silver bullet in this case, if the defendant was in fact file sharing and they have "good" proof. Not all the defendants are dead, children, or too old to own/know how to use a computer.
Still, the writing is on the wall. They won't get away with extortion forever.
Re:Good story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No penalty for repeated voluntary dismissal? (Score:2, Interesting)
A voluntary dismissal once or twice might simply indicate a genuine mistake, but that's clearly not the case with the RIAA --- they're abusing the legal process for strategic commercial gain. Doesn't this
Re: (Score:2)
They should not be able to escape paying the attorney fees of the defendant, particularly if the case is dismissed by the judge with prejudice and the defendant should definitely make the case to the judge that the entire action brought by the RIAA was frivolous and deserves to be punished with an award of attorney fees. The
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
they will move to voluntarily dismiss their own case, as they did in Capitol v. Foster, Interscope v. Leadbetter, Priority Records v. Candy Chan, Elektra v. Santangelo, and others.
They should not be able to escape paying the attorney fees of the defendant, particularly if the case is dismissed by the judge with prejudice and the defendant should definitely make the case to the judge that the entire action brought by the RIAA was frivolous and deserves to be punished with an award of attorney fees. The RIAA should not be able to jerk people around for no cost other than their own attorney and court filing fees, especially not when their case is frivolous, and moving to dismiss your own action when you feel that the tide is turning against you should definitely be taken as strong evidence of frivolousness (i.e. the burden should be upon the plaintiff to prove that his withdrawal by moving for dismissal of his own case is not frivolous and that should be a heavy burden in order to deter frivolous actions which waste the court's time).
I agree with you, but that's their usual strategy. They'll try to avoid the attorneys fees but may not succeed. In Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com] they dismissed their own case, but the judge slammed them for $68,685.23 in attorneys fees.
From 34 years of experience in litigation, I don't think I've ever seen a judge say no to someone wanting to withdraw their own case.
Re:Good story (Score:4, Funny)
So pointing it out is redundant....
(and yes this is probably a troll, or flamebait. Possible Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the comment. It WAS redundant. The guy already had a +1 karma mod for being him, that's all he should get. The post then ought to be modded as redundant. I know that's the first thing I thought when I clicked on the article and saw "Good Article" = +5 Insightful.
But what do I know. I'm new here (and just a caveman)
Re: (Score:2)
I've read what he had to say before, and yes, he's someone to listen to. But moderation is not done on the reputation of the person, but on the post. Read the comment. It WAS redundant. The guy already had a +1 karma mod for being him, that's all he should get. The post then ought to be modded as redundant. I know that's the first thing I thought when I clicked on the article and saw "Good Article" = +5 Insightful. But what do I know. I'm new here (and just a caveman)
I think it was fair for the moderator to mod me down, since I had nothing exciting to say. I can take it.
Re:Good story (Score:4, Insightful)
But "redundant" is the wrong terminology; if it's the first post it couldn't be redundant.
But if I were the moderator I might have done the same thing -- there are only 4 negative moderation choices, "Troll" "Flamebait" "Redundant" and "Offtopic", and the comment was really none of those.
So I think, given the limited choices, the moderator did the right thing and I do not fault him or her in any way, even if it did hurt my feelings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You trying to get a FP naughty man!
In all seriously, although the post in itself was nor insightful or interesting if I was a moderator I would not moderate you down because of what you Mr. Beckerman represents. But of course that meant I would not be moderating objectively. It seems that it is what makes the moderation system work.
I must say that, after reading the title of the story I was expecting that you were the submitter.
Cheers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good story (Score:5, Funny)
Judge: Now we will hear comments from the jurors..
Juror #7: (jumps to feet) FIRST POST!!!!
Juror #2: Powned!
Juror #5: Common guys, -1, off topic.
Juror #12: In Soviet Russia, first post owns you!
Juror #2 snickers
Re: (Score:2)
Just for the record, I am too... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me you're still okay. I'm scared that I haven't done anything wrong.
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Using the "I didn't know sneaking around on a P2P program and downloading copyrighted material from random people all over the world was wrong" defense is just lame.
Tom
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the RIAA is not interested in teaching people the difference between wrong and right, they are interested in using the legal system to extract far more money than they deserve from them.
And that too is wrong. No one has the moral high ground here, but I think the RIAA is standing on lower ground, personally.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Its a "You did $500 in unfair and illegal damages to us, an association of mega-corporations (and that's a high estimate). So we're going after you for $75,000 in unfair but legal damages to you, and that's not counting the stress, lost time at work, and other intangibles."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:5, Insightful)
It matters a great deal from a legal standpoint. If Universal doesn't actually own the copyrights to the material, then they have no standing to sue, regardless of what the defendant is alledged to have done. And given the history of the music business regarding copyright and royalty abuse with artists, it is a legitimate question to raise - if it is discovered that Universal never really took ownership of the copyright, then
a) the suit gets dismissed
b) someone elses lawyers start knocking on Universal's door, looking for "misdirected" royalties (maybe they won't be able to find their address, just like Stevie Nicks)
Of course, the suit could be re-filed by the actual copyright holder.
From a tactical standpoint, getting Universal's people up on a stand to walk a jury through a byzantine recording contract to explain just how it is that they own the copyright and are owed a kajillion dollars in damages when the original artist gets a pittance is almost certain to dispose a jury toward the defendant.
If we can bleat about "due process" and "competent defense" for murderer's, rapists, thugs, petty theives, and Gitmo detainess, surely this person deserves that same support?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not what would happen. The RIAA legal team merely has to describe how, for example, when Mercury Records recorded "Hysteria" they were operating under the parent company Polygram
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is nothing intuitive or obvious about the difference between all the ways to listen to music free about which the general consensus is "Not wrong" and the several ways the RIAA thinks are so wrong that you should have to go to court and pay thousands and thousands in fines and attorney fees. For someone far inside a particular culture's arbitrary distinctions, those distinctions can look to be plain, obvious, and simple. That's an illusion, a distortion of perspective. What the RIAA wants us to accept as "wrong" depends on a very fine legalistic parsing of differences.
Basically the RIAA wants to find a loophole among all the ways that listening to music is "not wrong" by which to make a few instances so wrong as to deserve massive punishment and rewards to them. To respond legalistically to the RIAA's legalistic claims is not wrong; it's response in kind. If being legalistic is wrong, the RIAA has no case to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
But they're not suing her for downloading. They're apparently suing her for "distributing" (not just "making available") it. And they haven't even proved that the files contained material they own the rights to, much less that she actually distributed them.
Heck, I have, er, I mean a friend has, files that nobody has ever actually downloaded.
Anyone above the age of 10? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell kind of teenagers have you been talking to?
> "Using the "I didn't know sneaking around on a P2P program and downloading copyrighted material from random people all over the world was wrong" defense is just lame."
Agreed. Also lame: the current music/movie/etc business model, the effect that business model has on artificial intellectual property monopoly laws, and the detriment said
Re: (Score:2)
Wishful thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
According to TFA, the defendent *still* doesn't have the copyrights to the songs, even if the registrations are wrong - in that case, the registered copyright is still to record companies. Who are probably RIAA members. If this case fails, the defendent can just be sued again by the registered rights holders. I don't see then name "Jammie Thomas" as the rights holder under either columns in TFA.
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
She's not fighting the case soley on the basis of ownership. However, if she wins then it sets a huge precedent, which would further prevent the RIAA from using their shotgun approach to lawsuits. If they have to trace & prove ownership of every song that they're claiming for, it's going to add a lot of overhead to their cases and could well dredge up some unwelcome cases where they discover that they *don't* own the copyrights to songs that they've been making money off for years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure it will (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Juries are only used in Federal District Court. When a jury renders a verdict, there is no decision. Therefore, there is nothing to cite as precedent. On appeal to the Appeals Court for a ci
Re: (Score:2)
This is wrong. A District Court decision is not binding on any court. No other court is required to follow that ruling. Other court may cite any decision reached by a judge as persuasive, but its not binding. And this only occurs when there is a decision by a judge either via pre-trial rulings or a bench trial. Juries are only used in Federal District Court. When a jury renders a verdict, there is no decision. Therefore, there is nothing to cite as precedent. On appeal to the Appeals Court for a circuit, that decision is precedent. It is binding only on other district courts in that circuit - all other courts in other circuits are not required to follow that decision. It may be used as persuasive authority outside that circuit, but no court outside the jurisdiction of the appeals court rendering the decision is required to follow it. Trust me on this - its what I do all day, and often all night long. No one cares what a jury does. It can't be cited. Juries decide facts, not law. Very few courts care what a district court judge says in any decision of law. And unless its 5th, 7th or 2nd Circuit, no other courts will care much about what a Court of Appeals says anyway. Its why things like circuit splits exist.
I understand what you're saying, but you have to realize a few things that are different here.
There are 30,000 cases, and counting, all of which are virtually identical. And the whole litigation campaign isn't about any one case for the RIAA. Each case in and of itself is only worth from $5000 to $8000 for the RIAA. The cases are about creating a mass fear of using p2p file sharing, to help the record companies maintain monopoly power on the internet. Now given that as the backdrop, take these 3 things in
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:4, Interesting)
That's irrelevant. *Only* the copyright holder has standing to sue over the copyrights. If the plaintiff doesn't own the copyrights, the suit will be dismissed.
Assuming it fails only on the copyright ownership grounds, probably. It's also entirely possible that the copyrights fell through the cracks at some point and that it's not possible to clearly establish the ownership, or that the ownership ended with some other company or individual that isn't interested in suing Thomas, since it will be much more profitable to sue the company who has been illegally distributing the material for profit.
Actually, even if the ownership did turn out to rest with another RIAA member, I'd still expect a lawsuit against the current distributor, seeking restitution of all profits related to the song (less expenses related to the song, of course, meaning that a bunch of auditors will make millions).
Finally, as another poster pointed out, this may well establish a precedent that the labels are required to exhaustively trace the ownership of the songs over which they sue, adding significant cost and complexity to already-expensive cases. It's a good legal tactic and it's also quite proper -- companies *should* have to ensure they truly hold copyrights before they sue over them. Think how much pain that would have saved in the SCO case.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The RIAA 'sues' over $3,000. A half-decent law firm won't even answer the phone for that. Litigation (and preparation for litigation) is *extremely* expensive. The RIAA has been able to extort money from people by threats of litigation, without actually doing any of the real work of preparing for litigation.
People are finally getting the idea that the RIAA is weak in prepartion. Suing someone over something you don't own is a bad thing. If other lawyers start doing this kind of research, all of t
Re: (Score:2)
But it's pretty unlikely that the ownership isn't right, simply beca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could also get them slapped with "contempt of court" charges.
They're lawyers for the RIAA (Score:2)
Plagiarism is bad, mmkay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, either the lifting is okay, or the article is not worth the time to click the link. Problem solved.
what case? (Score:3, Informative)
Jury trials are both good and bad (Score:3, Funny)
Jury trials are good if RIAA is subject to them
Jury trials are bad if IBM is subject to them
Hence it is proven that jury trials are both good and bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary Judgment (Score:5, Informative)
Surely they've planned for this eventuality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Backups? (Score:5, Interesting)
I see this more as a "can I legally 'help' people backup their music" and "is it my fault that others can't follow the law."
From how I see it, it isn't their fault someone else downloaded the song; they didn't force anyone to do anything illegal. If they own the recording, shouldn't they be able to let others download it to have a personal, digital, copy? If not, why?
Re: (Score:2)
So sending the other person the files you copied, means they didn't make the copy themselves. Depending on where you live, this either makes both of you a copyright offender or just the person sending the copies.
I don't quite know how it works if you just provide the other person with instructions on how to make the backup. Just look at the whole DeCSS history to see how difficult this can get.
While we're playing what if's... (Score:2)
Same scenario as far as What if my friend makes a copy of his CD using my computer, then downloads it onto his computer from mine (assume we don't have any external memory storage device). Is it okay then?
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, all fair-use requires is that it's the owner that click the "copy" button.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a distributed off-site backup scheme. Its very simple and so far as I can tell (IANAL and this is all with tongue firmly implanted in cheek) perfectly legit, except maybe for the intent.
It goes like this: Mary rips all her cd's that she legally owns onto her computer system, for whatever reason. She has spent countless hours doing this and figures its more efficient to backup these rips than to go through the entire process of reripping in the event of a d
Re: (Score:2)
I think fair use is something that people around here have a hard time understanding. Fair use is totally unlike programming, where you have black-and-white rules that give you immediate results. Misplace a semicolon, get a compiler error. Fair use isn't like that.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously false, or there wouldn't be any CD or phonograph record retailers.
Nothing in copyright law -- at least not as interpreted by the courts under the First Sale Doctrine -- prevents you from legally giving away a CD or record for f
Isn't this normal (Score:4, Interesting)
The article makes it sound like RIAA is running scared, it sounds to me like they understand it's a big deal and are doing everything they can to win the case. I would expect anyone involved in a court case to, you know, actually try and win it.
um (Score:3, Informative)
It sounds like the only disputed issue is whether RIAA in fact owns the copyrights. This is a question of fact that would vary song-by-song, and a determination that these particular songs belong to RIAA would not prevent the issue from being re-litigated in every other case.
Re: (Score:2)
They are still suing her only because they can't be seen to back down because their whole tactic is based on incorrectly stating the law to get people to pay them a hefty 'avoid court' fee. The success is largely based on the threatened individual's fear of large attorneys bills and lack of knowledge of the law, rather than actual fact of law.
Finally this woman is the f
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like the only disputed issue is whether RIAA in fact owns the copyrights.
In TFA, Virgin Records, et al wants summary judgement on the issue of whether "the defendant wasn't authorized to copy or distribute the recordings."
Which is nice, but not relevant.
They still need to prove that distribution happened.
That is something I'd consider a "disputed fact" and quite frankly, is the heart of the matter.
I imagine they'd also need to prove that those files are what they claim.
the thing with jury trials is... (Score:5, Insightful)
some jurors may empathize with the defendant while at the same time, another handful of jurors sympathize with the plaintiff.
the truth is that you just don't know. i think that some of these cases should go before a jury and let's see what happens.
the riaa's arguments may be solid but the question of what constitutes copyright infringement and what constitutes fair-use needs to be codified.
my question has always been, "why was it okay for my to make copies of my vinyl albums, put them on cassette, and give it to a friend but it's not okay for me to make a copy of a cd and give that cd copy to the same friend?"
the end result is the same. my friend gets the music that i paid for.
could it be that only now the record labels are panicking because people are not gathering in herds to buy the latest stuff put out by seemingly talent-less hacks like kelly osbourne or britney spears?
so many computers are used in producing pop music now that it would indeed make the world's largest beowulf cluster.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quote me the law that says it's ok (as in legal) to give out a copy to a friend.
Just because the practice is winked at doesn't make it legal. I think it's just a matter that the technology has not only given people a better and easier way to distribute it but it's also given way to an
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a lot to be said about a government that has done nothing about the practice for years nay DECADES and suddenly (and EXCLUSIVELY) because of lobbying starts "arresting" people for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the practice is winked at doesn't make it legal.
They only winked at it because recording to analog tape is inherrently lossy no matter how good your equipment is. After a few generations it's clearly not as good as the original source. To top it off playing vinyl and analog tape wears out the surface and eventually the quality of your media degrades. It seems only fair that if your expensive vinyl is going to wear out if you play it over and over that you're better off only playing it a f
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Nobody publicised their music sharing to the world back in the tape days.
Yes.
You see, the reason it's prosecuted so widely today is that we have, for the first time in our history, the ability to make a large number of copies available for what is essentially no cost to us and for what is a somewhat insignificant cost for the RIAA to investigate.
Do you really think that the RIAA consi
Re: (Score:2)
I never said they weren't concerned. Why is it that Slashdotters love to read something into what was never said and then have the balls to come off smug about it? But since you bring it up: once again you're talking about a central hub of "piracy" and not breaking down to the level where you were pursuing the man on the street. It kinda makes me pissed that I have to convey this message is such a fashion but since pe
Re: (Score:3)
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
emphasis added.
Note that it does NOT say, "for personal use only", it says "for noncommercial use"
Re: (Score:2)
You're taking a snippet of the whole out of context and that's a dangerous thing to do in law.
But if you really think you're right feel free to contest it in a court of law. I'm pretty sure I already know how it will turn out for you.
Re: (Score:2)
And my original post was in response to the people asking "when was it ever legal for you to make tapes of your albums?". And the answer is "right after the AHRA was passed."
Re:the thing with jury trials is... (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think that was legal?
Re: (Score:2)
if you brought a cassette tape, the station would make a copy of the lp for you...but like i said...that was a LONG time ago...mid 80's.
so while it may not have been legal...it
Re: (Score:2)
If they were the copyright holders, they'd be able to give you permission to make copies, so that would be legal.
What would probably not be legal (then or now) would be for you to make a copy for your friend without obtaining permission first. For some time it was illegal even to make a copy for yourself, but that was eventually decided to be fair use. (This is based on my very limited knowledge of US law;
Re: (Score:2)
It was never okay for you to distribute dubbed cassette copies of albums to your friends.
The difference is that before public file sharing took off, there was no way for the RIAA companies to rifle through your tape collections to see what unlawful copying you might have been engaging in
Re: (Score:2)
That is one of the best parts about them. They have the potential to be a great equalizer in a dispute between powerful organizations and average citizens. What do you figure your chances would be in the absence of such an accommodation? Slim to none perhaps?
How about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe my thinking is a little wacky. However, how about someone scan through the files that RIAA say that they "own" and look for any infected by viruses. Wouldn't RIAA be responsible for that? I think establishing ownership for data could be very expensive in secondary consequences.
Defense Fund? (Score:5, Interesting)
The law and you (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA has filed a motion for summary {judgement.] If the judge rules in their favor...it may turn into a...situation where the only thing left to be decided are the damages.
Well, yeah. In a motion for summary judgment, you are asking the judge to rule that the defendant hasn't got a case worth taking to trial - no matter how generously how you read the arguments in his favor.
Thomas argues that since she lacks the financial means to..track the ownership of [the] songs she is accused of infringing, her only opportunity to determine their true ownership is via discovery or cross-examination at trial.'
Her lawyers want a trial to determine whether the RIAA should sue her as the representative of Label X or as the representative Label Y? There is no real doubt that the recordings are still under copyright?
Ars also notes that the RIAA's biggest fear is of losing a case. 'A loss at trial would be catastrophic for the RIAA. It would give other defense attorneys a winning template while exposing the weaknesses of the RIAA's arguments. It would also prove costly from a financial standpoint, as the RIAA would have to foot the legal expenses for both itself and the defendant. Most of all, it would set an unwelcomed precedent: over 20,000 lawsuits filed and the RIAA loses the first one to go to a jury.'"
Cases are lost at trial all the time.
You don't get that far unless the parties are pretty evenly matched. But establishing meaningful precedent is extraordinarily rare.
The problem here is that you are really looking only at the admissibility of evidence used to prove infringement and the weight to be given that evidence. The burden of proof in a civil case is light and relevant evidence is rarely excluded.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the detail that at least part if not all of the titles the RIAA are suing over are not with Member labels.
This means that they do not have standing to be pressing suit over an infringement of the rights on those files.
It means the case might very well get dismissed as RIAA doesn't have standing
Re: (Score:2)
If the only issue is in dispute is who owns own the copyrights what makes the story worth posting? In a thousand cases P2P how many times will that line of attack be worth pursuing?
I Don't See How the RIAA is Worried (Score:3, Insightful)
This, ladies and gentlemen is the entire point of the exercise. Induce the consumer behavior to check with the RIAA members before doing anything with the media you have legitimately purchased.
"Check with us before doing anything with the media you purchased or else we'll drag you into court." is the explicit threat. That one in 20,000 isn't going well is a fantastic track record. The RIAA is already lawyered-up and ready to drag it out. What individual can afford the fight? Certainly not the ones the RIAA has chosen to prosecute.
And yet nothing will be done by American consumers to reign in another abusive cartel.
Some interesting side notes... (Score:3, Funny)
- "Appetite for Destruction"
- "The Comfort Zone"
- "Control"
- "Frontiers"
- "Let it Loose"
- "Get a Grip"
- "Hysteria"
- "If You See Him"
Based on the titles, if these aren't RIAA anthem songs, I don't know what would be. No wonder they want to get her!Also... A handful of defendants have managed to be exonerated, most notably Debbie Foster, Patricia Santangelo, and Tanya Andersen--who is now suing the RIAA for malicious prosecution. Why are all the women getting off? If Jammie Thomas wins, there's another one! I am pretty sure men are being discriminated against...or are only women actually fighting the RIAA?
Q.E.D. == Quite Easily Demonstrated (Score:2)
We own the copyrights to all the music you'll ever want to listen to.
Q.E.D. Because we own all copyrights, we own these copyrights and you must pay us.
There really is only One Record Company now, despite the fiction of several different names. We think alike. We act alike. We sue alike. We settle alike. Q.E.D.
Avoid A Jury Trial? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA is afraid because they will lose.
Who do they work for ? (Score:2)
What would happen if artists started filing lawsuits against the RIAA for failing to protect their intrests or somthing ?
Re: (Score:2)
But it is important (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely right, but it is important. Otherwise, you or I could sue this person for copyright violation. But that doesn't make sense. I can't ask the police to arrest you for trespassing on my neighbor's property. And I can't enforce somebody else's copyright.
And assuming the person were to lose the copyright infringement case, wouldn't they have to award damages to the copyright holder? What if it turns out the copyright holder had no interest in suing widows and orphans?
I think this is not trivial.
Re: (Score:2)