RIAA Says "Wanna Fight? It'll Cost You!" 367
jeiler writes "Ars has the details on an RIAA strategy to double the cost of settling copyright infringement suits for students who try to quash the group's subpoenas in court. In a nutshell: settle early, pay $3,000; try to quash the subpoena and the settlement cost rises to $8,000."
Shouldn't matter... (Score:5, Funny)
Right?
Re:Shouldn't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
And remember (Score:5, Insightful)
A civil case has a much lower standard, the preponderance of the evidence. More or less that means whoever has the more convincing argument. There can still be reasonable doubt, so long as one side seems to present better evidence, then they win. Also, you aren't given a lawyer, you have to pay for one yourself.
So even if you are innocent, paying the extortion money can be the easy out to take. It'd be real hard to mount a defense for $30,000, much less $3,000. Even if you do, they could still win.
That's the problem here. It isn't one of these "Oh you are innocent so you have nothing to worry about." No, you have a lot to worry about. Either you pay a ton of money to hire a lawyer to try to defend yourself, or you do it all by yourself and almost certainly lose just because you don't understand the legal system.
Re:And remember (Score:5, Insightful)
This thread is going to be full of people saying "When you win in court..."
Assuming no special legal knowledge, the average person with no lawyer will lose to the RIAA in court. And as for hiring a lawyer,
Re:And remember (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget what amounts of money we're talking here, and what people. We're not talking about the average 50ish person building a nestegg. The average defendant is someone who is in or just out of college, deeply enough in debt that they have to work their way out for 20 or so years anyway and for whom it doesn't really matter if you stack 8k or 80k on top of that. He is in bankrupcy after that.
So why not fight it? Any good reasons?
What you need is P2P insurance (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/28/p2p-insurer-will-pay.html [boingboing.net]
Don't know how valid that is, but it would also work if a large percentage of downloaders kicked just a few bucks into a slush fund to help people fight if sued.
The above article stated the odds of getting sued at: 1:1840
Smartest Idea Ever! (Score:5, Interesting)
I want in on this at the ground floor.
Re:And remember (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure how it work, wether they just defend you for free (if they think your case is relevant to their fight), or if they just get paid low rate, but either way you'll probably get the most competent people for that precise matter, for far less than a top lawyer's fee.
Plus, you might get NYCL's autograph
Re:And remember (Score:4, Interesting)
"worried you could be the target of an RIAA lawsuit? pay $X a month and the EFF will come to your rescue if and when they come to get ya"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't this just encourage the RIAA to prioritise going after people without the insurance? My understanding has been that much of the criticism against them has been that they're often picking unsuspecting people who never would have considered themselves as copyright pirates anyway, and would never have considered some kind of insurance against the possibility of a
Re:And remember (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, it is fully possible to bully people into admitting a crime they haven't committed. In my view, what the RIAA does is quite clearly criminal, at least in spirit, if not in letter - they know perfectly well that their demands have no merit. If criminal law doesn't already cover this, then it should be changed. It sholdn't be possible for this to happen in a civilized society that claims we all are born equal under the law.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright infringement is both a civil and a criminal offense, and you can certainly get a criminal record for violating copyright law. There are plenty of laws the create both criminal and civil penalties for the same action; copyright law is one, RICO is another.
It's complicated (Score:5, Informative)
Now also many crimes can have a civil component as well. Take a hypothetical situation: Suppose you are the owner of Evil Corp, and my wife works for you. Because you are evil, you don't give two shits about your employees and knowingly put my wife in a very dangerous situation. This causes her death. You end up getting charged with reckless endangerment and plead to manslaughter. Ok, great, however I'm still now a single parent trying to raise kids. Something that might help is some of the vast amount of money Evil Corp has made. So I file a civil suit against you for wrongfully causing her death. I win this, and thus get a large portion of your money.
OJ Simpson had something similar happen. He was acquitted of first degree murder charges. However he lost a civil suit charging him with causing wrongful death.
There's good reason for the system to work like it does, and to have civil and criminal components to a given case. However the RIAA is abusing it. They are trying to use civil suits to be able to go after people on extremely shaky, and often outright incorrect, evidence.
It is certainly a loophole that needs closing, but you have to be careful. While the civil system does allow for things like this, it also gives you the ability to go after people like the hypothetical Evil Corp, and does so even if the DA refuses to bring criminal charges.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't the whole problem that the damages sought in the civil suit are 'punitive', ie they are meant to punish the accused rather than to seek just compensation for the damage done by the infringement (which is minimal for any "non-career pirate")? And isn't it really strange that anything beyond just compensation is tried under civil suit rules?
I would expect that the criminal system is for punishing people, and c
Re:It's complicated (Score:4, Informative)
Of course it's gotten much easier to catch infringers and the damages haven't been revised downwards, so the damages being awarded are nonsensical.
Punitive damages are generally used to punish defendants who knowingly choose to act negligently/wrongfully. For example, punitive damages would be applied when a defendant knowingly poisons some town's water supply because the cost of dealing with the lawsuits will be less than the cost of proper disposal of the poison. Most punitive damages awards are dramatically reduced or eliminated on appeal and in many jurisdictions the nominal plaintiff only gets a small cut (the rest going to the state). They are a trivial part of our civil litigation system that gets a lot of press because the press doesn't understand their function and ignores what happens on appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's complicated (Score:5, Informative)
Uhhh, this is completely wrong.
Civil cases are about injury, where one party injures another and the injured party sues for relief. Copyright law is mostly a civil issue (e.g. you created illegal copies of my recording, and damaged my ability to make money with it), though the legislature has recently added some criminal provisions in the last few decades.
Crimes are about protecting public interests. All moving violations are part of the criminal code of your state; they're laws passed to restrict certain driving behaviors in the interest of highway safety. Traffic court is generally a little different from other criminal court, in the interest of efficiency, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a criminal court.
The difference between traffic violations and most other crimes is that most traffic violations are treated as minor crimes. Crimes fall into one of three categories: infractions, misdemeanors and felonies. Most states also define various grades within those categories. Most traffic violations are infractions, which means that you cannot go to jail for them. However, there are some more serious traffic crimes which are misdemeanors, which can carry jail time, and even felonies, which can carry a lot of jail time and remove other privileges. Reckless driving is a misdemeanor, for example.
No, it's not wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Or if you don't believe me, here's a Justice Court page about "Civil Traffic Violations": http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/justiceCourts/CourtsAndS [maricopa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
It is not. It is covered by completely different laws.
In any case, if you did steal a CD from a record shop, then as well as being prosecuted by the police, you could be sued by the record shop for the loss they suffered as a result of no longer having the record. That would be a civil case, and subject to civil standards of evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And remember (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with just condemning civil cases outright is that without civil courts, corporations would be subject to no law whatsoever. If I neglect basic responsibility and allow someone to be killed, I'm a manslaughterer, and my freedom (and ability to do business) is halted for decades. When a corporate legal person does the same thing, all they have to fear is fine by court. Take that away or cap the fine, and they are not just inhuman market entities, but also without law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Under ANKOJ, escalating the claimed damages would put them at increasing peril, and would make it easier for a defendant to hire a lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Not all speed limits are put there because it's dangerous to exceed them, so breaking a speed limit is not in and of itself an immoral act.
2) How is recklessly endangering one's self immoral?
Re: (Score:2)
2) You don't live in a deserted island. Injuring yourself will have a cost for society. There will be minor inconveniences to a few people who are counting on you (boss, coworkers, clients...); there will be a lot of people who'll get late to work bec
Re:Shouldn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand what you're saying here, and there is a point to it.
That being said however, giving government power to control behavior and write laws based on this principal can be a very dangerous thing to do. I believe that any costs to be assessed against an individual on these grounds should only be a result of a civil action between citizens.
Once you've opened the door to government control of, and given it the ability to pass legislation concerning, ones' own personal behaviors and activities as it affects ones' own health and safety and/or costs to society, such laws, regulations, and legislation are subject to subsequent interpretation and re-interpretations later that tend to unnecessarily restrict peoples' normal activities and behaviors far beyond the intentions of the original framers of said laws/regulations/legislation.
Every human activity engenders some form of risk and cost to society. Parachuting, gun ownership, exploration (terrestrial and space), swimming, and riding a motorcycle to name but a few examples, all engender personal risk that will add costs to society if one is hurt or killed.
Giving government the ability to restrict behavior financially and/or imprison people for taking risks gives the government the power to restrict or forbid practically any activity it chooses, and veto power over any proposed action or endeavor. All government needs, once the door to control these activities and behaviors is legally opened, is to find a friendly court to interpret the legislation how they wish.
As the saying goes, any power given to the government will at some point be abused by those in power for their own ends. Our only defense as citizens is to grant the government as few powers as possible, and to keep the government weak enough to not be a danger.
One need look no further for proof of this concept than the US government (and most other 1st-world governments) in its'/their current state(s), and changing the figureheads or the legislative puppets for a 'D' or 'R' (or whatever the mainstream political parties' initial or insignia happens to be) by their names will not change this once a certain threshold of government size and power has been passed.
This characteristic of human governments, I believe, is where Thomas Jeffersons' concept of the Tree of Liberty needing to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants comes from.
Cheers!
Strat
Re:Shouldn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
The canonical example is the federally mandated 55mph speed limit put in force in the early 70's. It was initially instituted as a fuel saving measure, but dogmatic "safety nazis" pointed to a correlated reduction in accidents and it became "common wisdom" that a lower limit is safer. When the federal 55 limit was eased in 88 and repealed in the 90's, there were all kinds of dire predictions of increased mayhem on the highways. In reality, accidents went down! The problem is that elected officials and bureaucrats don't actually understand the 85th percentile rule. The safest limit is one where 85% of drivers naturally obey the limit. The 55 limit saw compliance rates under 20%! Studies (see pg 88) [trb.org] show that nearly all posted limits are 8 to 12 mph below the 85th percentile.
So what about the reduction in accidents in 1974? Well, it's a classic case of "correlation is not necessarily causation". The late 1960's saw a dramatic improvement in the safety of automobiles. Everything from increased use of radial instead of bias ply tires to mandatory seat belts came into play in the late 60's. The biggest improvement, however, was the 1968 mandate of front wheel disc brakes. If you've never driven a car with 4 wheel drum brakes, it's easy to miss the importance of this. So starting in '68 you have all new cars being equipped with disc brakes. The "replacement point" on cars of that vintage was around 5 years, meaning that the majority of driving miles were logged in cars 5 or fewer years old. Older cars were still driven, but were largely relegated to secondary status (e.g. wife's car, kid's car, etc). So around 1973 the tide turns from drum brakes to disc brakes... and accidents went down. It was pure chance that the 55 limit coincided with that. Really, the 55 limit was more dangerous, but the increase in vehicle safety hid that. Sadly, we still have morons like you who blindly belive the mythology. Perhaps that can be changed by people like me handing out education and insults, but I'm not optimistic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument would only hold water if any action with negative consequences for others is immoral, including things such as buying a product from one vendor instead of another (which deprives the other vendor of income from me), or choosing to walk
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, it was to do with safety. The 70mph limit was introduced in to 60's after whole string of accidents.
It was briefly dropped to 50mph during the oil crisis.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org] for more info.
Speed Limit (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the speed limit thing was because breaking the speed limit is dangerous to yourself and others, and killing people is generally considered immoral.
In fact it is driving dangerously that is considered immoral; the meaning of "driving dangerously" depends upon the driver, and an advanced driver would be able to drive safely at higher speeds, all other things being equal.
This pushes the emphasis back onto social contract: because it is hard to detect a driver's skill, a single standard is set for all, which better drivers are expected to buy into since they believe in society.
Re:Shouldn't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, if they go to court, and win, they have no reason to settle. If they go to court and lose, then they probably have to pay an excessively larger amount.
So who is this for anyways? People who go halfway through and quit? They're (obviously) just trying to discourage people from fighting it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Odd. Of the court cases that actually go to court, I've noticed it's usually the RIAA that try to quit half way through.
Re:Shouldn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shouldn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Society advances by copying and improvising. Maybe that's why its restricted to governments and corporations? (takes conspiracy hat off)
Disney would be fuck all if it wasn't for copying..
Look at steamboat willie as a FANTASTIC example..
The music was a concept from something else
The setting was taken from something else
The fucking mouse was taken from something else
getting the picture yet?
The very thing that made Walt Disney who he is would b
Re: (Score:2)
99% of DMCA prosecutions are about the latter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So I'm curious. If you don't believe in intellectual property, then I guess you don't believe in the GPL either?
If music and software producers have no right to prevent large scale copying of their work, then it would seem it's also okay to say that when an individual produces some software and gives it away for free that it's okay for a corporation to incorporate it into a for sale product and neither compensate you for writing the software in the first place nor make the source code available.
Do I hav
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The USA is a little worse off because they allowed actual media companies to purchase more of their internet infrastructure than the rest of the world, granted, but even in the U
WRONG! (Score:2, Redundant)
Like software customization. Customize free open source software, and rent your worktime instead of selling a product. As long as companies want changes, you'll have a job.
OK, you want to sell music? Make it good, and sell it cheap!!! Just like Radiohead did with In Rainbows(TM). They gave the music for free, higher quality mp3 costed a bit more, and then they sold the limited editions which costed a hundred bucks.
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this different from any other type of corporate lawsuit? Raising settlement costs if the other party prolongs the case is hardly new.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it much more likely that the whole thing is an expense for the record companies, but that it is worth it to save their dying business model.
But I also have no real numbers on how many cases actually settle, lose, win, etc., much less the cost of filing the suits in the first place.
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a business model, but not like you think (Score:5, Insightful)
They've convinced their Clients this legal service and the lawyers are rackin' up the billable hours.
Realize that an organization (any organization) becomes less self-aware (right hand knows what left hand is doing) as it becomes larger. Once it gets to a certain size, behaviour becomes fragmented--you'll often see one department working at cross purposes to another in the same company.
Ask anybody who's ever worked for the government (even a city government), or a Fortune 100 company.
The answer to the question "Why do they do something that is clearly self destructive?" is that there is no "they", and the folks that are doing the suing know *exactly* what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
File a criminal court case of summary judgment for the purposes of discovery and then drop the case to while celebrating the option to refile in civil court
Really... Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really... Really? (Score:5, Informative)
My girlfriend IAL; she says this particular practice of the RIAA is perfectly legal. A party to a civil litigation can alter the settlement terms basically however they want, whenever they want (subject to public policy, of course: RIAA can't alter the terms to include the forfeit of your firstborn child or whatever). A settlement is just a contract, after all.
This makes sense, so the argument goes, because a party's costs for litigating a particular case become higher and higher as the case progresses. So, the settlement costs must increase concordantly.
Re:Really... Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
My girlfriend IAL; she says this particular practice of the RIAA is perfectly legal. A party to a civil litigation can alter the settlement terms basically however they want, whenever they want (subject to public policy, of course: RIAA can't alter the terms to include the forfeit of your firstborn child or whatever). A settlement is just a contract, after all.
This makes sense, so the argument goes, because a party's costs for litigating a particular case become higher and higher as the case progresses. So, the settlement costs must increase concordantly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't some amazing underground resistance fighting off the nazis, its people who are too tight fisted to buy the latest music wanting to leech it from torrent sites, and complaining when they get caught.
hardly Lenin or Che.
And don't pretend everyone on the internet agrees with you. when you say 'we' I presume you mean you and your school friends, because you sure don't speak for me or anyone I know who makes software for a living.
Move your assets offshore (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
PS Going bankrupt is almost never a good idea. Hiding assets offshore isn't either.
What if... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For everybody else missing the first session would be pretty stupid, a sure way to get a default judgement against you.
I'd have thought it would be more... (Score:5, Insightful)
Keeping up with the times (Score:5, Insightful)
Excluding the illegal downloads arena (which I know is what they're suing over), I think half the problem is the *AA not keeping up with technology.
At home I have a sizeable DVD collection (around 230 at last count), but with the release of Blu-Ray I'm starting to realize that my collection will eventually be obsolete (such as when DVD first came out, and people with a reasonable VCR collection realized that their collection would eventually be worth squat).
I think this is one of the reasons people download (the other reasons being ridiculous prices, etc). People realize that technology changes - CD collections have been superseeded by portable MP3 players (ipod and the likes), VCR's replaced with DVD's which will eventually lose out to blu-ray (once the prices down).
And people realize this - why should you pay for a CD/DVD, which will eventually become obsolete, when you can get what you want in a digital format (for a cheaper price)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Keeping up with the times (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not even touch the subject of copy protection mechanisms that may or may not work on future generations of players, which you will certainly get no update for. Which manufacturer will bother writing a driver for some obscure DRM crap that was used in maybe 10 discs? That it just happens to be your favorite movie doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is not a very reasonable reason for illegal downloads.
If you know that existing media will be incompatible with new players, and there is no legal way to move purchased content to new media
Strategies.. (Score:2, Funny)
1.) Offshore proxy
2.) Encrypt your network traffic
3.) Change your MAC address from factory default if you can
Now let say you got your notice, now you should...
1.) Move your assets offshore, i.e. Carribean, Switzerland, cayman island etc.
2.) Practice your legal rights, especially the fifth amendment and the second amendment of the U.S. constitution.
3.) If all else fails, move to Canada or elsewhere to seek political asylum, claiming POW status, as **AA is basically a war machine against
Re: (Score:2)
yes, you realize changing the MAC address on most cable or DSL modems is quite difficult given that the modem loses it's authorization from the ISP. How do you think they provision your access to begin with? The MAC of your computer is irrelevant as MAC addresses don't go past the first hop router which is your cable or DSL modem.
Encrypting traffic only works if only trusted people copy, most P2P applications are only effective if they have millions of users, there is no way to logistically make sure you
Re: (Score:2)
In the make-it-while-you-can dept. (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA on a suicide path with colletaral damage (Score:2, Interesting)
With the RIAA acting like a bull in a china shop, they will not only destroy the loyality of their own customer base ( which will cause the RIAA members to go out of business in the end ),
but they will also cause a lot of collateral damage:
They will, in the long run, cause a lot of political pressure for abolishing copyright law from a large portion of the population, so politicans will eventually abolish copyright in order to be able to win elections.
Now, a complete abolishment of copyright will cause
Re:RIAA on a suicide path with colletaral damage (Score:4, Insightful)
ooh scary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, like the sleazy car salesman, have they got a deal for you. If you settle right now, they'll just steal away $3K from you.
Wow.. where is my wallet at.
ARAG (Score:5, Interesting)
It costs about $17 a month, and I get hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal cost coverage for most situations. Basically, as long as the case does not involve a vehicle moving violation or is a conflict of interest with my employer (a major grocery chain), I am smilin' all the way to the court house.
I've had the insurance for almost a year now, and I've actually been kind of hoping for an opportunity to sue/counter sue someone... God bless America.
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany these insurances often explicitly exclude any internet related cases, which means they are nowadays pretty much useless.
(In case somebody can tell me an insurance that does cover these cases (e.g. filesharing, "AGB" and other cases of "Abmahnung wegen unlauteren Wettbewerbs" etc.), and is still reasonably priced, please tell me.)
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-paid legal only covers litigation costs (lawyers) an does nothing to cover any jail time or other fines and fees associated to losing you case. Your lawyer gets paid, but they will want the money back and jail time for the crime. You may still be on the hook for their lawyer.
Go ahead, punks, make my day... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Assassination politics (to resurrect an old meme) actually sounds feasible here.
For those of you too young to remember assassination politics, the idea is basically that you set up a web site on which people can place bets on the particular day that a person will die. Enough people making microbets, and eventually someone will see the financial incentive to anonymously place a heavy bet on a particular day and off the subject of the de
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, no need to make it as complicated as that. Keep robbing people, and eventually you'll target someone who's already at rock-bottom and would love an excuse to take it out on someone. Considering the other extremes people will go to when they're down on their luck, like burning their own life's work to collect on the insurance, it's a wonder that lawyers aren't murdered on a daily basis. But I guess we're just a nat
Re: (Score:2)
but... (Score:2)
*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
There's one simple way to stop the silliness (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one simple way to stop the RIAA, MPAA, BSA silliness...make the member companies jointly liable for the excesses of the enforcement organization. Apply the same regulations for bill collectors. As long as they're playing by the rules and obeying the law, no problem. But if you're responsible for the actions of a collection agency you hire, you might be a little more selective about who you pick. Likewise if Sony, BMG and the others found themselves exposed to liability, they might lean on RIAA to play by the rules. In fact, I'd be willing to bet RIAA membership would drop significantly overnight.
I had a dispute with Dish Network a couple years ago, they tried to blame an advertising partner for the problem.
It would change the entire outsourcing landscape. If the local hospital is responsible for the actions of outsource contractors, they might think twice before hiring medical transcription services from Abduls Discount Transcription in downtown Pakistan. As long as companies can insulate themselves from liability when trying to cut corners the silliness is going to continue.
Maybe it's time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, now I'm pissed!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA == organized crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Utter and complete bullshit, and what's really sad is that I'm not surprised. Being sued, right or wrong, shouldn't be about how much money you have to defend yourself, damnit, especially when you're faced with a terrorist organization like the RIAA. Fucking bastards!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's a RICO predicate. (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon, people. Stop making arguments based on emotion instead of logic and facts. The RIAA and their army of lawyers are fucking scumbags, no doubt. And we have kind of a screwed up system here (yes, that was an understatement) which isn't making matters any easier. But spewing nonsense like this will get us nowhere.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But if the story becomes "Settle for $3000 now, or we'll force you to pay $8000 later", that's approaching extortion. Especially when they've proven they'll cheat the justice system if they can to get the judgement they want.
Re:That's a RICO predicate. (Score:4, Insightful)
People like you make the RIAA look like the smart, honest ones.
That is not a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.junkfoodblog.com/uploaded_images/wendys-vanilla-frosty.jpg [junkfoodblog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a total scam of your gov't when they just send you a photo in the mail and tell you to pay up. I once got such a ticket, except it wasn't for me (delivered to the wrong address). In determining what it was, I did read the fine print. If you don't pay the ticket by such and such date, you automatically assume guilt and start paying additional penalties.
Never mind that the actual recipient never got the ticket -- his
Re:RIAA! (Score:4, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm [bbc.co.uk]