RIAA May Be Violating a Court Order In California 339
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of its 'ex parte' cases seeking the names and addresses of 'John Does,' this one targeting students at the University of Southern California, the RIAA obtained an order granting discovery — but with a wrinkle. The judge's order (PDF) specified that the information obtained could not be used for any purpose other than obtaining injunctions against the students. Apparently the RIAA lawyers have ignored, or failed to understand, that limitation, as an LA lawyer has reported that the RIAA is busy calling up the USC students and their families and demanding monetary settlements."
RIAA strikes again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RIAA strikes again (Score:4, Funny)
A million. One to make the countersuit, 999,998 to download the suit via P2P and one RIAA agent to sue the lot of them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
D. The same way we dealt with Nero, Mussolini, and other tyrants..
Nero commited suicide.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've wondered why no one has tried to "poison the well" with suits yet. You could create a GIF of a 7-legged spider and then let someone else violate your copyright. Use the RIAA's tactics to locate the infringers. Then, with lawyers on both sides working together, take the cases as far as possible. Get a local circuit court to make a ruling. Appeal to the next court. Wash, rinse, and repeat until you have set a firm legal precedent.
It seems whenever the RIAA is about to get a ruling against them, the
Re:RIAA strikes again (Score:5, Informative)
You don't really understand how the legal system works, do you?
Most judges who even suspect you're working both sides of the aisle will toss you and your case out of court. You'll probably be fined for wasting the court's time. Not to mention that a lawyer who does as you suggest, and throws a case for the purpose of setting precedent will probably never be able to practice law in that jurisdiction ever again.
Re:RIAA strikes again (Score:4, Funny)
Law and Order lied to me??!! *GASP*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RIAA strikes again (Score:4, Insightful)
Countersuits? Feh! The headline I look forward to is: "RIAA lawyers jailed for contempt of court". That will discourage them more than countersuits.
Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Interesting)
Just to play the Devil's Advocate here... Couldn't the RIAA use the information, once granted, to call the students and offer to "leave them alone" (as opposed to settle since they now can't sue them for anything other than injunctive relief) for a fee?
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
The legal term for that is "extrajudical settlement". Man, you make that sound like something illegal. What are you, a commie? It's perfectly legal to buy yourself a get-out-of-jail card here if you're rich.
Or to browbeat your opponent into submission by giving him the choice of giving you a nice amount of money or face higher legal costs than he can afford, if he's poor.
Didn't anyone ever wonder why the RIAA never went after someone who has enough money to actually defend himself in court?
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
And when has that ever stopped them?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't the RIAA use the information, once granted, to call the students and offer to "leave them alone"
Which begs the question of, why do they need to call them to announce they are doing nothing? Besides, such an action could be used in future lawsuits to demonstrate a lack of good faith effort to enforce their copyright, which would invalidate the copyright in turn. It is not in RIAA's best interests, legally, to do this. Ignorance can be bliss in the world of civil litigation.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
Invalidate the copyright? You must be thinking of trademarks. You can't invalidate a copyright by lack of defending it (or in this case, bad faith). If someone reproduces a book I've written for 10 years and I don't do anything, I can still sue them at anytime even if I was previously aware of the violation. You can't 'lose' a copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't 'lose' a copyright.
I know it's GETTING there, but unless Disney have bought another law for Christmas, I don't think copyright is eternal yet.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
Laches only applies to "equitable relief", ie, compensation. Basically, you can't let someone sell your stuff for 10 years (knowingly) and them hit them for all the money they've made distributing it since they started. However, it will not in any way invalidate your copyright. You can still stop them from redistributing your works, you just can't go after them for a zillion dollars.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it simply, NO. The judge put a very narrow restriction on the information. Any other use is a violation of that restriction. Judges take a dim view of being ignored.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but can he give them a slap on the wrist (i.e. a fine)? Or can he actually give them a solid kicking (a 7-figure+ fine and organise some sort of professional sanctions against the lawyers) and actually end the cases? Because the RIAA isn't suing people for the money, they're suing people to try and scare the public at large and if they can go "look, we can get your names on a 'no-sue' basis, ignore that, sucessfully sue you anyway and it'll only cost us a moderate fine" then they're come out clearly on top. Infact if the message that they can carry illegal lawsuits all the way through even after being called on it gets out, it'll play right into their hands.
To play devil* for a moment, using the old information-wants-to-be-free argument, once someone knows who it is that they need to sue how can you conscionably tell them that they can't actually sue them because you only told them the name so they could use it for something else?
*the devil is the RIAA's advocate.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
This is an inaccurate article title (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is an inaccurate article title (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is an inaccurate article title (Score:4, Insightful)
See how I did that there?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's fair to outright accuse them of an undetermined finding, in an article title, regardless of the entities involved. If an organization that wasn't so maligned (like Apple) was to be accused, there would be no small amount of grandstanding on this point. IANAL and neither are the editors involved in the proceedings.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is an inaccurate article title (Score:5, Informative)
NYCL is a L (from NYC), and therefore is going to be careful what he says.
Unlike the L's the RIAA uses.
Re: (Score:2)
When you get too used to having things your way, you start to get careless. When you feel like nobody can keep you from browbeating and blackmailing, you let your guard down and get more brash. And that's usually when you start to slip.
Re:NYCL: Something I've always wondered about (Score:5, Funny)
Ray, I've always been curious about something and was wondering if you could comment... When you post comments (and blog, for that matter) you generally seem to post your opinion, as well as humor and even attacks on "the bad guy" without holding too much back. You appear to be somewhat more restrained when discussing cases which you are personally involved in - and appear to be most restrained in cases in which you are being directly attacked (ie the RIAA lawsuit). This is all as I would expect from a professional -- if anything, you appear more open than I would have expected. So: Are you ever concerned that comments made here will come back to bite you? Where do you draw the line? Are you ever concerned that, for example, a judge may read your comments here (or on your blog) and that may influence their decisions? I have always enjoyed your sense of humor (sometimes self-deprecating, sometimes biting sarcasm, etc) and would not like to see that stop - I was just curious if you ever write something and think "No, I better not post that - that'll come back to haunt me."
Yes I've had to think about those types of questions. I think about them before I write them. The area that's required the most restraint is that I can't talk about my litigation ideas until they have been memorialized in publicly filed litigation documents. No I don't worry about judges reading my arguments, because my arguments here are the same as the arguments I make in my litigation documents. And I don't worry about the RIAA lawyers reading them, because they can't read.
Re:NYCL: Something I've always wondered about (Score:5, Funny)
You make the RIAA look like the good guys.
Even I can't pull that one off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This is an inaccurate article title (Score:5, Funny)
No, he is country.
And the RIAA lawyers are a little bit rock & roll.
No. They're gangsta.
Re:This is an inaccurate article title (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's FAR better when Slashdot headlines are like this one - too many jump to conclusions that the articles don't support.
It's unfortunate that Slashdot is resorting to sensational headlines to attract viewers. For me, when I find out that the headline and summary were wrong (always pointed out in the comments when so - don't even have to RTA :) ) I get quite annoyed. If the story actually matters, then there's no need to exaggerate with a sensational headline. If one finds him or her self tempted to exaggerate the headline, perhaps the story is not that interesting or important!
Sometimes corrections are posted, but the damage is already done.
For this specific case, as others pointed out, NYCL is being safe (and fair) in his wording. Even if it was made official by the judge ruling that they're violating the order, your proposed title would still not be the best. It would then be "Judge Finds RIAA in Violation of California Court Order" or something like that.
This is what Slashdot should be. We gladly get the news here a day or two after digg or wherever, because the editors are (supposed to be) here to ensure that we get the best news and that the facts are straight in the summary.
This ideal has, unfortunately, been slipping away recently. The exception is usually stories from NYCL, because he puts a lot of effort into making sure he gets everything right. In order to improve things, ideally we should all step up and start submitting better stuff. The problem is that many of us don't have time to prowl for stories - Slashdot aggregates all the best stuff for us already, and provides all kinds of insight and references through the comments, and that's why we like it. So I do appreciate those who put time into submitting stuff, I really do, because otherwise I'd have to find it myself. I just regret that it seems to be losing the focus it once had of news for nerds and stuff that matters. Too much focus on entertainment - that's done better on other sites already, we don't need it here.
Thanks for reading my rant!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think it's FAR better when Slashdot headlines are like this one - too many jump to conclusions that the articles don't support. It's unfortunate that Slashdot is resorting to sensational headlines to attract viewers. For me, when I find out that the headline and summary were wrong (always pointed out in the comments when so - don't even have to RTA :) ) I get quite annoyed. If the story actually matters, then there's no need to exaggerate with a sensational headline. If one finds him or her self tempted to exaggerate the headline, perhaps the story is not that interesting or important!
Sometimes corrections are posted, but the damage is already done.
For this specific case, as others pointed out, NYCL is being safe (and fair) in his wording. Even if it was made official by the judge ruling that they're violating the order, your proposed title would still not be the best. It would then be "Judge Finds RIAA in Violation of California Court Order" or something like that.
This is what Slashdot should be. We gladly get the news here a day or two after digg or wherever, because the editors are (supposed to be) here to ensure that we get the best news and that the facts are straight in the summary.
This ideal has, unfortunately, been slipping away recently. The exception is usually stories from NYCL, because he puts a lot of effort into making sure he gets everything right. In order to improve things, ideally we should all step up and start submitting better stuff. The problem is that many of us don't have time to prowl for stories - Slashdot aggregates all the best stuff for us already, and provides all kinds of insight and references through the comments, and that's why we like it. So I do appreciate those who put time into submitting stuff, I really do, because otherwise I'd have to find it myself. I just regret that it seems to be losing the focus it once had of news for nerds and stuff that matters. Too much focus on entertainment - that's done better on other sites already, we don't need it here.
Thanks for reading my rant!
Thanks for your kind words, penguinchris. One of the problems with headlines on Slashdot is that they have to be very short. I struggle with that on almost every submission. It would be much easier for submitters to provide accurate headlines if we had more space to work with.
who cares about laws? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a country where the congress can reject a bill (auto bailouts for example) just to see the president go ahead and do it anyhow.
Re:who cares about laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a country where the congress can reject a bill (auto bailouts for example) just to see the president go ahead and do it anyhow.
I hope he does, so I can enjoy watching the Republicans who voted against the Detroit bailout bitch about the president ignoring Congress. You know, since those Republicans have acted as a rubber stamp for every violation of the Separation of Powers or the Constitution the last 8 years.
Re:who cares about laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and the Democratic party majority sure put a stop to the abuses and saved us. Two factions of the same Oligarchy if you ask me.
It's time to put an end to this. (Score:2)
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8) - US Copyright Office [copyright.gov]
A musical or video recording is neither a writing nor a discovery. It was never the intent of the framers to extend copyright to these things and the practice should be abolished by law.
Shock and Alarm! (Score:2, Interesting)
Might be because the RIAA keeps functioning illegally, slanders and purposely lies.
When is the US Department of Justice going to do something about this criminal organization? They are a monopoly that for decades has abused the artists they are supposed to protect and villainized their customers.
To support my accusation, look at the article this it attached to.
Also look at the many claims they make about Canada and Piracy. Just pull up the studies they done that "s
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
When is the US Department of Justice going to do something about this criminal organization?
January 21 is my guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Faint hope at end of article (Score:4, Interesting)
"Last week, Warner Music Group proposed a voluntary blanket licensing scheme for universities. The proposal would add a fee to student tuition to permit music file sharing in schools."
And then, via another link;
"The rest of the details are still to be determined, including whether it would be a mandatory fee for all students, or an opt-in fee (complete with continued lawsuits for those who fail to pay?). It's also not clear what the fee would be, although those familiar with the talks suggest less than $5 per student per month... "
Sounds more like a pragmatic solution and better than criminalizing your potential customers via dubious legal processes, such as this one.
Re:Faint hope at end of article (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds more like a pragmatic solution and better than criminalizing your potential customers via dubious legal processes, such as this one.
...Or legalized racketeering.
Re:Faint hope at end of article (Score:5, Insightful)
Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?
The suggestion was to have the infringing person(s) pay a fee in lieu of legal action. The definition of racketeering approximately is; Paying someone to not undertake an economically damaging course of action to you and/or your business. That's a nice credit score you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And actually I've always found the credit reporting agencies guilty of that too. They're like pay us 10 bucks a month and we won't state untrue negative things about you based on other people's actions. I think this is only legal because those agencies are specifically and specially regulated. It's still criminal to me, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?
The suggestion was to have the infringing person(s) pay a fee in lieu of legal action. The definition of racketeering approximately is; Paying someone to not undertake an economically damaging course of action to you and/or your business. That's a nice credit score you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it...
Bingo! Got it in one. It's standover tactics, extortion, to do that. It's Racketeering because this illegal act is a fundamental component of the RIAA's business model. Organised illegal business = organised crime.
Re: (Score:2)
When the judge *specifically* tells you that you can't use his decision to threaten people, and you go ahead and do it anyway while demanding money, then yes, i'd say thats racketeering.
Re:Faint hope at end of article (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously, an opt-in fee to benefit the artists sounds like a good compromise, though I think it's safe to say that's not going to happen. It will be a mandatory fee, collected by the universities and deposited into the coffers of Sony BMG, EMI, Warner and Universal without them having to lift a finger. Artists will never see a dime, labels will have a new printing press for cash and students all across America will get screwed.
It's a sad state of affairs when the pessimistic view is synonymous with the realistic.
Re:Faint hope at end of article (Score:5, Funny)
You misunderstand. The "artists" are defined by the RIAA as "those who have made an art of suing people."
Re: (Score:2)
Now I know that there is such a thing as utterly disgusing and absolutely perverse art.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the current Napster service already do that, at a price only slightly higher than that?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The judge has since figured out that something was fishy about certain legal arguments RIAA used, however. RIAA hasn't appealed yet, AFAIK.
1. The order is not an appealable order.
2. The RIAA has asked the Judge for permission to appeal.
HoHoHo (Score:2)
USC? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Priceless (Score:2)
Priceless! "Yes, I saw you waving me over, Officer, it's just that this is the only way I know how to drive."
There are serious pitfalls ahead of people who respond in set patterns to everything.
RIAA Doesn't Use Professional Engineers (Score:3, Interesting)
Contempt of Court? (Score:2)
Clauses (Score:2)
Demanding Money,
making unsolicited phone calls for unproven debt,
making threats to property and freedom,
preventing a citizen from doing his duty,
deliberate ignorance of court orders,
The injured party can pursue a civil case ex-parte, get a default judgement in Court for compensation, wait until the time limit passes for RIAA to pay (of course the court will send a letter to the RIAA local collection office and it will be ignored), approach the court again for redressal.
The judge will ask what i want the cou
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA burning its' bridges (Score:4, Interesting)
Defense attornies should have this violation at their fingertips and cite when motioning to limit discovery. Since it is substantially the same plaintiff (and may be the same attornies), the judge will have to consider the malfeasance, and probably is adequate justification for granting the motion to limit discovery rather than add conditions.
Of course, the RIAA can go to appeal, but for that to be successful, they will have to thoroughly purge themselves of their contempt cited. Judges (even appellate) do not tolerate being ignored.
Has the judicial system has been complicit so far? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was just reading NYCL's article on this whole situation
http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/080729LargeRecordingCompaniesVsTheDefenselessHTMLVERSION.htm [beckermanlegal.com]
and it seems to me that the RIAA lawyes have come up with a scheme that brazenly uses the legal system to threaten people (nothing new there) but ALSO that the legal system has tacitly gone along with it. The "old boys club" of judges has decided that it's OK for these dirty pirating scum to be hammered through their courts, because they are so sneaky that there is no other way.
To the older generation, copyright infringement like this seems very wrong and the fact that the internet allows it to be done anonymously, with no easy trackdown, also seems wrong and perverted.
So basically they have allowed the RIAA to jam some wedges into the court system and use it to get those naughty infringers.
If they were not at least partially comfortable with the RIAA doing this, surely, they would have close it down long ago, because the whole process is surpremely dodgy.
Just goes to show... (Score:3, Interesting)
This whole thing just goes to show that a:) the lawyers suing on behalf of the record companies don't give a flat fuck about anything the judges have to say; and 2:) in this case specifically, to have quite literally told this specific judge to fuck off and die. They'll do what they want.
You are now beginning to witness the folding of American law and justice. This is where someone in a movie once said that in the future, they abolished all lawyers. Hmmm; could there be some credence to that thinking..??!!
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:4, Insightful)
May I redirect you to The Pirate Bay's legal department [thepiratebay.org]?
Jeez, that amounted to 'Nya-nya, we're in Sweden and you can't get us.' Are they trying to make the --AAs look good with that page?
Never hurts to point out that just because they can buy laws like the DMCA in most countries, they don't have that control everywhere yet. Copyright law is so ridiculously out of whack, only countries with very corrupt governments or very ignorant governments (or both), could possibly still believe that it is in the public's best interest to award practically perpetual monopolies on information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:5, Insightful)
Free?
I'm Canadian. I pay a levy on all blank media to pay for the possibility that those materials might be used - at some point - to hold copyrighted materials.
I've paid for the content, and I am damn well going to get my money's worth. It is NOT my responsibility to make sure that the money I paid is going to the right hands. I've paid; it's done.
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:4, Insightful)
As a fellow Canadian, I couldn't agree more. I have been paying this "tax" for years on every media purchase I've made. My business requires me to purchase recordable media and I know I would save thousands every year if this "tax" did not exist.
I'm almost tempted to "get my monies worth" but I feel I have too much to lose, if I were dragged through court.
I suppose this is how the RIAA/CRIA operate. Preying on those they feel are vulnerable. I'm not even a very big music fan, in fact most of what I listen to is about to lose its protected status soon.
I do believe that if given enough time and political conditioning, they will craft laws for themselves in favour of their business model to the point of absurdity, if they haven't gotten there yet.
Its only a matter of time before they begin to investigate and sue "suspicious purchasers" of recordable media. Read "big purchasers".
In their effort to limit copyright infringement and maximize profits, they have created a generation of would be criminals. Simply because they refuse to adapt their revenue stream and the only outcome is aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved, given enough time.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a couple of corrections:
In their effort to ... maximize profits, they have created a generations of would be criminals. Simply because they refuse to adapt their revenue stream and the only outcome is aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved, given enough time.
I'm writing to Mr Obama about this, with the intent of ensuring that the people who run the **AAs, their legal teams, and anyone closely associated with them are on the aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved end of this equation.
Personally, I think that Canadians should get their money worth of music. Oddly, the CRIA forgot to tell you how many songs and/or movies that is.... grab what you can while you can. The tax law does not say how much you can download, on
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:4, Insightful)
most of what I listen to is about to lose its protected status soon
Not if Disney has anything to say about it. ;)
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:5, Insightful)
Blank media includes hard drives. You have to put those files somewhere.
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:5, Informative)
Protip for those of us a bit south of canada
Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut. Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:5, Informative)
Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut.
True.
Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.
Partly False. They have a header on them so that standalone CD recorders, like the Pioneer PDR-609 [pioneerelectronics.com] can recognize them, those recorders will not record on regular DATA CD-Rs.
Otherwise though, they are pretty much the same.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is why we have Linux and CD/DVD recorders in our PCs. We have all the software necessary to rip any media to any format desired.
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:4, Insightful)
Never buy music CDs.
That's a good principle to go by in general these days (indie artists excluded, of course :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So they simply don't stamp the official logo on them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All blank CD media in Canada are taxed, not just music CD-R's.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not according to this [wikipedia.org]: "The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", such as CD-Rs."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, the EU is far ahead on this one. You pay the "music tax" for everything that could technically reproduce copyrighted content. Hard drives, USB sticks, fax machines, scanners, printers... if you can somehow, in theory, maybe, possibly copy something with it, you pay the leeches.
And we're not talking about pennies here either. The price for 4GB USB sticks doubled when they were recently included in the fold.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Canadian blank media tax does not apply [cpcc.ca] to hard drives, just to the following:
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:4, Interesting)
Bingo. You could just store everything on hard drives, which are not taxed as CD-Rs and cassette tapes are.
While we're at it, what if you pay for the music you download?
What if you use your blank media to store you own "intellectual property?"
What if you like to make backup copies of the CDs you purchase,and don't think you should have to pay an additional tax for the privilege of doing something that should be considered fair dealing?
What if you are an artist who produces mash-ups of popular culture (like Andy Warhol liked to do) and also consider that fair dealing?
What if you are in a band who's music is traded a lot online, but you don't get commercial airplay and you sell your CDs at gigs, so the sales aren't recorded by Soundscan?
What if you are an archivist, a student or a journalist, and are trying to research or preserve our shared culture?
The only "right" the Canadian blank media tax grants is the right to make copies of the media you already own, and only for personal use. Most Canadians would be surprised to learn they can't just do this without paying extra for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only "right" the Canadian blank media tax grants is the right to make copies of the media you already own, and only for personal use. Most Canadians would be surprised to learn they can't just do this without paying extra for it.
Wouldn't you be amazed to know we had this right years before the Righteous Inquisition Army of Autocrats demanded to be given a cut on all CD-Rs and hard drives sales?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Forgive me if this has been asked previously: Where does the distinction lie? Can I, as an Alaskan, drive through Canada, purchase said blank media for the purpose of holding copyrighted materials? Am I allowed to transport it outside of Canada, assuming I keep it and don't resell it, or am I obligated to leave it at the border?
Yes, my understanding is that you're allowed to transport it across the border. It's a pretty rare commodity, though, made exclusively in Canada, so when asked "anything to declare", you're under a legal obligation to declare all firearms, produce, and pre-formatted copyright-enabled electronic media. I drive up to Canada for ALL my media. The extra tiny cost is worth that warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that even if I were to *accidentally* put some unlicensed media on those disks, I don't have to worry at
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the RIAA's history of suing people who don't even have computer and/or an internet connection, I doubt the efficacy of your suggestion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, such cases are very few. And when they do happen, under the bombastic headline there is a simple explanation — the sued computer-illiterate is the parent/guardian of a tech-savvy minor, who did engage in stealing...
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly.
Alternatively, this business of suing people has become so lucrative... do you honestly think that will stop them?
Re:Just stop stealing (Score:5, Insightful)
this business of suing people has become so lucrative...
I don't think so. According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which supports the theory that many here have put forward that this isn't about money or even copyrights at all. It's about control. It used to be that the only way to become even a moderately successful musician was to get a contract from a Big Recording Label. Since the labels had their pick of artists, they could dictate the terms. On the consumer front, you had to buy the music that the big labels decided would be on the shelves. Indie bands
Re:What's that in RIAA math? (Score:5, Funny)
According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Yeah, but what does the RIAA math say?
I don't know. They're not very good at math, or law.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? What about the people who either don't have a computer or no internet access that were sued by the RIAA? Why were they sued/threatened/extorted? What's happening is the bully in the schoolyard has gotten very greedy, and now all the kid's he's been stealing lunch money from have decided to beat his ass. I welcome our new ASSBEATING Overlords.
And woo-hoo.... (Score:3, Informative)
...the RIAA will keep on ripping off artists and producing bland, over-compressed, payola-driven crap instead of music.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html [salon.com]
http://www.beforethemusicdies.com/ [beforethemusicdies.com]
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html [janisian.com]
Re:And woo-hoo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
stop stealing and law-suits will stop.
Only after you stop murdering your children, and by "murder" I mean fail to pay them additional allowance for not crapping their pants.
Having paid off our congress to continuously extend copyright far beyond its intended utility does not give them even a sliver of moral credibility. The works in question did not spring from a vacuum. They are the fruits of our common culture. Reasonable recompense adequate to encourage the works' creation is all they are due (just as it says in the Constitution) and complete control for two lifetimes is not reasonable. The fact that it's the law does not make it automagically right.
Seriously, you still call copyright infringement "stealing" despite having it explained to you hundreds of times exactly why it isn't in any way related to stealing? You're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what makes you think that the example that you just gave isn't a protection racket? For another see Fixed Penalty Notices in the UK.