RIAA, Stop Suing Tech Investors! 114
The RIAA isn't just suing tens of thousands of music consumers; they've also begun filing lawsuits naming the directors of and investors in tech companies that they believe contribute to copyright infringement. NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "ZDNet urges the big recording industries to stop suing tech investors, and cites the draft legislation that I posted, which would immunize from secondary copyright infringement liability any work done by a director in 'his or her capacity as a member of the board of directors or committee thereof,' and any conduct by an investor based solely upon his or her having 'invested in any such corporation, including any oversight, monitoring, or due diligence activities in connection therewith.'"
Sue Intel! And AMD! (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly there would be less copyright infringement without all these PC's lying around.
Re:Sue Intel! And AMD! (Score:4, Informative)
This is more spot-on than the joker seems to realize. According to Bruce Schneier:
(full article is here [schneier.com]) Computers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is more spot-on than the joker seems to realize.
It wasn't a joke.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.fdn.fr/Free-as-in-speech-Internet-or.html
Re:Sue Intel! And AMD! (Score:4, Interesting)
It has even been considered here to require a license to have a computer since it's able to play broadcasted TV.
Weird...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, in Germany, for private persons, as far an I know, this is the law... Apart from paying for empty media like cd-rs and hds, and other stuff. So we should pay multiple times. But they of course still think they can sue us. ...Well... nobody pays the PC tax anyway. If the government guy comes to your door, you simply tell him you have no PC, and then to go fuck off before you beat him up.
But usually, if opening the door naked does not drive them away quickly, letting him come in, closing the door, and t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey? Why the troll moderation?
Oh. Right. Americans + sex = not funny? Really?? :D
Stop being prude. I might really do that to a very annoying salesman. And it would be very funny, to see him running away in fear.
And the rest of by comment (about the PC tax) is a fact. At least I did not heat the law getting overturned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Legislation to protect *investors*, hell no (Score:5, Interesting)
I should say - I think that this law suit is bollocks, obviously.
But if you want to prevent this sort of thing, all you need is a law to indemnify inventors and distributors of technological devices and other services against contributory infringement. Why single out the investors and directors for legal protection?
Investors and directors already have far too *much* indemnity against the actions taken with their money, generally speaking. This would set a terrible precedent, potentially causing tremendous harm to society in order to advance a very minor point of agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
This would set a terrible precedent, potentially causing tremendous harm to society in order to advance a very minor point of agenda.
Technology is not to blame for the harm it causes.
The people who misuse the technology are to blame.
The legal landscape should reflect this.
Otherwise, why not sue the creator of the http, ftp, scp, etc protocols?
Because all of those also enable file sharing.
You don't sue gun, car, or brick mfgs because someone was injured with a car or a gun or a brick.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>gun
It's been done before.
Re: (Score:2)
An enormously bad idea, in fact one of the very worst I have heard in a long time. Directors, executives and investors already get away with the most heinous crimes all while hiding behind corporate facades and in the end only the shareholders get fined. The whole concept that directors and the executive team can routinely escape the responsibility for their decisions, whilst they earn millions of dollars as a result of them is obscene.
In fact legislation should be going in the opposite directions, direc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think that the "corporate shield" would protect these investors from such suits. I guess they could argue that if a company like Napster got no VC funding in the first place they would not have built the infringing network. The VC that funded Napster got very rich and bailed just before the litigation started. I think that's what they're trying to stop. Look how the Apple is going after Psystar's list of investors because they want to punish not just the company, but the people that allowed them fundi
Go for it! (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA, we know you're running out of money, so by all means start suing well-heeled investors instead of grandmothers living off small pensions.
Hell, I'll even recommend a few law firms that bill starting a grand an hour to help you out.
Re:Go for it! (Score:4, Insightful)
If the RIAA starts suing well-heeled investors, then these investors will stop investing money in American companies, and take their money elsewhere.
Then who's going to pay your grandmother's pension? And who's going to give you a job so you can save up for your pension?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go for it! (Score:5, Informative)
Well-heeled investor types generally don't like getting told what they're allowed to do with their money. Especially when they're told they're not allowed to put it somewhere where they think it will make them lots of money.
The reality is that 'investor types' could care less about such matters. They put their money where they believe it will make the most money relative to the risk. And if the making of the investment were to put at risk more than the investment itself, but their own assets, they will steer clear. Even if the only exposure were the legal fees incurred in defending a frivolous lawsuit, that is a substantial risk which could run into the millions.
The fact is, this is not a theoretical possibility. This is something that is happening now, ever since the judge in Napster incorrectly allowed the investors to be exposed to the record companies' frivolous claim. The investors did not choose to 'fight for a principle' or 'show the record companies what they could do with it' or show them how 'they don't like being told what to do'; they did what businesspeople do, they settled, to avoid the risk of continued litigation expense and exposure. Since then, some investors have balked at investing in digital music, preferring instead to put their money in other industries, where the competition are not a bunch of litigation-crazy freaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Since then, some investors have balked at investing in digital music, preferring instead to put their money in other industries, where the competition are not a bunch of litigation-crazy freaks.
The dying companies attempting to kill the new companies before they arise. Anyone surprised services like Spotify is based in Sweden?
Re: (Score:2)
But the American companies that do have to do with "theft"[1] of "Intellectual Property"[2] - telecoms companies, computer manufacturers etc, make more money every day than the entire music industry makes in a whole year.
[1] It isn't theft
[2] It isn't property
Re: (Score:1)
True or not, this is completely irrelevant, because neither telecoms companies, nor computer manufacturers have anything to do with theft of intellectual property. Not any more so, than, say, bakers, whose bread the thieves eat...
You are wrong on both of these counts too.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong on both of these counts too.
IANAL, but AFAIK legally the gp is correct, copyright infringement is *not* legally the same thing as theft.
Re: (Score:1)
I was talking about "theft" as in: "Thou Shalt Not Steal," — not as detailed in some criminal code somewhere (volume Z, chapter Y). This particular maxim is shared by all surviving civilization, not just our "Judeo-Christian" one.
If the 10 Commandments were a "living document", the "thou shall not violate copyrights" would've been much easier to find in there, than finding the "States shall not limit abortions [about.com]" in the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to sound as presomptuous as you, but (Score:2, Insightful)
Citation Needed
Re: (Score:2)
Or do you suggest that without foreign investment, all your pensions are worthless ?
If that's the case, you have bigger issues.
Silly proposal... (Score:1)
What's really needed are some laws that prevent the mafiaa from filing frivolous lawsuits in general. Officers and directors of a specific class of companies don't need special protection.
Once that's accomplished, then it's up to the legislative bodies to determine what a pirate really is. And *then* various judicial bodies to hear test cases and rule on whether or not those laws make any sense. A long and drawn out process, but at least its somewhat transparent and allows all the various stakeholders to
Re: (Score:1)
There are already laws in place to protect against the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Why do we need more?
If anybody believe the RIAA or anybody else has engaged in such conduct, they can protest it. Of course, it will be a high burden to prove that it's frivolous, but there's a reason for that, namely the principle of American Law that everybody gets a chance in court, and even if they can't prove their case, this doesn't mean they did wrong.
Re:Silly proposal... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are already laws in place to protect against the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
Name them. (And once you do I will show you why every one you name is entirely ineffective to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits.) The fact is there is big money in filing frivolous lawsuits and the Big 4 record companies are the best customers for this product. They have spent far more on it than they have on product development.
Re: (Score:2)
Please elaborate on your stand (Score:2)
"The fact is there is big money in filing frivolous lawsuits"
Well, we certainly agree on that statement. I've seen your nick around, and read a few of your posts, but other than your opposition to the RIAA, I'm really not aware of your stands on other issues. Since you indicate that you're a lawyer, and since you made the statement about frivolous lawsuits, I have ask, doesn't that put you in opposition to most tort lawyers? My state has been called "Tort Hell" for the habit of tort lawyers shopping for the
Re: (Score:2)
General tort law does not have the structural problem these cases have; in general tort cases there is an insurance company which has abundant resources with which to defend the insured.
Re: (Score:2)
"Name them. (And once you do I will show you why every one you name is entirely ineffective to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits.)"
You know, up here in Canada, we have a mechanism that works quite well. In a civil case, the loser is required to pay at least part, if not all, of the winner's legal fees by default. That means that while there are some frivolous lawsuits, something like what the RIAA has been doing would bankrupt them up-front.
I've often wondered why the United States doesn't have such
Limited Liability? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
the whole point of corporations was to limit investors' exposure to the amount of their investment.
i would have to rephrase that as: "...the whole point of corporations was to print money without any personal accountability..."
Re: (Score:2)
So? Given that people seem to sue for anything and everything, being threatened with the loss of everything you own because you own some shares in a company is excessive, and that basically the end result from taking away from that protection. There is some amount of personal accountability, it is limited to the value of those shares and nothing more.
Re:Limited Liability? (Score:5, Informative)
Delaware and Nevada are corporation-friendly states and such a suit probably would go nowhere if filed in those states. Other states may have activist judges that think corporate protection is meaningless, and allow litigation on flimsy evidence.
As is often stated here, IANAL, but have formed two corporations and have paid a large portion my lawyer's kid's college tuition doing so.
Did someone else misread that? (Score:1)
The officers of a corporation are protected from suits, unless the plaintiff asks a judge to "pierce the corporate evil".
Swapped them letters for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporation != evil. It's a tax tool, damn good one too.
Re: (Score:2)
A corporation is far more than a tax tool, since generally you can't lose more money than you put in. With a partnership or sole proprietorship, if your business goes under, you and your partners are generally liable for all its debts. It doesn't matter if someone screwed you or even if your partner cashed in all the business's assets and bank accounts and moved to some exotic island. What do you think will happen if your business is sued? What if business isn't as good as you thought it would be, and your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to talk badly, please at least CC me so that I know which misconceptions to correct and which correctly observed flaws in my thinking I need to fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, I hate modern corporateship. The point of forming a corporation is that the board and executives take legal and financial responsibility for the company in place of the owners (shareholders). The point is *not* to create a beast that can act without anyone taking responsibility.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's the general rule, but there are exceptions. Otherwise, it would be too easy to exploit the legal concept of limited liability corporations to avoid responsibility for your actions. IANAL either but I have come across plenty of people with "clever" ideas they think will limit tax or litigation exposure.
For example, Acme Freight Inc could set up a different subsidiary for each truck it owns with $100 of share capital each, and transfer ownership of one truck and one driver's contract to each one. That
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL but I thought the whole point of corporations was to limit investors' exposure to the amount of their investment.
IAAL... and I was under the same impression.
Re:I'm pretty much in "broken record" mode now... (Score:4, Insightful)
The vast majority of the public doesn't have a clue what slashdot is. The vast majority of the music buying public is essentially clueless about nearly anything related to law and rights and all that. The popular commercial news will not report on these stories for a wide variety of reasons. Even if they covered the story attempting to demonize the people being sued, it would be VERY difficult to spin the situation to look this way considering the targets and especially considering the ones that were excused from litigation once they were identified.
I don't buy music... but not for the reasons you might think. My reasons include 1) today's new stuff sucks, 2) I am not moved by music as much as other people seem to be, 3) I realize that music is not a possession but a thing to be licensed but is owned and even controlled by someone else.
But take heart. The movement of public attraction to the indies is growing steadily... perhaps not fast enough but still growing. The use of DRM technologies is also on the decline which is also indication of where things are going. But the progress may never completely uproot the real problem here:
The public is being led around by the nose by a LOT of popular notions. People think they need a "good credit rating" (aka the "I love Debt rating") and they think they need all of the crap and nonsense they buy. I am guilty of all of this same stupidity but I see it and increasingly fight this addiction to plastic. I gave up debt financing on anything but houses and cars and will soon give up on debt financing for cars as well. Spending cash and watching your checking and savings accounts erode with each individual item is far more sobering than watching "bills paid" come out of my accounts. (We see bills as necessary to pay and so we don't anguish about that as much right?)
Okay, this seems to be going off-topic a bit. But the point is that we are living in this consumerist culture that will literally require a cultural revolution to get us out of. If Obama were REALLY interested in bringing this country out of financial ruin, he would start movements that would result in a cultural revolution or at least a return to more simple values. This consumerist culture makes a few of people rich off of nonsense and crap... but that's not as bad as the other, larger side of that statement! This consumerist culture makes a lot of people poor because of nonsense and crap.
The music and movie industries are part of a larger classification identified as the entertainment industry of which the other forms of media are enlisted members. (So is it any mystery that 'the media' doesn't want to cover this topic?) Entertainment is not considered to be a necessity by the standards of most people and when people start watching their spending, that's usually the first to go.
Re: (Score:2)
You are completely wrong. Go look into how credit scores are calculated. Dave Ramsey has a rather simple and easy way to explain how it works. This guy is a multi-millionaire, always pays his bills, buys everything in cash and has a pretty crappy credit score.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as working on getting a good credit score. There is such a thing as buying one however. All you have to do is pay needless money in interest payments for something that should be paid for in cash.
Let's say you have a "perfect score" for credit and then you pay off all debt, close all accounts and remain debt free for seven years. What happens to your credit score? It goes DOWN. Why? Because you pay for what you buy instead of borrowing money and paying interest on it? In order
Re: (Score:2)
You are 100% wrong. I have no debt and an excellent credit score. I have numerous active credit card accounts, none of which have revolving balances. Therefore, I pay no interest at all. I even get cash back for using the cards.
Would I really be better off shoving my head up my ass, canceling all credit cards, and bitching some nonsense about having to "be in debt to get good credit"?
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying to shift the cost onto merchants, so we all have to pay more is a better plan? The CC companies require their merchants to charge the same for all types of transactions, so if you pay with cash, you have to pay more even though you don't use a credit card. How is this not "pay to play" like the above poster said? Also, even if you pay your cards off monthly, you are still maintaining a debt, unless you are redefining "debt."
Re: (Score:1)
I don't buy music... but not for the reasons you might think. My reasons include 1) today's new stuff sucks, 2) I am not moved by music as much as other people seem to be, 3) I realize that music is not a possession but a thing to be licensed but is owned and even controlled by someone else.
i take no issue with points 2 and 3, but there's a ridiculous amount of music that is both new and good - it's just not being pimped by mtv or whatever casey kasem clone happens to be favored by clear channel at the moment.
granted, most of my music collection is older than a decade, and it does seem that the art to detritus ratio has tilted towards the britney spears - 50 cent end of the scale, but the good shit is still out there. off the top of my head, here's a list of artists who have released excellen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be music wasn't owned or controlled by anyone...except for fascist regimes.
As for boycotting the RIAA not doing any good, I agree. In fact they will still get money from you because of compulsory licenses. If you buy something from a company who advertises on a music playing radio station or a store which plays music, you are indirectly paying money to the RIAA. I won't even g
Re: (Score:2)
... then sue the RIAA into the ground for patent infringement. I'm sure IBM has a "typing information into computer keyboard" patent lying around somewhere...
Quick, dump your stock in... (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's see...
Any computer company (ibm, microsoft, apple)
All online auction sites like eBay (because they are full of nothing but counterfeits)
Any company that sells ethernet cards or cables.
Oh hell, let's sue the mining industry because they produce the copper for the cables, because copper carries signals that could be carrying stolen bits of data.
As you can tell it's pretty damn stupid.
The only companies that profit directly from copyright infringement are in China. Anyone in the US profiting from copyrig
Re: (Score:2)
The only companies that profit directly from copyright infringement are in China.
There are some people who'd say you spelled "Sweden" wrong.
That is, if they had a sense of humor ;-)
Oh for crying out loud (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets think about how this would have affected the development of: the personal computer, the VCR, the tape deck, CD burners, torrent distribution, the xerox machine, the printing press...
What's really going on?
RIAA warfare against "piracy?"
or
The RIAA is attempting to buy legislation which would allow them to destroy technologies that allow independent artists to compete with them.
Re:Oh for crying out loud (Score:4, Interesting)
Lets think about how this would have affected the development of: the personal computer, the VCR, the tape deck, CD burners, torrent distribution, the xerox machine, the printing press...
What's really going on?
RIAA warfare against "piracy?"
or
The RIAA is attempting to buy legislation which would allow them to destroy technologies that allow independent artists to compete with them.
That is their goal. To return to that glorious place they enjoyed for decades. A competition-free zone.
Re: (Score:1)
That is their goal. To return to that glorious place they enjoyed for decades. A competition-free zone.
IANAL, but isn't that blatantly illegal? Like, a monopoly or something? If I'm right, then how is it that they aren't getting struck down left and right?
Re: (Score:2)
I would say it is a combination of:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's why they are not going to stop -- it's life and death to them. The alternatives society has don't involve the existence of the RIAA and its member companies.
Music publishers exist to identify music that large numbers of people would like and make it available. In the past, there was really only one way to do this and the record companies grew up around this method. We now have a much more e
RIAA as a cornered animal (Score:1)
So, anything at all that threatens the RIAA's hold over radio playlists must (in the eyes of the RIAA) be killed off at all costs, because the alternative is the death of the RIAA. They are like a cornered animal -- almost defeated, but at their most dangerous.
Ideas? What they may do? What we can do? (I doubt they'll hire assassins, so I'll just focus on more probable issues.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Remember when they said radio was going to kill music? When televisions were going to be the end of radio? When VCRs were going to be the end of cinemas?
People with power are afraid of change, and they will try to prevent it. That's simply the way things have always been.
Probably an even worse idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Suing individuals for ridiculous sums of money was like a playground bully beating up scrawny kids for their lunch money. It's easy, but there's not much profit in it.
Suing investors who can actually afford to mount a legal defense for similar sums of money is like trying to beat up the principal for his lunch money. And he's been itching to try out that new paddle.
Re:Probably an even worse idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Suing individuals for ridiculous sums of money was like a playground bully beating up scrawny kids for their lunch money. It's easy, but there's not much profit in it. Suing investors who can actually afford to mount a legal defense for similar sums of money is like trying to beat up the principal for his lunch money.
It's not the suing they're interested in. It's the sending a message to angel and venture capital investors, that they should invest in a different industry and stay far away from digital music, that they enjoy. If you're a VC, and you've got 100 different applicants from 15 different industries asking for a $250k investment.... it's pretty easy to decide to take a pass on the digital music startup and go somewhere else.
Precedent (Score:1)
Except wouldn't it take only a few investors to stand up to the RIAA, get the charges toss out in court (and hopefully damages awarded to the defendant), and set a precedent which would strongly discourage future frivolous lawsuits?
That is, supposing they don't just fold and settle out (I'm hoping that the insult and idiocy of such a lawsuit would be enough to discourage such).
offtopic - sig site (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is login restricted on your sig site? Should I apply for a handle?
Re: (Score:1)
It used to have a forum, but work has been keeping me too busy and it was getting nailed with all kinda of SPAM, so I've offlined it until I have a chance to add some better counter-measures.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing is like the playground bully trying to beat the teacher, those guys they are suing probably have more funds than the RIAAs annual budget for legal defense!
What this means is the RIAA is in for a severe beating. Speaking of stupidity well applied this is the perfect example!
It is one thing going after people who do not have the funds to defent themselves and another thing trying to anger the big boys. The first thing is morally wrong and may the rot in hell, the second thing is going into a c
Re: (Score:2)
It's the sending a message to angel and venture capital investors, that they should invest in a different industry and stay far away from digital music, that they enjoy.
I'd generalize that to all investors and the entire music industry. They're saying that this is an extremely poor time to own stock in an RIAA member company.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
IANAL, so I'd like to ask those are AL in the USA:
Couldn't the defendants sued by the RIAA (as described in this overall discussion) file for a judgement with prejudice, and thereby require the RIAA to pay all legal costs involved?
Could the defendants then file complaints with the appropriate Bar Associations against the RIAA attorney(s) for having knowingly harrassed the defendants, and/or barratry?
But wait, it's worse than that... (Score:2)
I was at the Chicago Maritime Festival yesterday, and had dinner with a bunch of folks I know, mostly musicians. One member of a the group was very outspoken about how the DMCA and all had *seriously* screwed her group, and all indie musicians. From what she was saying, you have to pay the record companies... and if you're not signed, there is *no* *way* to sell, other than individually, via the online sources that sell by the track.
In addition, the recent screwing by the RIAA & buddies to increase the
Re: (Score:2)
What about CD Baby/iTunes? [cdbaby.net]
Y'know... (Score:2)
I think it's a sign of how weak and sickly our nation has become.
This kind of behaviour is clearly rabid, and most civilized societies put a merciful bullet in the heads of rabid animals.
Whether literally or figuratively, the RIAA needs to be put down.
The Mafiaa Will Eat Itself (Score:2)
They want to sue investors and tech companies? Good. It will be suicide for them. They'll have to sue AOL for funding the development of Napster. In so doing they'll have to sue Time Warner, a member of the RIAA. Not to do so will show bias between members and non-members, making all their claims questionable and if I'm not mistaken leave them open to a RICO suit.
The news from the last year or two is misleading in saying Napster acquired AOL Music. AOL already held interest in Napster because they funded it
Darwin Awards (Score:2)
About Time (Score:2)
A modest proposal (Score:2)
Specifically immunizing investors from secondary copyright infringement suits is putting a band-aid on a festering wound. Number one, they're already covered by the corporate veil anyway, unless the RIAA buys the judges (in which case the laws won't help). Number two, the whole concept of secondary copyright infringement is something made up out of whole cloth by the courts; it doesn't appear in the statutes. So how about explicitly eliminating the doctrine of secondary copyright infringement entirely?
Kaboom! (Score:2)
It seems that since they've already blown off both their feet, they're now moving on to what they have left. I'm pretty sure that was one of their arms right there.
No. Please, RIAA, sue as much as you can... (Score:2)
(The more they sue, the quicker they are gone. Essentially, ZDnet tells them how to live longer... against their will... Well, I say: In this case, let them have their will. :D)
Chill out (Score:2)
they have widened their aim, but they have targeted people with similar resources now - people who can and will fight back.
Remember, first they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. They've just started fighting for real.
RIAA didn't get a dime from me this past week... (Score:1)
Just bought a couple Linkin Park CD's from Amazon Marketplace. The disks were labeled "Like New" or "Very Good".
Rather than spend $24 for the two I paid $9 bucks. The RIAA's cut? $0.00
That's what they can expect moving forward.
I don't like their attitude and I don't like their lawsuits against people.
I have a couple more CD's to purchase in the next few weeks. The RIAA can expect more of the same.
BTW, the Amazon CD's came as advertised.
Thanks for playing :-)
waiting... (Score:1)
I'm waiting for the headline, "RIAA Sues Everyone With Ears" ... and I only partially expect that The Onion will be the one to carry that.