p2pnet - rss feed: The ‘We’re Not Taking Any More’ club
p2pnet Special:- An unusual, extremely expensive, international online club is starting to form.
Its first member was Patti Santangelo, a single New York mother of five.
Next came Dawnell Leadbetter, another single mother, this time from the Seattle area. If you’re a regular p2pnet reader, you’ll recognize both of the above names.
The third member was someone you haven’t met before: Tanya Andersen (right), a single mother who’s also living in Oregon and who’s seriously disabled with a painful medical condition. She and her eight-year-old daughter get by on social security payments.
By now, you’ll have probably guessed the club members are all women being brutally victimized by EMI, Universal, Warner and Sony BMG, the huge, multi-billion-dollar record label cartel that’s using its immense financial and political weight and deep, dark connections to law enforcement agencies in a bizarre marketing scheme.
Instead of wooing customers, it’s suing them and so far, it’s clocked up close to 14,000 people.
But the significance of the three women isn’t that they’re among the unfortunate victims.
Rather, they stand out because they’re standing up, defying the Mafia-like labels and their teams of hired legal thugs who work through ‘Settlement Centers’ which aim to terrorize people into paying ‘fees’ which usually start out at $7,500 to be ‘negotiated’ down to around $3,500.
Do you think the superlatives victimize, brutal, terrorize and bizarre are too strong?
They’re not strong enough.
The We’re Not Taking Any More club
Santangelo was the first to take the labels on, represented by Ty Rogers, Ray Beckerman and Dan Singer of New York’s Beldock Levine & Hoffman.
She tells other victims, “Don’t let your fear of these massive companies allow you to deny your belief in your own innocence. Paying these settlements is an admission of guilt. If you’re not guilty of violating the law, don’t pay.”
Dawnell Leadbetter, backed by Lory Lybeck of Lybeck Murphy in Oregon, says she’s not willing to let the labels walk all over her.
And more recently, Tanya Andersen, also represented by Lybeck, has decided she’s not going to put up with Big Music’s bullying either.
“It was something I got in the mail and that I didn’t quite understand from them stating they were releasing my private information,” she told p2pnet. “They had a subpoena attached and it basically sounded to me when I read it that they were just investigating something and wanted my information.
“I thought, ‘Well I haven’t done anything wrong so I’m not going to worry about it’.”
However, this was far from being an innocuous inquiry. In was the beginning of a nightmare for Anderson. And it’s still going on.
The letter she refers to was from ISP Verizon telling her the company was releasing personal information to the Big Four’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), fronted by one of the Settlement Centers the enforcement unit uses to do its dirty work.
‘I have no money and did not do what is being said’
In a March 6, 2005, letter to Mark Eilers at the Tukwila, Washington, ‘Settlement Centre,’ Andersen states categorically that neither she nor anyone in her household has ever downloaded “illegal” digital files.
“If somehow this activity was to somehow been pinned to me, it was somehow done so fraudulently,” she says. “There is no way it came from my household.
“I have the least expensive computer system you can buy from Dell. The type you order off television for $499.00. It was purchased in the summer of 2002 and has the smallest hard drive they make. I have no cd writer on it and the cd-rom that I do have, does not even work correctly.
“I live alone with my 8-year-old daughter (who would have been seven at the time the alleged occurrence took place). I am a single mom who is disabled and unable to work. I live on Social Security disability and struggle to support my daughter and myself. If I am put in a position where I need to defend myself regarding this situation, it would create extreme financial hardship on me. I have no money and did not do what is being said. I also must admit that all this stuff that has been occurring with this whole ordeal has triggered my medical condition to flare lately.
“I have always been against music downloading. In fact, I have been a member of BMG’s music club for quite some time and I purchase my music either from there or from Target. When I first got my computer set up almost three years ago, I had a friend set it up for me since I did not know how to do it. She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check
of my computer and it is no where on there.
“These files you are speaking accusing me of sharing (which Mr. Eiler told me about), are not and never have been on my computer system. Several of those artists, I have never even heard of! One, I understand, is a rap song. I am 42-years-old and do not even like rap music. The login that this person who did this apparently used, which Mr. Eiler told me of, is not a login name I have ever used or heard of.
“There is no one at my household who could have done what is being said at all. Mr. Eiler had brought up the fact that maybe a babysitter could have done it and that is impossible because I seldom have a sitter since I can’t afford to pay one and am usually home.”
‘Turning her life upside down’
Andersen contacted the recording industry, Verizon, the Settlement Support Center, US congressman David Wu and US senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith, “pleading for their help and investigation,” her lawyer, Lorry Lybeck, told p2pnet, going on:
“She didn’t engage in any copyright infringement nor did she download or share any songs on her computer. After offering to make her computer available to the strong-arming record industry and explaining to them that she could not, and did not, engage in any prohibited conduct, the secret suit was dismissed and she was then sued in her name by another group of large record companies in federal district court in Oregon.
“The continuing victimization of Ms Anderson and the unwillingness of the record companies to conduct even the most basic investigation before turning her life upside down betrays the total lack of concern they have for any concepts of fairness, due process and the rights of the individuals who they have wrongfully targeted.
“If this lawsuit were filed for real purposes of fact finding and a determination of damages owed, the record companies would have been required to undertake a real investigation and determine whether a real basis existed to sue Ms Anderson.
“In this circumstance, the real motivation and purpose of this suit (and the 15,000+ others clogging the federal courts) is to promote a national PR campaign being conducted by the RIAA. Because of this, the ‘plaintiffs’ in these many suits have no interest in investigating whether facts actually exist to support the allegations in the lawsuits. It is the publication of the threat of the suit that the RIAA wants.
“The federal courts have important business before them. It is an outrage that the RIAA is abusing the federal court system to obtain the ability to threaten many many thousands of American citizens.
“Copyright infringement is wrong. Thug-like threats by multi-national, multi-billion dollar businesses against people who cannot afford to speak or even explain their innonence is a much greater wrong. The music industry with all of its assets and all of its talents has the ability to handle the ‘problem’ of downloading much more effectively and much more humanely. Their present tactics cause real harm to real people.
“Theses tactics do nothing to address highjackers, spoofers and commercially motivated copyright infringers around the world.
“The RIAA needs to stop hurting innocent people.”
Candy, James and John
And now, three more people have joined the We’re Not Taking Any More club.
Candy Chan, James and Angela Nelson and John Harless are all from Michigan, all represented by John Hermann and all determined not to cave in to EMI, Universal, Warner and Sony BMG.
Hermann gave us brief breakdowns of each of the three cases:
Priority Records v Candy Chan - US District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division Case No 04-cv-73645-DT Honorable: Lawrence Zatkoff.
Candy Chan herself knows nothing about computers, but she does have a 13-year-old daughter and the RIAA went after her, contending she was indirectly liable for providing a computer to her teenage daughter, who denied doing anything wrong. Chan senior said she didn’t know who may have downloaded or exchanged music files. But she said she’s seen other kids playing with her daughter’s computer after school, or at sleep-overs.
“After taking Ms Chan’s deposition, the RIAA moved to add the daughter,” Hermann told p2pnet. “I objected, arguing that the daughter was a minor and that they had to appoint a guardian ad litem before for the child before they could proceed.
“In the meantime, I threatened filing a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Ms Chan and they immediately moved to withdraw the complaint against her, which the judge granted.”
Mowtown Record Company v James and Angela Nelson - US District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division Case No 04-73646; Honorable: Bernard Friedman.
John Nelson freely admits that when it comes to computers, he doesn’t have a clue. The Big Four nonetheless accused him of copyright infringement, ignoring his assurances that not only did he not own a p2p file sharing application, but he didn’t even know what it was.
However, Nelson’s wife, Angela, operates an in-home day care center with several teenagers as her helpers, with all that implies.
“During the deposition of one of the employees, the teenager testified that although she downloaded many of the songs, she did so with Mr and Mrs Nelson’s knowledge and approval,” says Hermann.
“Based on the teenager’s testimony, the RIAA moved to add Mrs Nelson as a defendant.
“During a second series of depositions, the teenage employee recanted her prior statement and said the Nelson’s had nothing to do with the downloading and that she’d wrongfully accused them because she was scared and thought she was going to be in trouble herself unless she blamed them.
“Not surprisingly, the RIAA has tried to threaten her in order to change her testimony, even going so far as to hire a private investigator to try and sign a false affidavit indicating that the Nelson’s attorney (myself) was active in suborning perjury.”
Elecktra Entertainment v John Harless - US District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division Case No 04-cv-74502;Honorable: Bernard Friedman.
John Harless is someone else whose knowledge of computers is to all intents ad purposes, non-existent. But he does have two teenaged children, aged 16 and 14.
The RIAA says Harness infringed its owners’ copyrights and, “Although no discovery has been taken, I’ve tried to obtain information as to the basis of their claims,” Hermann told p2pnet.
“Not surprisingly, they’ve resisted each and every request, no doubt because they have no information other than an IP address and account number.
“I have an order compelling them to produce a Media Sentry representative for a deposition as to the pre-suit investigative procedures, but to date, they’ve dragged their heels and haven’t complied.”
Holding a parent responsible
Fred von Lohmann is the EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) senior staff attorney specializing in intellectual property. He represented Morpheus owners Streamcast Networks in the Grokster vs MGM decision.
“Is it acceptable to make parents responsible in a financial or other sense for something their children may, or may not, have done?” – p2pnet recently asked von Lohmann.
“ The increasing number of lawsuits against the parents and grandparents of alleged file-sharers is a particularly unfortunate part of the recording industry’s litigation campaign against music fans,” he said. “There is no precedent in copyright law for holding parent responsible for the infringing activities of their minor children. If the question ever went to court, I believe the RIAA would lose.”
But, “Unfortunately, the RIAA has made it clear that, if a parent fights the lawsuit, they will simply sue the child directly.”
Multi-billion-dollar corporations suing children for sharing music with each other? And sadly, it’s not only in America. The labels are using RIAA clones around the world to run similar terror campaigns aimed at bringing former product ‘consumers’ to heel.
However, if, in their arrogance, they ever do begin to pillory children, they’ll suddenly discover who depends on who.
We’ll be running p2pnet Q&As with both Leadbetter and Andersen in the next few days, as well as more details from the individual cases.
If you’re a lawyer representing someone else who’s joining, the We’re Not Taking Any More club, please let us know.
Ditto if you know, or if you are, one of the victims.
Meanwhile ————-
FICTION: File sharers are depriving the music labels (not to mention the movie and software cartels) of billions of dollars in lost sales.
FACT: The cartel is reporting substantial drop-offs in sales and much of this is, its owners claim, down to file sharing.
It’s eminently debatable whether file sharing has caused the loss of even a single sale. But the labels have cut back significantly on their output in Australia, say new figures from an Australian expert. Given that it’s the case in Oz, one can assume it’s also true elsewhere.
There have also been a number of academic and other studies pointing up the fallacy of the cartel assertions.
One of the first to suggest EMI, Universal, Warner and Sony BMG were being a little less than forthright in their ‘File sharing is costing us billions in lost sales’ declarations came from two respected American scholars.
“According to the RIAA (2002), the number of CD’s shipped in the U.S. fell from 940 million to 800 million - or 15% - between 2000 and 2002 (though shipments continued to rise during the first two years of popular file sharing, 1999-2000),” say Felix Oberholzer of the Harvard Business School and Koleman Strumpf of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in their The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis.
“The record industry has claimed this decline is due to file sharing.”
The two analyzed the direct data of music downloaders over a 17-week period in the fall of 2002, and compared that activity with actual music purchases during that time, coming to the conclusion that spikes in downloading had almost no discernible effect on sales.
Even under the worst-case example, “it would take 5,000 downloads to reduce the sales of an album by one copy,” they wrote. “After annualizing, this would imply a yearly sales loss of two million albums, which is virtually rounding error given that 803 million records were sold in 2002. Sales dropped by 139 million albums from 2000 to 2002.”
Nor do downloaded mp3 files replace CD buys.
“While downloads occur on a vast scale, most users are likely individuals who would not have bought the album even in the absence of file sharing,” stated Oberholzer and Strumpf.
Their studies concentrated on the American experience. But a more recent study by Dr Tatsuo Tanaka of Keio University in Japan, using the now famous Winny p2p application, says there’s, “not sufficient evidence that file sharing systems are responsible for the recent decline in CD sales”.
To the contrary, p2p usage helps in the promotion of music by allowing users to experience it before purchase; and, it helps in the discovery of new music by users, says Tanaka in Does File Sharing Reduce CD Sales?
“Based on micro data of CD sales and numbers of downloads, we found that there is very little evidence that file sharing reduced music CD sales in Japan. We controlled simultaneous bias between sales and downloads by instrumental variables but did not find correlation between CD sales and numbers of downloads. Although there were large differences in the numbers of downloads among CD titles, these differences did not affect CD sales.
“We also carried out a user survey on file sharing and CD purchases with consideration to the potential bias of respondents trying to understate their illegal copying activity. This survey also showed that file sharing had very limited influence on CD purchases.”
Tanaka suggests copyright laws should be relaxed rather than tightened to allow for more positive effects of broadband internet file sharing.
Meanwhile, millions of entertainment industry dollars that should have gone into shareholder dividends are spent on ‘reports’ meant to counter the papers. But they can be clearly seen for what they are: fruitless attempts to discredit papers which give the lie to industry claims.
FICTION: File sharers are thieves.
FACT: Put at its simplest, to steal something is to remove it from its original owner without his or her permission, causing deprivation through loss. File sharing means exactly what it says. Sharing. Nothing is stolen and no one is deprived of anything. To the contrary, file sharers are exposed to music they may never have otherwise heard. Mp3s are inferior, compressed copies of original CD tracks meant primarily for portable devices. People who listen to mp3s frequently go out to buy the originals so they can be played on home stereo systems.
Moreover, no money changes hands and no profits are made or lost.
FICTION: Targetting people suspected of file sharing has significantly reduced the number of file sharers in the US and around the world.
FACT: The lawsuits have had, and continue to have, zero impact on the file sharing communities. To the contrary, the number of people logging onto file sharing networks everywhere is steadily increasing.
p2pnet has been collecting data compiled by Big Champagne, the American research company which specializes in gathering data on file sharing.
In August, 2003, in the US, on average, 2,630,960 people were simultaneously logged onto p2p networks at any given time. Globally, the number was approximately 3,847,565.
A year later for the same months, the numbers were 4,549,801 and 6,822,312 respectively.
And for August, 2005, Big Champagne statistics show 6,871,308 people were logged onto the networks at the same time in the US, with 9,620,261 individuals checking in around the world.
FICTION: Entertainment industry lawsuits deter people from sharing files with each other online.
FACT: Every day, hundreds of thousands of people around the world log on for the first time meaning the chance of any one individual becoming one of the RIAA’s chosen few becomes exponentially more unlikely.
In his Theory of Collective Consumer Risk, “Downloaders are generally less likely to expect a stern warning, expensive lawsuit or even criminal prosecution, the more those around them are doing the same,” says Canadian marketing expert Dr Markus Giesler, also quoting p2pnet’s contention that the odds of ending up as an RIAA target are akin to being struck by lightning.
Or put another way, the risk tied to Internet file-sharing is almost zero despite entertainment industry claims to the contrary, says Geisler, going on: “Downloaders are generally less likely to expect a stern warning, expensive lawsuit or even criminal prosecution, the more those around them are doing the same.”
Slyck is famous for its forums and its statistics. In May this year, “From the last capture of the proportion of networks under the RIAA’s gun in November of 2003, 150 users of FastTrack were sued, compared to 5 Blubster users,” said the site’s Tom Mennecke in RIAA’s Grand Total: 10,037 - What are Your Odds?, continuing:
“Since the RIAA cannot subpoena individuals anymore, we unfortunately cannot provide a more current proportion. However, common knowledge dictates that FastTrack remains a priority, and on November 13 of 2003 it represented ~96% of those being sued.”
But, “If we were to eliminate 96% (proportion of FastTrack users) of the 6,523 sued in 2004, the odds of being sued changes dramatically. If we consider only those using a non-FastTrack P2P network, the total number of lawsuits drops to only ~261. In other words, you then have a 1 in 45,977 chance of being sued if you do not use FastTrack. Comparatively, according to the National Safety Council, you have a better chance of being killed in a transportation or non-transportational accident, death from suicide, death from assault or death by legal intervention (such as execution or being shot by a police officer.)”
Say, however, half of those sued in 2004 were using FastTrack, that leaves 3,261 non-FastTrack related lawsuits, says Mennecke. “You would then have a 1 in 3,679 chance of being sued. That still places you above all external cases of mortality (1 in 1,755), but below all transportational accidents (1 in 5,953.) However, you would still have a better chance of being killed in an unintentional accident (1 in 2,698), then being sued by the RIAA.
“Although these numbers are hardly an exact science, they do reflect the odds of being sued are little different than the risks one takes by simply living day-to-day life. But if we were to get real specific, the odds of being sued by the RIAA for non-FastTrack users (1 in 3,679) is still much greater than death by contact with a venomous snake or lizard (1 in 95 million.)”
FICTION: Thousands of Americans have been found guilty of ‘file sharing’.
FACT: Not one person has ever been found guilty of file sharing, or of anything else. And that’s because until Patricia Santangelo came along, not one person had been willing to risk going up against the labels. This in turn has meant no one has appeared before a judge and no alleged case of ‘file sharing’ has ever been taken to its conclusion.
Worse, the practice makes a mockery of a corner stone of the American legal system: that people are innocent until they’re proven guilty.
However, the cartel and their RIAA and other similar industry owned enforcement organizations continue to issue disingenuous press releases suggesting they’ve successfully prosecuted thousands of ‘criminal, thieving’ file sharers.
We could go on because pick virtually any aspect of p2p file sharing in music industry statements, and the odds are far better than even that they’ll be distortions, if not outright lies, carefully crafted to give the appearance that the labels are beleaguered corporate citizens doing their honest best to survive in a world where millions upon millions of file sharing thieves get up every morning, bent on robbing the labels of what’s rightfully theirs, depriving their contracted artists of their livings and causing terrible hardship to support workers.
The contention is obvious nonsense. Nonetheless, the mainstream media repeat these “facts” as though they’re a genuine reflection of what’s occurring, and as though they come from credible and reliable sources.
And while the labels and their counterparts in the movie and software industries do their best to imitate King Canute in his attempts to turn back the tide, the p2p networks have become a permanent part of the online scene, solidly locked in.
Peer-to-peer is here to stay and as British ISP network service CacheLogic says in a just-published report, p2p not only represented 60% of Net traffic at the end of 2004, it “outstrips every other communication and distribution protocol and is still growing”.
Moreover, p2p and broadband are mutually compatible forces, each driving the uptake of the other, says the report.
The old-style monopolies are slowly but surely being broken down, but it’ll take a while before the technologically ignorant executives who run the cartels are replaced by people able to function effectively and profitably in the digital 21st century.
The tragedy is: until that happens, people such as Patricia Santangelo, Dawnell Leadbetter and Tanya Andersen will continue to be persecuted.
And for absolutely nothing.
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton - p2pnet
See:-
first to fight back - RIAA victim talks to p2pnet, September 4, 2005
walk all over her - Another RIAA victim fights back, September 10, 2005
Settlement Centers - File sharing, p2p criminals, March 12, 2005
asked von Lohmann - Fred von Lohmann talks to p2pnet, September 10, 2005
an expert - Big Music’s dirty secret, September 15, 2005
not sufficient evidence - Is p2p killing CD sales?, March 28, 2005
give the lie - Scamming the media, August 23, 2004
stern warning - File-share risk overplayed, August 3, 2004
September 17th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
wonderful. the more these cases are exposed the more other’s who read this forum will know they are not alone and have options to fight. Lets hope the crack in the dam is spreading. And if the industry starts sueing the children themselves, that would be a wonderful PR piece against them.
September 18th, 2005 at 4:00 am
Six people may not sound like much of a consumer uprising, but before the xxAA’s dismiss this out of hand, i’d like to point out one small detail of the legal system, that perhaps they’ve overlooked.
It only takes one decision to set a precedent.
Be afraid xxAA’s. Be Very afraid.
September 18th, 2005 at 4:08 am
I hope that The PEOPLE get 6 Precedent’s
September 18th, 2005 at 9:47 am
This’ll all come to a head, sooner rather than later. You can inflate a balloon only so far. It’s everyone’s responsibility to make their presence known. Don’t hide behind blocklists and proxies. Question your ISP’s policies. Inundate the RIAA/MPAA with letters demonstrating your refusal to be held culpable regarding an activity that has yet to be deemed illegal.
Stop whining and start acting.
September 18th, 2005 at 11:55 am
Surely… the burdon of proof should be wholly on the labels.
Just because something is available from somebody’s IP address doesn’t mean that there have been a certain number of copies distributed.
ALL of these cases are based on supposed distribution and not actual, proven, recorded distribution to anyone besides the company investigating p2p activity.
The amounts being demanded are based almost solely on speculation.
How the hell can you sue for loss of profits when it’s not been proven?
In fact, recent sales figures themselves defy the recording industry’s claims of damage from p2p networks.
September 18th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
ok people post this anywhere you can and make the mainsteam media pay attention
September 18th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
—post this anywhere—
Right.
If you’re an admin, or you know an admin, or you’re on a university newspaper or radio or tv station, or if you work on a paper, tv or radio station, or if you can think of any other way of getting the word out, do it.
I’m in Canada and Terry Fox runs are going on all around the country. Remember Terry? He was the kid who’d lost a leg to cancer but nonetheless staged a marathon run across Canada to raise money for cancer research. He died before he could finish the run but now similar marathons are organized every year in more than 50 countries.
What I’m trying to say is: don’t think, ‘Oh, I’m only one person. It won’t make any difference.’ If enough people start screaming, the mainstream media will have to listen. Significant numbers may be owned by the entertainment cartels, but not all of them are.
A critical mass isn’t just to do with a nuclear reaction. It can also mean something taking off when one more person joins in. YOU could be that person.
Cheers!
September 18th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Title should be the ‘We’re Not Taking IT Any More’ club. Kinda like the Twisted Sisters song, it has a nice ring to it.
Anyhow, it’s good to see people rallying amongst themselves against this injustice. Power to the people!!!
September 18th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
All of what you say is true.
Why is allowed to happen however ?
The legal system is skwed, badly , in favor of those with a full coffer. It is EXPENSIVE to fight, and the AA’s make it relatively cheaper to settle, that’s why it has been going on so long. All it really takes is for one real fight to set precedent, so they figure, as long as they sue those too broke to fight, those precedents won’t be set.
The Cecilia gonzalez case is an example of this, even though she LOST her summary judgement.
Initially they sued her for over 1000 downloads.
They “changed their minds ” ( heh ) after finding that she had PURCHASED LEGAL copies of ALL except 30 songs.
To avoid having a written legal precedent stating that it is legal to download songs you OWN PURCHASED COPIES OF, they amended their suit. They didn’t want to set a precedent ;).
The Santangelo case is doing just what you suggest … demanding proof. We wiil see how this pans out.
Their “Sue ‘Em All campaign” is falling apart, one tiny piece at a time. It is in their best interest to drag these cases out as long as possible, increasing the expenses of the defendants, hoping that the financial burden will eventually cause them to settle.
Dreddsnik
Boycott-RIAA.com
( I remembered this time Catflap ).
September 18th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
I have this whole article saved locally, for printing, so I can send it with my kids to school, to help counter the propoganda campaign there.
Dreddsnik
Boycott-RIAA.com
September 19th, 2005 at 12:15 am
The record labels are not suing for “lost profits” which they could never prove, instead they are relying on “statutory damage” provisions. According to the copyright act, congress realized that actual damages are often impossible to prove and instead set forth a basic level of damages that could be obtained regardless of the actual amount. Unfortunaltey, these statutory damage provisions were enacted long before the internet and encopassed situations such as bars and other commercial entities that were profiting from playing or duplicating copyrighted material. The damage provisions are severe (i.e. $1,000.00) per violation with intent being utterly irrelvant) and never envisioned the situation where a regular individual was engaged in infringement without acutally knowing that what they were doing constituted an offense. In addition there are heightened provisions of $10,000.00 or even $100,000.00 where the infringement is wanton or willful. Typically the RIAA throws these numbers around to scare people into settling. Also, since the “exchange” of copyrighted material is the offense even if you only downloaded 1 song, you may be on the hook for much greater damages if you allowed others to share your files. I have seen cases where someone downloaded 7 songs but accidently had 500 songs on their “share list” and the RIAA was seeking $500,000 in statutory damages.
John Hermann
September 19th, 2005 at 12:31 am
The RIAA may be ridiculious in their strategy of suing everyone, but they are not stupid. As an attorney handling several of these cases, my experience has been that the threat of litigation against a minor is exactly that - a threat. So far they have not followed through on that threat and for good reason - you cannot sue a minor rather you have to file a seperate action to have a conservator/guardian ad litem appointed to speak on behalf of the minor - seceond minor’s have no money - and third the judge has complete discretion in awarding damages where a parties is able to demonstrate that they did not appreciate or understand the significance of their actions.
I find it hard to believe that a judge would fine a 13 year kid anything significant for dowloading a couple of songs. Hypothetically, assume the RIAA wins its case and the judge finds that “Billy” has actively engaged in downloading the latest Brittney Spears song, he/she could award a judment as low as $250. Does the RIAA really want to spend $50,000.00 on their high priced lawyers only to get $250. Again, they are not that stupid.
John Hermann
Attorney at Law
2684 West Eleven Mile
Berkley, MI 48072
248-591-2921
248-591-2304 fax
JTHermanos@Eartlhlink
September 19th, 2005 at 2:44 am
for the non-wired people, its worth printing and passing around
September 19th, 2005 at 5:25 am
Where’s EFF and Grokster and all the others who either profit or believe in P2P? If in fact these organizations and companies believe that the ’sharing’ of music files should not be a crime, then they should put their money where their mouths are, and support the defense of someone being sued by the RIAA. And not the defense of someone who clearly an accidental party, but someone who is an active ‘file sharer’!
If you truly believe what the “Facts” section says about ‘file sharing’, then there should be no problem. But, if you know that the “Facts and Fiction” section is a carefully crafted bit of wordplay to obliquely separate ‘making or facilitating digital copies of copyrighted songs’ with “file sharing”, then you know that no lawyer worth his bar dues will try to defend an infringer in court.
I think it is great that these people want to stand up to the RIAA and defend themselves if the RIAA is wrong. If they or there dependents didn’t steal, then great, the RIAA should pay court costs and legal fees of the defendant. But for the parents to be blaming it on their kids is disgusting and embarrassing.
If my kid were 13 and stole a car, I know that I am the PARENT, and am responsible for my child’s actions. If they stole the car, or music, or anything else, I am going to find a away to pay the debt owed, and deal with the discipline of my child myself. If the theft is reported and the police are involved, then my child must face the consequences of their actions.
At some point, we all must face the effects of the choices we make.
September 19th, 2005 at 10:36 am
The crime that Grokster made was that they actively promoted their service as a vehicle for illegal file sharing. File sharing is not innately illegal. Media sharing has never been deemed illegal, which is part of why I think they won’t stand up to a challenge in court and quickly dismiss the cases where people fight back. The courts would have to redefine copyright and fair use laws, which they aren’t prepared for and have little interest in doing. It seems to me that the RIAA, et al., only have one place to go, and that’s to have the services themselves defined as illegal. Of course, they have a partial win. The Grokster case didn’t really set a precedent because of the wording of the ruling. Basically, if you promote your p2p service as a conduit of legal sharing (i.e. home movies, public domain works, works under certain open licenses, etc.), then under all intensive purposes, you’re safe. Currently, there is no effective way to know what is legal and illegal on any p2p system. Even digital signature hashes can be wrong.
September 19th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Google isn’t picking this up.
Any idea why?
Morg
September 19th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
You better hope you kid steals a car rather than uploads a copyrighted mp3, as the punishment for the car will be far less than being found guilty for sharing copyrighted music (or settling out of court, for that matter).
I find the constant increase in copyright length and one-sided legal harassment to be the truly disgusting thing. Congress, and those who pay their way, such as RIAA lobbyists - are the true thieves here. They are stealing the public domain and the free exchange of ideas from you and me.
The only difference is that corporations and the government don’t face any consequences for their actions.
I’m posting as a copyright holder, who has to deal with the monopoly of the RIAA, and their efforts to make the one distribution model they haven’t been able to lock down illegal…for me to use to distribute *my own* works.
September 19th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
It isn’t a crime :rolls eyes:
September 19th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
I’ve been wondering the same thing. I’ll do a longer comment later, if I get time, or maybe a post …
Cheers!
September 19th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Hell ya! Fight them!
This is all BS on what they are doing…they charge the same amount as they did years ago, yet their costs, and quality have gone WAY down!
One other thing I really hate…the so called “copy protection”…wtf does that do? In a matter of days after the release of a new one, someone cracks it…so now after that, people that have access to the crack can easily copy it for a backup of their own. Yet the normal user that wants a backup of HIS software can’t do it, he knows how fragile cds, and dvds are, yet he can not make a backup for himself. This is complete BS, because you know what happens when the “normal” user’s cd gets all f***ed up? Either you have to get an exchange at a store, or buy a new cd online from the company…well what happens when they no longer have that game? Your F***ed, thats what!
Utter bs the way they have this…the way everything is now, they are more “renting” it to you than selling it to you.
Well F*** you RIAA, and every other company out there that is doing this s***.
September 19th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
That’s the interest here, they want to squash the networks so that they can continue to control distribution. If they lose this fight, they will not be able to atract artists they way they have in the past. If you want large distribution, currently there is no other choice than to go through the major labels. Even indipendent labels have to do this when one of their artists gets bigger appeal.
The future of their business depends on how well they can control distribution. After all, they do have a Monopoly under the guise of now 4 competing major record labels.
When you factor in that ClearChannel owns what I believe is 85% of radiostations in the USA, they have almost complete control of what rides on the airwaves. There is no chance of a brilliant new artist without a major label record deal to get played on a ClearChannel owned radio station.
So as you can see, they have complete control of distribution, and they almost have complete control of marketing through radio.
Their survival depends greatly on the outcome of this battle.
Ted V.
September 19th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Filesharing is not stealing! I will repeat it yet again. Buying a vine from a nursery, making a cutting of the vine, rooting the cutting, and giving it (or selling it) to a friend is not stealing! Buying a CD, making a copy of the CD and giving it to a friend is also NOT STEALING!!!. Neither is the friend who gets the rooted vine stealing. When music is played on the radio, it is not stealing. It is sharing. When someone records a song from the radio, they did not steal a thing!!! If however, someone broke into the radio station and took the CD, that would be stealing. Hiding a vine and walking out of the store with the vine IS STEALING. Unfortunately, the monetary penalty for stealing music is less than the penalty for uploading and downloading music. Laws are written for the express purpose of protecting the cartels for competition. The ‘making or facilitating digital copies of copyrighted songs’ is NOT STEALING, it is sharing.
The reason people hide their connections and try to remain underground when it comes to filesharing is because they want to avoid the PHYSICAL FORCE of the government-cartel alliance from taking them in front of a corrupt court and stealing their homes and or freedom.
I would hide from a local gang of streat thugs if they were after me. I would not be hiding from them because I’m wrong, but I would be hiding from them to protect my life and property. I would hide until I amassed the strength to fight. Sometimes people need to hide certain facts to protect themselves in a system ruled by the coffers of the large cartels. This is WAR, and certain information has to remain secret. In order to protect certain assets, information regarding the location of these assets must not fall into enemy hands.
Information regarding tactics also must be kept safe from enemy hands.
This WAR most likely will not be won in the cartel-controlled legislative bodies or in the “expert witness” and highly paid lawyer influenced court rooms. It WILL BE WON in the streets. It will be won on the airwaves, the copper wires, and the fibre optics. It will be won with the metal and plastic used in digital media. It will by won with usb memory drives. The judges can issue edicts, and the Congress can issue rules, but when the people do not believe in the rightness of the edicts and rules, they are going to do what THEY want.
With every strike the cartels make against us, we turn it around so that it hits them. When there is a press release about the cartels attacking a filesharer, it advertises file sharing to more of the public. I myself am a newbie to the world of peer to peer filesharing. I became involved around the end of last year. The more the cartels pushed, the less I have been buying. If the cartels left things alone, and stopped mistreating customers, I would likely have continued buying their $16.95 CD’s every two weeks or so. Now, they haven’t seen a dime of my money for over 7 months. I also no longer rent movies. I still have satellite, but that is for my family. I hardly every watch the crap that is on.
If the cartels were smart, they would make a ceasefire and cancel all the lawsuits. They would also drop the price of CD’s, and DVD’s. They would work on ways to make money by embedding advertising into the scenery of movies. I know that after I watched the movie, “Antitrust,” I went to the website that was displayed throughout the movie. If the producers of the movie owned www.skullbox.com , they could have made quit a bit of money. Rather than fight innovation, the cartels should find a way to embrace it and cash in.
September 19th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
LimeWire downloads are easily burnable to CD and will allow for backups. I tell my friends about filesharing, and if they get screwed on one of these “copy protection” mechanisms, I offer them LimeWire. Once LimeWire is installed and they learn how to use it, they usually do not go back to the store to get screwed again.
September 19th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
I’m reminded of the Pepsi commercial of the young teens claiming that they were “prosecuted” by the RIAA and that they were “fighting back” thanks to free downloads they win courtesy of iTunes and Pepsi. The way I see it, is that none of the RIAA suits are criminal suits, they’re all civil, which is easier to prove due to a “preponderence of evidence” instead of “beyond a shadow of a doubt” with criminal cases. What the RIAA and MPAA neglect to mention is that they are no way affiliated with any sort of law enforcement or government agency. Yes, they may get a list of files that you’re sharing on your computer, it is information that people willingly place on those programs either with or without their knowledge. Any further action, like hijacking a computer to search for whatever else is on there is called an illeagal search and seizure, something that we are protected from under the US Constitution. I’ve seen a number of these cases and frankly I believe that the RIAA and MPAA are just going to scare away more business thanks to these lawsuits they try to push through the judicial system. They are wasting court time and should be fined for every case that they present in front of a judge. If they would like to work against technology and word of mouth advertising, then that’s fine, they have every right to do that, yet technology will continue to advance and people will talk, because those are things no one can stop. Ladies and gentlemen, they are doing this stuff because they think that the american public is stupid. That we will just lay down and give up without a fight. And so far, it has worked, with people who didn’t know any better. But the more it goes on, the more people are going to realize that it doesn’t need to be this way. They need to stop with this bullying. They haven’t been hurting in sales at all, just they choose to hurt themselves then blame us as consumers for their actions. That is not right. I applaude the efforts of these people finally taking a stand against them.
September 19th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
“Stop File sharing! You’re stealing the coke from our children’s noses!” - RIAA exec
September 19th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
Hey cartels face it, you have been outsourced. Just like many other cartels who do not want to pay their workers a decent wage, the people you depend on no longer wants to pay you. You have been outsource to Bittorrent, LimeWire, Bearshare, Grockster, E-mule and other programs.
Outsource us to China, Philipeans, and India, and we can or will no longer “buy” your product. Since being outsourced, I have lost half my income, and that means no more money to spend on software. I now use free (GPL) software and free (as in downloaded from p2p) software.
I have no sympathy for you, big software. You sent my job overseas and that almost cost me everything I worked for. You call it capitalism, well fine. I call p2p capitalism as well. Now you have to compete against p2p.
September 20th, 2005 at 12:21 am
To quote Principal Seymor Skinner: Welcome to Dick Chaney’s America
September 20th, 2005 at 12:41 am
I see 2 news links on the keyword Tanya Andersen but nothing for p2pnet. addict3d.org and MP3 Newswire. Also a few hits on normal Google websearch (slashdot, zeropaid, p2pforums).
September 20th, 2005 at 5:26 am
Living in the past.
The record industry just doesn’t get it.
Fat cats with fat wallets and little imagination.
Their reactionary tactics are an example of just how out of touch they are.
If they would have spent the money they used to terrorize innocent people to find out how to fix their business model they might start making money again.
Hint: It starts by listening and giving the customer what they want.
Not what you think they want.
The industry reeks of ignorance and stupidity.
Its time for change.
September 20th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
But, if you know that the “Facts and Fiction” section is a carefully crafted bit of wordplay to obliquely separate ‘making or facilitating digital copies of copyrighted songs’ with “file sharing”, then you know that no lawyer worth his bar dues will try to defend an infringer in court.
—–
You are completely mistaken in this. The “Facts vs. Fiction” section refers to file sharing of all sorts, including “infringing”.
Furthermore, as others (and the original article) make clear, copyright infringement is not “stealing”.
As for the “effects of the choices we make”, it would appear that, at the very least, it’s hard to make the case that “illegal file sharing” is hurting record companies’ bottom lines. Recording companies are making record profits. In fact, if one were to take the numbers at face value, it would appear that “illegal file sharing” may actually be helping the record companies.
It sounds to me like you’ve bought the record companies’ spin hook, line and sinker. Trust me: I’m a personal acquaintance of a former president of a major record company. The claims about how p2p is damaging record companies and hurting artists is absolute bunk. You’re listening to some (mostly) old men who haven’t a clue about how the technology works, nor about how the technology can be and is being leveraged to the benefit of the record companies and the artists.
September 20th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
How most people use p2p stuff…
Random song on a comercial interests person…
Person looks up the lyrics to find song name on the internet…
Then person downloads song to hear it again, to see if they really like it…
Then person downloads other songs by same artist, to see if its any good…
Finally person goes to store and buys album, because music is better quality on CD, and they obviously want to give money to music that they LIKE…
September 21st, 2005 at 12:59 am
I know for a fact that P2P is hurting the entertainment industry. Not because of the file sharing, but the knee jerk reaction of RIAA and MPAA to the people that use this software, 99% of which are/were their best customers, not to mention people like myself that refuse to feed the dog that bites the hand. As an (ex) customer of BMG, I had purchased literally 100’s of music CD’s and Columbia House had my VHS/DVD business with over 300 purchased. No more! I don’t download music, or video due to quality concerns and a dial up connection. But I do trade with friends and coworkers! Nothing online even comes close to direct copies of origional CD/VHS/DVD’s. Never again will my money be used by these scumbags to maliciously litigate their customers, and after almost 4 years of my personal boycott, the weekly purchasing habit that once was, is but a distant, unpleasant memory. Thank You RIAA/MPAA for your greed and stupidity, saving me thousands of dollars in the preceeding years. I sincerely look forward to your collective self destruction, which comes closer each day that passes and every customer that you drive away with your insatiable greed.
And fuck your “anonymous coward” bullshit, I just don’t feel like signing up for a forum that I’ll never visit again. !–> DJ FULLER JR<–!
September 21st, 2005 at 1:20 am
Well. my friend, a few facts are in order.
1) The DMCA was written and passed into law while “Bubba” Clinton was in office. That is where the statutory damages came into being. Don’t blame W or Dick. but you could blame Bill’s “willy”
2) Try blaming the mainstream media. Did you ever hear one thing about the DMCA? Nope it passed October 28, 1998. What else was going on at that time? Can’t remember? The Clinton Impeachment! While we were all trying to find out if Monica swallows or spits, (we found out later, from the blue dress) the DMCA sneaked right through.
September 21st, 2005 at 1:29 am
anonymous coward? That’s slashdot, here you’re “Readers Write”
September 21st, 2005 at 1:30 pm
“then you know that no lawyer worth his bar dues will try to defend an infringer in court. ”
Looks to me like some really good lawyers are handing the RIAA their head in a basket.
September 22nd, 2005 at 6:21 am
Of course file sharing is stealing!
If I run off a copy of a magazine and give it to you, then you don’t have to go to the store and buy it. There is real loss there.
The law is called COPYright. It means that the owner has RIGHTS to the COPIES. It means that you do NOT have the right to make additional COPIES.
A lot of people tend to think that they are entitled to have something just because they want it. This is a self-centered, childish, me-me-me point of view perpetuated by the marketing industry in order to motivate people to go out and buy everything they can.
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:06 pm
I wonder if there is anything in the Bible about copy”rights.” I could be wrong, but the way I understand things, wisdom, understanding, and knowledge (Chabad) should be freely distributed. That is information should be free to all. If people have verses that say information is a commodity that is to be bought and sold, please post here.
One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty.
25
A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed.
Proverbs 11:24-25
1
“Be careful not to do your `acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2
“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
3
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4
so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-4
13
But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
14
and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
Luke 14:13-14
17
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of Elohim be in him?
18
Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.
I John 3:17-18
In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Master Yeshua himself said: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Acts 20:35
for riches do not endure forever, and a crown is not secure for all generations.
Proverbs 27:24
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for Elohim loves a cheerful giver.
II Corinthians 9:7
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give
Matthew 10:8
Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.
Ecclesiastes 5:10
Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.
Hebrews 13:2
September 23rd, 2005 at 2:54 am
I am one of the scofflaws that the recording industry is trying to eradicate. I am middle-aged and have a substantial collection of vinyl recordings (albumns), from the sixties and seventies. Occasionally I want to hear one of the songs from one of these oldies albums, which by the way are all stored away, (my old turntable has needed a cartridge for about 15 years or so..) so, I download the song, listen to it, and reminisce. There is very little being put out by the record companies these days that I wish to buy, the last cd I bought was a few years ago..(Santana). In short, I am going to continue my “evil ways” and download the occasional oldie. By the way, the record companies have screwed more artists out of money than all the p2p’s combined.
J. Sterling
September 23rd, 2005 at 5:21 am
Exactly right. These people are so consumed by greed that they will do anything, legal or otherwise, to get more money. Sooner or later the American public has got to stand up and tell them enough is enough.
The industry’s high profile lawyers may scare people but there are laws in this country to protect people and their privacy. How dare these greedy pigs violate so many principals of law and fairness just so they can make a few more dollars.
I remember well the Beta Max case where Hollywood tried to kill the VCR. Now they make more money off selling and renting movies than they did in the theaters. The entertainment industry is populated by blood sucking pigs who do ANYTHING to line their own pockets. Sueing children and poor helpless women….its all in a days work to them. They are stuck in the past and fail to see how technology could be working for them. Their ignorance is paramount and their lack of vision is a product of their own selfish stupidity. Instead of their costly and illegal lawsuits and actions they should be directing their efforts to customer service and producing a good quaility product at a FAIR price.
Rather than to use some brain power and be inovative they instead choose to harass and brow beat the very customers who fed them. Come on America, boycot these jerks and really make their sales fall!
I only hope that Americans will wise up and stand up to these PIGS.
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:52 pm
HERE, HERE, I also am one of the oldies but goodies group that spent a fortune on records only to have them in my attic, and I love the oldies and can’t see buying them all over again.
I think the record companies have made too much money off the artist already, and are really only harassing the same people that made them rich in the first place………By the way what I hear on the radio these days is not what I call music any way….Power to the people………………………………..
J Rivera
September 25th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
The main thing I dont understand is why I can be shut out of my internet connection for downloading an episode of a tv series?
When I can easily buy me a Tivo or use my cable companys dvr and record the shows anyway. Makes absolutely no sense. I mean would it even be illegal if I was downloading the episodes in their entirety with commercials intact?
October 2nd, 2005 at 12:39 pm
So what happened to the riaa only going after the serious filesharers? The ones who are constantly uploading etc. it seems they are just going after random peoplke who happen to have used p2p programs.
Do they even check through the computers of the people they are suing, check their hard drives and see exactly what copyrighted material there is on there? Do they check to see if these people own original copies of the material on their pc?
How can they sue somebody going off just a username and ip address? How about people with a dynamic ip?
October 2nd, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Ok I am not so old and still I must say that I would much rather listen to some older music than what is out lately.
The reason for falling cd sales is not p2p, it is just awful music.
Its like if the film industry only brought out really awful movies for the next couple of years then people would buy/watch less of them and they would make less money.
The music companies don’t seem to understand that lower quality material = less sales and that by doing this there are more people who don’t see their music as being something worth paying for and will go and use p2p instead.
October 2nd, 2005 at 12:52 pm
I don’t see why you lost your internet connection either. its the first time i have heard of anything like that.
But I agree that it is stupid not allowing tv shows to be downloaded. You are allowed to record with a vcr the same shows with no problem and freely hand these out to your friends. The TV companies also don’t lose any money as its not like people would usually go out and buy one tv show at a time like with music.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:00 am
What is next for these predators, huh!? I have a grandmother with alziemers disease. Will these heartless insignificant moronic individuals come after her next? If they do, they will have to kill me before they can get to her! I would use my full expressions in this submission, but I fear some moron would try to sue me for expressing my opinion, since the RIAA can sue people for file sharing. Their case is in direct violation to our right to pursue happiness. If they try to come after me or any member of my family there will be hell to pay! Oh, one other thing, I might just start downloading shit just for them to try because I have a very weathly family and they won’t even hesitate on counter-suing these insignificant bastards. So I say to you, start downloading (if you haven’t done so already). They can’t take this whole country on!
October 6th, 2005 at 1:46 am
i am a single mother of 3 in new jersey and i too am being sued just like the rest of you. i cannot afford an attorney (even though i should be sooo very rich from “intent to distribute and profit from” … I will fight this until i die..we did nothing wrong either..there was NEVER ANY DISCLAIMERS, REQUEST FOR PAYMENT, WARNINGS or anything when my 12 year old daughter listened and danced to some songs…AGAIN, I will never agree to give anyone a penny..When i was 12 and i got a tape recorder for christmas and taped all my favorite songs off the radio onto cassettes should me and my parents have been sued? what about people taping their favorite tv shows onto videos? When my favorite bar band plays the beatles should they send some money to paul or ringo? SHould i send the meteorologist some money for giving me the weather report online? GIVE ME A BREAK..I am burning mad!! I go to court on OCT 18,2005..no money so no lawyer..i intend to win and fight this battle against these money hungry monsters of the music industry..if any lawyers can help me..call me at [number no longer answers]
October 6th, 2005 at 1:50 am
high five to you pal…read mine too (the last one after yours!)
October 6th, 2005 at 1:55 am
good job! get em!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! monsters they are..monsters they are!
October 6th, 2005 at 6:11 am
An AFTRA lawyer named Fred Wilhelms testified at a senate hearing in 2002 on record business accounting practices. His testimony is at:
http://www.polarity1.com/pcrr36.html
the rest of it is at:
http://www.mca.org.au/mf94wilhelms.htm
(the whole thing is probably too long to post here)
Would any of these people who are taking on the labels be able to make any use of any of the information in Wilhelms’ testimony?
October 6th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
I am so glad these brave people are counter-suing the labels. Has anyone started a fund to help defray the legal costs of putting up the fight?
December 26th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Too right, but I don’t think any of these analogies are anywhere similar to file sharing. A cutting of a plant is supposedly genetically identical to the original. Ripping a CD to MP3, ogg, or any other lossy format is not making a perfect clone.
The ‘war’ needs to be fought not just against the RIAA, MPAA etc, but against all big businesses which aim to maintain their monopolies. Just think DRM, trusted computing and all that sort of stuff - purely designed to take the power out of the peoples’ hands. If we do nothing, they will be enforced upon us without our free will. I think that Richard Stallman’s essay (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html) gives a valid argument against trusted computing.
It would seem that just as some fear the rise of big companies, big companies fear the rise of the people.
March 21st, 2006 at 10:07 pm
> Has anyone started a fund to help defray the legal costs
> of putting up the fight?
http://www.fightgoliath.org
[this is an escrow account handled by Patricia Santangelo — currently going toward defraying legal expenses in her case, since it’s the first one that’s getting into court. No connection to Tanya Andersen or other club members as yet, I believe… but I think this might change as more money comes in, more RIAA victims join the club, and resources can be pooled more efficiently.]
April 22nd, 2006 at 6:52 am
To me, the U.S. Constitution is clear about this topic. A lot of what is being shared ought to be out of copyright anyway. Much of the balance is at least arguably ‘fair use’.
The RIAA do not have a valid complaint.
In fact, it is the other way around. The RIAA is withholding things that should be in the public domain. They were illegally placing a tariff on things they do not own.
The Congress, the Senate and the President can pass any laws they like. Without the consent of the people, those laws have no moral force. Ultimately, they can have no force in law. Sure, those guys are your ‘duly elected representatives’, but let’s get real here. They lost any legitimate claims to authority on two counts. Either is good enough to nullify their legitimacy:
1) They violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
2) They do not properly represent your interests.
From where does the authority to make law come? It comes from all of you. The so-called representatives have breached their contract with you. It is hence null and void.
I suggest that EVERYONE who is sued by the RIAA simply insist on a separate jury trial. They should then pool their resources and each mount the same ‘pro-forma’ defense. The defense should be short and sweet and should cause the case to come before a jury as quickly as possible. This should be accompanied by a vigorous campaign to get the word out. Juries would know that they could and should toss these cases out with extreme prejudice.
Under common law, juries can do whatever they like. I suggest that since the RIAA is SO WRONG in so many ways, each Jury will punish them.
After a few dozen or at most a few hundred of these cases, the RIAA will have lost more than just their nasty campaign. They will be significantly worse off than they were to begin with. File sharing as it currently exists would become de-facto a perfectly acceptable activity. At that point, they probably WOULD lose sales to file sharing. Rightly so.
The entire debate would be laughable if the RIAA were not so greedy and negligent of the damage they cause.
Really, the law needs to be completely changed to bring it into line with the U.S. Constitution. The intentions of those who wrote it are clear. If one looks at some of the writings of those people and is aware of the historical context within which they wrote the constitution, it is quite clear that they intended copyrights and patents to be very limited. I should think they had in mind that they would expire in something like an outside maximum of 14 years or perhaps (in some special cases) 28 years.
What the RIAA is doing is willfully wrong on its face. If the whole matter were the subject of a plebiscite, the RIAA would lose big. If everyone had a proper understanding of these matters, powers conferred by patents and copyrights would be radically reduced.
We the people . . . should take back our sovereignty with a vengeance. The machinations that lead to the DMCA and many other abuses are downright treasonous. Not only should the RIAA weasels and their lawyers lose their cases, they should be punished severely for injuring the public good. When I say severely, I mean a complete re-assessment of past revenues based on the laws as properly backed by the Constitution. They would have to disgorge every ill-gotten penny and pay punitive damages besides. For ringleaders that perverted the political process to have those laws mangled out of alignment with the Constitution, I think jail-time is only fitting.
What if the vast majority of citizens cast a critical eye on how their sovereignty has been misappropriated and abused? Imagine how quickly the RIAA, its lawyers, political backers and the press would shrink away.
As far as I am concerned, most of file sharing as it is practiced today is entirely fair use. The current regime of copyright and patent law specifically defeats the purpose that allowed it to exist in the first place.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I recieved my summons THIS WEEK, I live in Hawaii. I did not download from Kazaa, i had my 17 year old son living with me at the time, i was a working single mother. (poverty income) Now i remarried, my son is 20,and my new husband is suppossed to hire me a lawyer or pay the settlement. What a strain on our new marriage. I am going to try and respond Pro Se, I just cannot burden my new husband with this cost, he works so very hard. I really dont know what to do.