Interview Lawyers Who Defend Against RIAA Suits 289
Attorneys Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman maintain a blog called Recording Industry vs The People, subtitled, "A blog devoted to the RIAA's lawsuits of intimidation brought against ordinary working people," which was most recently linked from Slashdot on Sept. 10. They've agreed to answer your questions about RIAA suits -- and they obviously will not preface their answers with "IANAL," although we must note that they cannot give specific legal advice about specific cases. For that you need to engage an attorney yourself. (Luckily, their site contains a directory of lawyers willing to defend against RIAA suits.) In any case, these guys obviously know more than the average bear (or lawyer) about how the RIAA goes about suing music fans, how to keep from getting sued by the RIAA, and how to fight back if you do get sued, so we're glad they're willing to help us learn more about this apparently endless legal mess. Usual Slashdot interview rules apply.
Guilty? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(2) Skip court. Lose by default. RIAA enters an income execution and gets your wages garnished.
(3) Lose. File for bankruptcy. RIAA takes all your assets except your vehicle and housing. Seven years of credit hell costing you more than the $5k in the first place. You're better off taking out a HELOC if you can.
Re: (Score:2)
Godfather them (Score:4, Funny)
Meet the RIAA. Pull the gun. Tell the creep that either their signature will be on the paper or their brains will be. If he doesn't sign the paper dropping the suit, then blow his brains out. If he does sign, then don't harm him. After all, you are a man of honor even when dealing with worthless scum like RIAA lawyers that the world would be better off not having anyway.
If he laughs at you, shoot his hand apart like in "Taxi Driver". If he stares you in the eye and offers to reduce your fine by 20%, then shoot him in the leg. Take his wallet and leave. If he offers to go down to 50% of the fine after you shoot him in the leg and blow his hand apart, then agree to the 50% fine. Then pay him a retainer and have him become your lawyer in all future dealings with the RIAA. He's a pit bull.
If everybody did this then we wouldn't have this kind of trouble from these asshats. Nobody in Iraq or Russia or the Congo ever has to worry about the RIAA, why should we? After all, killing an RIAA lawyer isn't exactly killing a human being, is it?
Chapter 7 is no sure thing (Score:5, Informative)
"All debts are wiped out in Chapter 7 bankruptcy."
You wish. Certain types of debts cannot be discharged (erased). They include child support, alimony, government-issued or government-guaranteed student loans, and debts incurred as the result of fraud. It's also very unlikely that a judge will discharge legal settlements you've been assessed, such as money you've been ordered to pay to someone who sued you. 12 myths about bankruptcy [bankrate.com]
Changes in the law have made liquidation under Chapter 7 much more difficult: Bankruptcy filings fall to lowest level in 5 years [kten.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your girl friend may want to talk to a lawyer about her exposure under federal civil and criminal law. Living arrangements that appear to have been constructed to avoid a legal judgement can
Biggest Mistake? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And they shouldn't be general lawsuit mistakes either, like playing by the other side's rules or terminology.
Cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When you hear about expensive lawsuit defenses, where people try to scare you out of the idea of even *trying* to defend yourself, you generally do not hear it from someone who is clearly in no way responsible for the damage being claimed. In fact, you usually hear it from someone who is actually guilty but s
Good vs Bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
--Matlock
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers from outer space? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lawyers from outer space? (Score:5, Funny)
Other than that, it's pretty much like this place.
Out of Court Settlement, Smart/Stupid? (Score:5, Interesting)
Follow up to that, do you believe the RIAA would actually win a $150,000,000 lawsuit if the out of court routes weren't taken? They seem to imply they wouldn't win if they offer these tiny settlements en masse.
Re:Out of Court Settlement, Smart/Stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm more interesting in knowing how they can justify calculating that they have lost $150,000 per song "shared" and why they don't have to show any proof that this amount damage actually occured per song.
Re:Out of Court Settlement, Smart/Stupid? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you make one million copies of a single book, then it only counts once for the purpose of calculating statutory damages. But if you make one copy each of two different books, then that counts twice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So basically the RIAA is *asking* the court for 150k to make the numbers look ridiculously high in order to get people to fold. Or in other words they are pointing the barrel of a tank cannon at you and hoping you will pee in your pants.
Awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Statutory damages range from 750$-150,000$, I imagine the awarded damages would be 750$/song, which is the minimum the law permits. The RIAA do of course sue for the maximum possible damages, which is where you get the multi-billion dollar headlines from. But even at 750$ it takes essentially nothing to ban
How can we prevent needing your services? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How about borrowing the CDs & DVDs?
Yeah, geesh, I guess it probably is NOW ILLEGAL TO LOAN a VCR tape, CD or DVD, and it can only get worse.
Re: (Score:2)
1. If you're uploading pirated music/movies, stop.
2. If you're uploading pirated music/movies, and you don't want to risk getting caught, stop.
Re: (Score:2)
This one is easy.
Follow these directions and you should be relatively safe from prosecution.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but there has been a lot of interrogating of the witness.
Suing You Remotely (Score:5, Insightful)
Evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, the judges haven't upheld these cases. As far as I know, none of them have ever gone so far as to actually have a judge decide on one. Look at the "trial" section on the linked blog.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's easy to fake, then you should present that fact. Then the jury decides whether they believe it or whether they think it's fake, and based upon that, whether they think you did what you're accused of. That's their job. They could go either way.
If you want to exclude evidence, you need a different, better, reason than that it might not be true. Courts determine truth based on evidence.
You can read the Federal Rules of Evidence here [cornell.edu]. You'd probably want to start with R.
Canada (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since making personal copies of audio recordings is explicitly allowed in Canadian copyright law what grounds are they using to sue?
Re: (Score:2)
I recall some case a couple years ago that was a setback for CRIA lawsuits in Canada, but that doesn't mean they won't try intimidating people here even if they will lose in court.
Re: (Score:2)
I just go to the library or rip the CD.
What I'd love is a program that will rip and encode the CD (like Grip) but will wait for internet access to rename the files.
This way I could easily rip the CD without needing internet access at that time to name the files.
The Counter Suit (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, who is going to chase after these lawsuits and counter sue? What repurcussions can a counter suit have on the RIAA? And, if they do successfully counter sue, how much does that slow down the RIAA?
When will this end? Could there be an epic counter suit that would make the RIAA stop with law suits?
Systemic Problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, there doesn't seem to be much of a way to fight an RIAA lawsuit money-wise. It always seems to end quickly: Either the defendant ist so obviously innocent they drop the case or he/she settles for "pennies on the dollar". When do you think we'll see a few definite trials to answer the hanging legal questions about investigative tactics and what an IP proves?
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent question, but asking a pair of lawyers this question is like asking Goliath if we should stop discriminating against short people.
Let's see if these lawyers have the guts to reform the system that their career (and current fame) is founded on.
Your Colleagues Contact Information (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't be shy about telling us which one has won the most cases against low income citizens.
Other drive content and RIAA fishing expeditions (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any mecahnism by which the court can compel my cooperation and are there any penalties for steadfastly refusing to provide it?
Re:Other drive content and RIAA fishing expedition (Score:2)
do you have the option to create a 'second password', one which deletes your pr0n and mp3's or trashes your drive completely even if you were forced to give them the 'password'? Then sue them for destroying evidence proving your 'innocence'.
(I 'heard' that if you go through Canadian customs you can be required to give them access to the computer, and in the UK can be jailed for not giving the password.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Other drive content and RIAA fishing expedition (Score:2)
Especially since you, as I understand, at least in the USA have the right to remain silent.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. In criminal cases (IANAL, etc.), prosecutors can compel self-incriminating testimony by granting immunity. If you can't be charged for anything you say, nothing you say can be self-incriminatory. Thus, the right to remain silent (which exists solely to protect you from self-incrimination) disappears. At least, that's the way I understand it.
My question was aimed at civil proceedings. Can I say "No,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad Idea, (Score:3, Insightful)
THey dont even need to know the contents in that case. You lose by default on the RIAA case, and you get contempt of court to boot.
Its a better idea to kill your drive before they come for it. accidents do happen.
Re:Other drive content and RIAA fishing expedition (Score:3, Informative)
torn... (Score:2)
I'm torn. This is about Lawyers, so I really want to make an "Interview with a Vampire" joke. And yet, they actually seem to be doing some good this time.
How do they get away with it? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure you know the network I'm talking about. My question is, given that they came down on Napster like a ton of bricks, and chase people like Kazaa and the torrent sites relentlessly, how the hell does this lot get away with it?
Not that, erm, my friend's complaining, you understand...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nah, if it were Real, they would just buffer it
tm
Re: (Score:2)
Case Closed? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
?
Your opinion on file-sharing and copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you think that the RIAA should do to prevent piracy? Do you agree or disagree with the lawsuits as they are doing them now? Do you suggest a better way? How about your opinion on the current state of copyright law?
Wireless (Score:5, Interesting)
allofmp3 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You dont have to use your credit-card. Earlier you could buy an xrost-card (which is like an online currency) using paypal and use it for buying music. I think they dont allow paypal anymore because it was probably more expensive for them, but you still can by music using xrost card without ever disclosing your credit-card information.
Even if you do use your credit-card, allofmp3.co
Re: (Score:2)
When is it illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)
- Simply having the music on your computer?
- Downloading more music?
- Actually uploading and sharing the music?
I understand how uploading songs could be construed as a violation of copyright laws, but I fail to understand how downloading them for personal use puts the downloader in violation of those laws.
The author or the user? (Score:4, Insightful)
Many people here on Slashdot were repelled (so to speak) by the attack on software that did truly have non-infringing uses, and argued that the lawsuits should target the individuals responsible, rather than the technology they were using. I had a lot of sympathy for those arguments.
Now that the RIAA does sue individuals instead, do you believe they do so because it became too hard to sue companies, or because they bought into the idea of individual responsibility? In other words, did the category of lawsuits change because the companies and software are now structured so as to be too difficult to sue?
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the question is to determine whether the RIAA stopped suing the functional equivalents of Kazaa because it became too difficult, or because they thought a campaign against individuals was really the right way to go about trying to reduce infringement. I found the suits against companies utterly reprehensib
Historic precedent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are there any precedents in history of any industry doing anything like this before? I know there have been examples of cartels forming and the cartel using their combined power against other businesses, but is there anything in history like a cartel using its massive legal leverage against their own customer base?
Re: (Score:2)
The cell phone industry
Virtually any monopoly
The mob (ok, that would be illegal leverage...)
Re:Historic precedent? (Score:4, Insightful)
True, other monopolies do exercise their powers against their customers, but in a cash-only way as far as I know. To explain a bit, has an oil company ever sued someone for using biodiesel? A cellular company for people using HAM radio? The analogies aren't perfect, but hopefully you get my gist. The RIAA seems to be doing something unique. They're not just gouging their customer base, they're taking them to court over perceived (and very hard to justify) damages in what amounts to an extortion racket.
So, has any other cartel ever done anything like this?
Re: (Score:2)
Um ... the whole point is that the people who are downloading music without paying for it are _not_ the RIAA's customer base - the ones who buy the records are their customer base and the RIAA is not suing people for legally buying records.
I think you'll find that downloading increases [unc.edu] sales. [afterdawn.com] People who use P2P and download music buy more albums. Therefore, the people they are suing are, in fact, their customer base.
Are you hiring 3Ls? (Score:2)
If so, I would like a job.
Theft (Score:5, Interesting)
Is copyright infringement, theft (or not).
Where is the line? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are RIAA's tactics racketeering? (Score:5, Interesting)
What about (Score:5, Interesting)
I like to trade Anime mp3's (Score:3, Interesting)
I just want to clarify.. the RIAA can't sue me for that, can they?
Re: (Score:2)
Which of the following are illegal ? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Trading CDs via US Mail
2) Ripping CDs that I own to mp3, and playing them on my computer.
2a) Backing up CDs to mp3 on my computer
3) Ripping CDs that I own to mp3, and then putting them on my mp3 player for my own personal use.
3a)Loaning the mp3 player to my friend with the ripped music from question 3
4) Borrowing a CD from the library, ripping the CD to my computer and listening to the music on my mp3 player, and deleting the music when I return the CD to the library.
4a) Never deleting the music from the computer/mp3 player
5) Emailing an mp3 from question 2 to one friend to listen to, and requesting that he delete it once he is finished.
5a) emailing an mp3 to 10 friends and asking them to delete it once its been listened to?
5b)
6) Using a p2p service to trade mp3s from CDs they own with mp3s from CDs you own
7) Using allofmp3 to download music
8) Stripping copy protection from iTunes or PlaysForSure music files, to play them on your mp3 player.
9) How does the RIAA show that the music you have on your computer are not backup mp3 files from CDs that were destroyed or lost by you?
9a) Can I use a p2p service to acquire a song I legally owned from a CD I owned, but was destroyed or lost?
IP Addresses (Score:5, Insightful)
Questions:
Does current 4th amendment legal precedent allow for the confiscation of anything capable of storing files from behind a public IP address?
In otherwords, if I'm running a 'Internet cafe', and someone in my place allegedly downloads a music file, and the public IP shows up on an RIAA screenshot, is it legal for a judge to order everything in my cafe to be confiscated and searched? Does 4th amendment legal precedent allow for such mass grab-everything-and-go searches?
Has anyone ever pointed out to a judge how easy it is to fake a screenshot? Are there any rules of discovery regarding such flimsy evidence? I mean, suppose I want to accuse the RIAA of threatening me with murder in a court, and produce a piece of paper with a death threat that has the RIAA's corporate headquarters letterhead on it, all on a very good looking piece of laser printed output. Wouldn't most courts throw out something so easily faked? What if I just handwrote in crayon "I'm the RIAA and I'm coming to kill you" on a piece of paper, and them sued them using that as evidence? How far would that get in a court of law?
Are there such things as 'vexatious litigant' laws is some states? If so, how does someone get declared to be a 'vexatious litigant', and what are the consequences?
Can the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI tie up podcasting? (Score:3, Interesting)
Could ASCAP/BMI (and other worse regimes, like the European models,) force me to pay a licence fee for my very small audience (only 0.0833% of the population has MS.)
Under what circumstances is copying legal (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are what I believe to be the relevent sections from the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992:
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording device" as: "Any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use ...".
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" as "any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
Such term (digital audio recording medium - my addition) does not include any material object--
(i) that embodies a sound recording at the time it is first distributed by the importer or manufacturer; or
(ii) that is primarily marketed and most commonly used by consumers either for the purpose of making copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works or for the purpose of making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer programs or data bases."
Section 1008 says "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the non-commercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog music recordings."
Based on my reading of this act, I cannot be sued or arrested under a certain set of circumstances. I.e., using a set-top CD recorder and taxed Music CD blanks. Are there other laws that circumvent this and make it illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Extent Of US Law (Score:2)
Slashdot has an international audience of technology-savvy readers. Many of us have laughed at the hilarious responses [thepiratebay.org] to international threats made by some who seem to believe US law applies worldwide. More seriously, what, if anything can the RIAA do to folks outside the US?
Gray Area Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?
. a. Are the .mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?
. b. Can I re-burn a CD from the .mp3s and is that legal?
. c. Does me having a backup copy of the files on my computer mean I can't make an insurance claim?
. d. What if it is destroyed (for example by a fire) rather than stolen?
2. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently scratched or broken to the point where it is not playable, can I legally download the songs from that CD from a file-sharing network?
3. If I purchase the DVD for a movie, could I legally download songs from the soundtrack for that movie from a file-sharing network?
4. If I purchase a CD that our entire family listens to, and then my daughter leaves for College, can she legally take a copy of an .mp3 ripped from that CD with her on her computer? or - similarly - could she take the disc and could I keep the .mp3 on my computer?
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't PROVE that you purchased (or otherwise legally own) the actual physical media and at one time actually had it in your possession, then you don't really "own" it, as far as the law is concerned.
Which makes backups pretty pointless, unless you keep all of your receipts.
And no, your daughter can't have MP3s of CDs that are in YOUR possession, and that you purchased. At least, not after she moves out of your home.
RIAA's Legal Standing (Score:3, Interesting)
If copyright infringement is the basis for the suit, then would not the copyright holder have to bring on the action against the suspected infringing party? The RIAA does not represent all studios and artists, yet they are bringing actions against an individual without their group directly being infringed upon. I understand that they are representing the interests of the studios and or copyright holders, but doesn't the actual copyright holder have to bring their case forth?
From what I've read of the RIAA, they seem to be instigating actions against individuals, but there's not been mentioned any direct copyright holders bringing actions against individuals. Could you clarify this please?
Multiple Ownership of A Physical Copy (Score:3, Interesting)
If I buy a CD, can my wife make a copy? If my son-in-law buys a CD, can I make a copy?
If two people each contribute $5 to buy a $10 DVD, can they make a copy?
If 100 people each contribue a dime to buy a $10 DVD, can they all gather together and watch it?
Can a corporation own a DVD? Can they make the DVD or DVD content viewable on a secure intranet for all employees of the corporation? Can they make it downloadable?
Are there any specific cases or laws relating to this? How many people can own a CD? Is it limited to one person? One household? Also if you could address any possible permutations or exceptions I may have missed, that would be great.
Countersuits (Score:4, Interesting)
In your opinion is there a percentage of countersuits (compared to the number of suits filed by the RIAA), particularly percentage of countersuits won, that would dissuade the RIAA from filing suits of this kind?
On a related note, is there such a thing as a class action countersuit? Can those sued by the RIAA gather together and countersue the RIAA?
Jury Nullification (Score:5, Insightful)
How many are pirating music? (Score:2)
Safeguards? (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't it illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty clear that the RIAA's lawsuit strategy is based on forcing a settlement rather than seeing the case go to court. Furthermore, it seems like these cases are pretty groundless and the only reason they keep winning is because it's cheaper to settle than it is to fight.
So that being the case, isn't that barratry? Why hasn't the RIAA been charged for that?
Fair use? (Score:3, Interesting)
- Can we share with a family member, friend, non-friend, anyone, everyone?
- Can we make copies, backups, archives, etc.?
- When and where can we listen to our music... copy in the car, boat, iPod, etc.?
AFAIK, "fair use" has not been defined for electronic copies of music since the RIAA "settles" all cases.
Why aren't you going on the offensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trend Forecasting (Score:3, Interesting)
What area should our local congressperson focus on the most to clarifying the laws regarding distributed online medias?
How... (Score:3, Interesting)
What should the law be? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
These lawyers defend people who are being sued by the RIAA. That would make them the opposite of whom you accuse them of being.
I hope you are kidding. If you aren't, please RTFA or at least RTF Headline.