p2pnet.net News:- The Big Four Organized Music cartel routinely treats the people its owners rely wholly upon, the people who buy their product, with utter contempt, almost loathing.

“Consumers owe us a living,” say Warner Music, Vivendi Universal, EMI and Sony BMG, in effect, also declaring, “Every man, woman and child, is a potential criminal and thief who’ll rob us blind unless they’re forcibly prevented from doing so.”

Teams of lawyers around the world working through various Big Four ‘trade’ units such as the RIAA have all manner of sly tricks ready to manipulate mainstream reporters into running stories which present the record labels as hard-pressed, honest, law-abiding companies: as victims instead of perpetrators.

P2pnet highlighted one of the tricks: ‘filing’ supposed court documents through the media without going anywhere near a court. The idea is to, “publicly harrass and humiliate the defendants in the on- and offline print and electronic, media” we said.

Says Ars Technica:

According to RIAA filings, Michelle Santangelo, 20, has admitted to illegal downloading at the age of 16. Robert Santangelo, 16, was implicated by his best friend, who said that the two traded copyrighted songs online. An RIAA spokesperson said that “it is unfortunate that this case has reached this stage. [...] It is abundantly clear, through their own words and additional evidence, that Michelle and Robert Santangelo, Jr. illegally downloaded hundreds and hundreds of songs.”

Unfortunate? It’s exactly what the RIAA was working for.

But there hadn’t been a filing when the Ars Technica item was written, and there still hadn’t been at the time of our post today, as far as we could discover.

It seems incredible that this kind of underhand tactic is permissible, even in the US. But could the same technique be used in Canada, where the Big Four are lobbying unrelentingly to have Canadian copyright laws changed?

We asked Dr Michael Geist, Canada research chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa.

“Sure it could happen in Canada,” he said. “Plaintiffs are often similarly aggressive in litigation matters and use the media as a key part of their strategy.”

But might it be a petard upon which the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and others of its ilk, such as the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America), could be hoist?

Although there may not be a law prohibiting the release of this information, “there are laws on defamation, libel and slander,” says one comment to the story. “Until you file the motion with the court, the accusation is not public record.”

But, “it’s quite the opposite” says another. “The language isn’t protected UNTIL it’s filed with the court.”

It continues:

Interestingly, at the moment, it may very well be libelous. Once they file it with the court, that protects the language of the *filed* document, but I think it does not protect the publicly-released document retroactively.

Hmmm . . . I wonder if that’s another cause of action against the RIAA, for ALL of the defendants who have found out about their suits in the press? Of course, truth is an ABSOLUTE DEFENSE, so if any defendant settles, or is proven to have done that of which the RIAA has accused them, then no action would be available. The analysis is more complicated than this, so I’ll have to consider it further.

In the meantime, since the RIAA monitors this site closely, let’s not give them too much.

Stay tuned.

Also See:
highlighted one of the tricks – RIAA, Santangelo court doc farce, November 3, 2006
Ars Technica – RIAA sues Santangelo children, November 3, 2006

---

p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 5th, 2006 at 5:46 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 2223 times