‘The RIAA are a bunch of rotten bastards’
p2pnet news view P2P | RIAA:- In Joel Fights Back, Joel Tenebaum IS fighting back.
He’s posted clips from a Facebook Q&A which as far I could see, doesn’t have a direct link but which includes »»»
Q: The RIAA are a bunch of rotten bastards.
A: I know.
Well, they are. A bunch of rotten bastards, that is.
“A lot of people have been sucked in by the constant RIAA barrage of lies and half-truths issued, largely, by RIAA boss Mitch Bainwol, his #2, Cary Sherman (top), and spinsters Cara Duckworth and Jonathan Lamy on behalf of the corporate music companies,” I say in a story on another famous RIAA victim, Jammie Thomas-Rasset.
Now, Joel’s latest contribution was,”beyond stupid,” says someone on the Pho list (who’s identity I’m not at liberty to reveal because he’s on the list) suggests.
Pho? “I welcome any of you to the Pho list,” says Jim Griffin. “If you want to join the list, write me at griffinatonehousedotcom.” This comes in a recent p2pnet post based on Griffin’s nasty ad hominem attack on me on the list.
Meanwhile, “Soon Tenenbaum will be back before the judge, asking her to reduce the award,” reckons the person I’ve quoted.
With that in mind, will his post “end up costing him several hundred thousand dollars” because it’ll upset judge Nancy Gertner, as the person I’ve just quoted anonymously reckons?
Here’s the Q&A in full »»»
FAQs: what did you do, why so much, and what now?
Frequently asked questions.
Q: What did you do with 30 songs that got you nailed?
A: I downloaded them and shared them on Kazaa. They also proved in court (because I admitted it) that I used Limewire, iMesh, Morpheus, Napster, and Audiogalaxy, but it doesn`t matter.
Q: Isn`t that a huge friggin` number just for that?
A: The RIAA and the Judge in this case succeeded in convincing the jury that the DMCA act of 1999 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html) should be applied here. The ranges specified are:
(1) $750-$30,000 per song
(2) $750-$150,000 per song if the infringement was willful
The jury decided to go to the lower end of willful and chose $22,500 a song.
Q: So are you challenging this?
A: I think the plan is to appeal to Judge Gertner to adjust the damages. She seemed itching to want to do this for a while. After that we can appeal on the basis that our Fair Use argument was wrongfully dismissed by the court.
Q: If the $675,000 stands?
A: I declare bankruptcy.
Q: The RIAA are a bunch of rotten bastards.
A: I know.
Q: Why did you share them? Why didn`t you just enjoy them yourself?!
A: Art is meant to be shared. For more info, please read John Perry Barlow`s beautifully written (of The Grateful Dead) expert report, points 3 and 4. (http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_090410ExpertWitnessReportBarlow.pdf)
Q: Come on, don`t you want the artists to be paid?
A: More than anything. They take the time to learn an instrument, spend the money to get the equipment, and then they pour themselves so completely into their expression. The artists are what matter and 2/3 of them don`t see file sharing as a threat. Just read what Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails has said on this.
The unnamed phoster isn’t impressed, stating, “I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that this one blog post could end up costing him several hundred thousand dollars.”
But, says Voxleo, in part, in a Reader’s Write, “I like to think that Joel just might have done this (even against all odds) for the decent reason that he thinks his behavior simply wasn`t criminal and he oughtn`t be prosecuted for it (or persecuted for that matter Or extorted Or intimidated ),” going on »»»
Each of us should consider what path we would have chosen if we were the target instead of him and how much moxie it might take to resist the path of least resistance.
Imagine how much of a fuster-cluck we might be in if there were no one willing to set an example of how to fight tyranny.
How is it that we have forgotten that LAW is made by PEOPLE and instead seem to be allowing LAW to subjugate the common good and common sense?
Law is not the judge of morality, only a set of agreed upon boundaries, and should have no power over what we decide it ought to have. If the battle is going to be fought on legal ground then we must start standing on the field in order to fight, else lose by forfeit anyway.
Even if he walked into it, it was the proper thing to do.
“Without fear there is no courage, and courage is usually an excellent deterrent to bullies,” she says, adding:
“Especially when one little picked-on nerd starts to inspire a mob into resistance.”
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
August, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:03 am
The RIAA boss and everyone else working for them should rot in hell.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Well, I guess we all know where YOU stand
But in seriousness, time and again the RIAA seems not to realize that every attempt of theirs is doing the exact opposite of what they’re trying to achieve. More than one person I know has started boycotting content published by it’s supporting labels because of it’s behaviours. Hopefully at some point it will get the message.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
No. You are wrong. They are not a bunch of rotten bastards. They are a bunch of rotten assholes.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Wait. Jon. Let me get this straight.
You actually spend some of your valuable time on a listserve trying to communicate with these filthy bastards?
Or did I read this wrong?
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Hey Ray:
They’re not all filthy bastards. There are also a number of people on the list who believe as you and I and others do. They’re the minority, but they’re not silent. And I think co-founder Jim Griffin’s attack on me [ http://www.p2pnet.net/story/26046 ] shows exactly what the labels and their employees are made of, and not in a good way.
Cheers!
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Jon,
like in all wars there are people in the regime who are not agreeing with the leader but still follows thru with orders. in my mind they are there-by guilty by association and the penalty for that is as severe as being in charge.
i have no patience or sympathy for ppl who work for the riaa or the mpaa thats says they do not completely agree with things. they should grow a set of balls and stand up at a meeting and say something, do something. if you do not agree but still go along with it you are just a pathetic follower who probably wouldn’t have a problem selling out the other side as well.
in my line of business i fire my associates within a minute finding out if they go behind my back and talk about not agreeing with me and the decisions being made, the ones that stand up and tells me to my face they don’t agree and comes up with ideas,solutions and other creative thinking i promote and take good care off. but i also take good care of my customers since they are the reason i have a job.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
One should bear in mind that this is no fine. This is compensation for the loss suffered by someone. The compensation ordered here is far out of line for any loss this private entity suffered. If a company suffers loss from shoplifting, we can now expect that that company can ask for 22,000 per song if a Music cd was shoplifted in a store. Each song from that CD can be copied to a computer and shared on the internet. So if the songs were obtained when shoplifting occurred at the local store, then the $125.00 fine for shoplifting would be way too low according to the RIAA. There is also a David and Goliath here where david has no chance in most cases.
Only 5 years ago, Directv had some 35000 such federal suits contending that an individual bought a perfectly legal smart card programmer then asserted that the smart card programmer might have been used to reprogram a smart card. Then the reprogrammed smart card might have been used to view television programming with out having paid. So clearly, anyone with the money can make up anything which might have happened. Then Force litigation costs so high the person defending chooses to settle or go broke long before any trial. If you page through the federal PACER records, you can find where directv cases were closed via default judgment for $200,000 and $300,000 in THOUSANDS of cases which judgments are still in force today. Default judgments because people simply didn’t have the money for exaggerated litigation costs let alone ever have a trial they wanted. Then the settlements bar individuals asking for a criminal complaint or asking that charges be brought for criminal Felony Violations. These settlements, many of which were court ordered, which took the rights of the individual from exercising rights for criminal investigation where violations occurred. So at least in these cases, our courts have accepted settlements which prevent the victim of a fraudulent lawsuit from requesting a criminal investigation. While Joel’s cases may be Civil in nature, there are cases out there where evidence has been tampered with. Where the court complaint says the person has not paid when they may well have the receipt showing they paid. In the Directv cases, Directv said they first obtained there evidence from one place in 1998. Then in another suit they say they got there supposed evidence from that same place in the fall of 2000. Then in another case they state they got the evidence from that same place in 2002. While obtaining evidence in 1998, changing of dates permitted the statute of limitations to change to include more and more people. In the end, you obtain your evidence in 1998 and sue individuals 7 years later. Then the defendant is barred from asking for criminal investigation through private settlement. With the endorsement by a Federal court I might add. Personally, having watch our system of justice permit that I can extend no credability to Justice the next time I am a Juror or a witness. To permit these acts are themselves criminal.