How the RIAA gets its victims
p2p news / p2pnet: The bizarre sue ‘em all marketing scheme perpetrated by Organized Music’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has gone mainstream and OM’s owners, Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI, are on the verge of a blistering PR disaster equally as serious as the one currently enjoyed by Sony.
The Big Four are treating their customers like shit, not to put too fine a point on it. But as more and more corporate print and electronic media outlets pick up the Patti Santangelo story, the lid is coming off. Santangelo is the New York mother who’s defying the labels as they try to blackmail her into admitting guilt for something she didn’t do. And Sony BMG, et al, are now using Santangelo’s children as a weapon meant to force her into abandoning her stance.
But she’s not having any. As she told p2pnet at the beginning of the drama in September, “I’m willing to take it as far as I have to to prevent other innocent people being dragged into frivolous lawsuits.”
The mainstream media were studiously ignoring her story, at the same time reporting every utterance from the RIAA and spin-doctor-in-chief Cary Sherman as though they were credible
However, covered almost exclusively by p2pnet and similar news sites, blogs such as Recording Industry vs The People, and by online citizen reporters, the story spread until it was eventually picked up by the Associated Press. The AP item immediately triggered requests from US morning shows and Patti has now been featured on NBC’s Today Show, the CBS Early Show, Fox TV, CNN and MSNBC.
How does Organized Music get to victims? Lawyer Ray Beckerman, who’s been working with Santangelo since the begining, explains:
A lawsuit is brought against a group of John Does with the corporate headquarters of the ISP as the location of the lawsuit. But, “All the RIAA knows about the people it is suing is that they are the people who paid for an internet access acount for a particular dynamic IP address,” says Beckerman, going on:
“The ‘John Does’ may live – and usually do live – hundreds or thousands of miles away, and are not even aware that they have been sued. The case may drag on for months or even years, with the RIAA being the only party that has lawyers in court to talk to the judges and other judicial personnel.
“The RIAA – without notice to the defendants – makes a motion for an “ex parte” order permitting immediate discovery. (‘Ex parte’ means that one side has communicated to the Court without the knowledge of the other parties to the suit. It is very rarely permitted, since the American system of justice is premised upon an open system in which, whenever one side wants to communicate with the Court, it has to give prior notice to the other side, so that they too will have an opportunity to be heard.).
“The ‘ex parte’ order would give the RIAA permission to take ‘immediate discovery’ – before the defendants have been served or given notice – which authorizes the issuance of subpoenas to the ISP’s asking for the names and addresses and other information about their subscribers, which is information that would otherwise be confidential.
“In the United States the courts have been routinely granting these ‘ex parte’ orders it appears. (Not so in other countries. Both Canada and the Netherlands have found the RIAA’s investigation too flimsy to warrant the invasion of subscriber privacy. Indeed the Netherlands court questioned the investigation’s legality.).
“Once the ex parte order is granted, the RIAA issues a subpoena to the ISP, and gets the subscriber’s name and address.
“The RIAA then discontinues its ‘John Doe’ ‘ex parte’ case, and sues the defendant in his own name in the district where he or she lives.
“Thus, at the core of the whole process are:
(1) the mass lawsuit against a large number of “John Does”;
(2) the “ex parte” order of discovery; and
(3) the subpoenas demanding the names and addresses of the “John Does”.
Below, lifted from Recording Industry vs The People, is the complete transcript of Santangelo on CNN’s “American Morning” with Miles O’Brien on December 27.
Also on the show was leading RIAA reality reconfiguration specialist Cary Sherman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
American Morning – CNN
O’BRIEN: A multibillion-dollar recording industry still unloading both barrels on those who download music illegally. Normally the defendants in these cases — and there are about 17,000 of them now — are young people, high-schoolers or college age who rip songs with impunity. But what about a 43-year-old divorced mother of five who doesn’t know Kazaa from a kazoo?
She also is ensnared in that legal net, and she is fighting back. Her name is Patricia Santangelo. She joins us here and now.
Patty, good to have you with us.
PATRICIA SANTANGELO, SUED BY RECORDING INDUSTRY: Thank you.
O’BRIEN: When you heard that you were going to be sued by the recording industry, as a parent my first inclination will be, well, how much is it going to cost me to just make this go away?
Was that was your first inclination?
Not really. My first was, we didn’t do this.
O’BRIEN: You didn’t do it.
SANTANGELO: I didn’t do this.
O’BRIEN: All right. What happened with your computer, though?
SANTANGELO: What happened was that the IP address — the Cablevision company contacted me first. They were subpoenaed by the record industry for my IP address. So actually, originally my IP address was…
O’BRIEN: This is the Internet protocol address…
SANTANGELO: Yes.
O’BRIEN: … which is like the computer’s phone number, essentially.
SANTANGELO: Right.
O’BRIEN: And that’s how they go out and find people who use this file-sharing freeware service. Kazaa is one of them.
All right. So go ahead. SANTANGELO: So the IP address was sued.
O’BRIEN: All right.
SANTANGELO: And I was contacted by the record industry. And to avoid being named in a lawsuit, I could have very well have settled financially.
O’BRIEN: Right. But you did not. Why not?
SANTANGELO: I was told at the time I had no music. There was no music on the computer that I owned.
I no longer lived at that same address that that IP address came from. So I told them that I couldn’t sign a, you know, document stating that I was going to stop do something that was being done. And I just wasn’t getting information about how it happened.
O’BRIEN: But were there songs that were downloaded perhaps by your kids, and that in some way is what led them to sue this IP address?
SANTANGELO: Yes, I’m sure that they, most likely, like I said, found a Kazaa file. The thing is, is that none of my children downloaded Kazaa onto my computer. They didn’t download the file- sharing program.
O’BRIEN: OK.
SANTANGELO: Without the file-sharing program, I’m assuming that none of this would have happened.
O’BRIEN: All right. But the fact is there was some illegal music on this computer. You just didn’t know about it.
SANTANGELO: I knew nothing about any illegal music.
O’BRIEN: So you don’t know — you don’t — you barely know how to check e-mail, much less know what an IP address is.
(CROSSTALK)
O’BRIEN: But I mean as far as knowing what Kazaa is all about…
SANTANGELO: No, I didn’t understand the process of sharing files over the Internet or anything like that.
O’BRIEN: Why do you think it’s important to fight this, though?
SANTANGELO: Everything I’ve learned since this started. I wasn’t sure at first, but I’ve been reading a lot about the lawsuits, and a lot of people like me are being sued. And they really didn’t know. And it seems like no one’s protecting us from these lawsuits.
O’BRIEN: All right. But doesn’t a parent have a responsibility to police this kind of thing? And certainly from the case of the recording industry, whoever owns the computer has some responsibility over it, right?
SANTANGELO: The person that owns the computer?
O’BRIEN: Yes. Yes.
SANTANGELO: Certainly. I think a lot of children have Internet access, and I did use parental controls on their AOL accounts, because that’s all they use.
O’BRIEN: Right.
SANTANGELO: And I should have been notified if something was downloaded. Or, you know, I didn’t even think it was possible for them to be able to do it. So I did — I did try to set it up the best I knew how.
O’BRIEN: But, of course, you have limited technological knowledge on what to do.
SANTANGELO: I had — exactly. And I also was working full time and had five children, who had a lot of friends.
O’BRIEN: All right. We can relate to it.
Sit tight here for just a moment. We’re going to bring in the other side of this.
The recording industry joining us now is Cary Sherman from Washington. He is the president of RIAA, the Recording Industry Association of America.
Cary, you just heard Patty’s story. And I know you don’t want to go on — come on with her, which tells me you’re a little bit walking on egg shells on a public relations front here.
Are you concerned about the message that this sends, that this woman who doesn’t know much about computers is suddenly thrown into this big court case?
CARY SHERMAN, PRESIDENT, RIAA: Well, the message that we’re trying to send is that uploading or downloading music without authorization on the Internet is Illegal.
O’BRIEN: I know, but is that her fault? Is that her fault, though?
SHERMAN: Well, but somebody has to assume responsibility for what’s happening with kids. And I think parents need to have some kind of conversation with their kids about how to use the computer the right way and the wrong way.
I’m sure that Ms. Santangelo would be very concerned if she found out that one of her kids had shoplifted a CD and would want to know about it and take action about it. And we have to send the same message to parents and kid across the country, because what they’re doing collectively is decimating the music industry. O’BRIEN: All right. Well, there is a difference here, though. If I found out my kids had shoplifted, I would go to the store owner and have the child return the item, and so on and so forth. I doubt it would end up in a lawsuit which in her case has cost $24,000 in legal fees thus far.
Is there another way to approach this problem? Because, sad to say, it’s not stopping it.
SHERMAN: Well, we certainly have approached this problem with settlements. We were disappointed that Ms. Santangelo didn’t take advantage of an opportunity to get rid of this case quickly, as most people have when they find that somebody in their household or somebody using their computer was in the wrong.
And we tried to be very fair and reasonable about this and take these matters up on a case-by-case basis. But the important thing is to get the message out there that this is illegal.
O’BRIEN: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
O’BRIEN: It might get that message out that it’s illegal, but there’s also another message which comes out, which is a question of fairness. Is it fair to go after a divorced mother of five who doesn’t have a lot of financial means, who really didn’t know anything about this and thought she was doing all she could to protect her kids online?
SHERMAN: And we understand that point. And the reality is that an overwhelming number of people who have been sued tell us the same story, that they didn’t know what was going on, they didn’t know it was illegal, and so on and so forth.
O’BRIEN: And so what do you say? You just tell them — say, tell it to the judge? Is that it?
SHERMAN: We basically try to settle at a reasonable number, taking into account all the circumstances of the particular case. In this case, if Ms. Santangelo did not do this, then she should tell us who did, and we would modify the complaint accordingly.
O’BRIEN: Oh, well that puts a parent in a tough position. You know that. Yes.
SHERMAN: Well, but parents have to assume…
O’BRIEN: Would you do that as a parent?
SHERMAN: Parents have to assume some responsibility for their kids. I would probably do what you said you would do, which would be settle the case and let that be a lesson for the kid. We had one grandfather who had those kids work off the amount that he paid to settle as a way of teaching them a lesson and making this a family event. O’BRIEN: All right. Cary Sherman, thanks very much.
Patty Santangelo, good luck.
However it turns out, we appreciate you both joining us, shedding some light on this situation.
===============
Meanwhile, p2pnet is launching a donation campaign to help Santangelo in her battle against rthe mutli-billion-dollar against Organized Music industry and its henchmen.
Go to Fight Goliath for more.
And stay tuned.
December 29th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Well for once the small guys are winning.
Preliminary settlement for Sony suit
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/sonysettleme23423423434nt.pdf
December 29th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
THE FOLLOWING ARE OPINIONS
====================
“CARY SHERMAN, PRESIDENT, RIAA: Well, the message that we’re trying to send is that uploading or downloading music without authorization on the Internet is Illegal.”
FALSE. DOWNLOADING ANYTHING FROM THE INTERNET IS LEGAL AS LONG AS “SAVE AS” OPTION IS PLACED ON BROWSERS. IF CONGRESS DOES NOT WANT TO ALLOW DOWNLOADING, THEN THE “SAVE AS” OPTION ON BROWSERS AND OTHER INTERNET PROGRAMS MUST BE PROHIBITED. NOT TO DO THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS A TRAP THAT INDUCES DOWNLOADING SO YOU CAN THEN BE SUED. YOU CANNOT LEAVE THE DOOR IN A THEATER OPEN WITHOUT AN ATTENDANT AND THEN JAIL AND SUE EVERYONE IN THE THEATER, WHO THOUGHT THE ENTRANCE WAS FREE, FOR TRESSPASSING AND THEFT. FRANKLY, ANY JUDGE WOULD HAVE TO BE DUMB NOT TO SEE THIS.
“SHERMAN: Well, but somebody has to assume responsibility for what’s happening with kids. And I think parents need to have some kind of conversation with their kids about how to use the computer the right way and the wrong way.”
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH KIDS? A DUMB STATEMENT, IF I EVER HEARD ONE, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO DOWNLOADING. THEN WHAT ABOUT ADULTS? WHO HAS TO SPEAK WITH THEM ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO ADULTS?
TALK TO KIDS ABOUT THE RIGHT WAY AND THE WRONG WAY TO USE COMPUTERS? EVEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. THAT IS WHY THE TERRORIST INFORMATION BEFORE 9/11 WAS NOT SHARED BETWEEN THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS USING COMPUTERS THE WRONG WAY FOR INTELLIGENCE SHARING. THAT IS WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON A COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR USE BY A SINGLE AGENCY (SOCIAL SECURITY?) A FEW YEARS BACK AND THE SYSTEM WAS SCUTTLED BECAUSE IT NEVER WORKED. AND HOW ABOUT THOSE THAT USE THE COMPUTERS TO WRITE TO THEIR CONGRESSPERSON? THAT IS REALLY A WRONG WAY OF USING A COMPUTER, SINCE THE CONGRESSPERSON NEVER WANTS TO HEAR WHAT HIS/HER CONSTITUENTS HAVE TO SAY. THEY ONLY LISTEN TO POLITICAL INVESTORS.
“SHERMAN: Well, we certainly have approached this problem with settlements. We were disappointed that Ms. Santangelo didn’t take advantage of an opportunity to get rid of this case quickly, as most people have when they find that somebody in their household or somebody using their computer was in the wrong.
And we tried to be very fair and reasonable about this and take these matters up on a case-by-case basis. But the important thing is to get the message out there that this is illegal.”
SO SANTANGELO DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AN OPPORTUNITY? WHAT KIND OF NONSENSE IS THIS, TALKING AS IF SHE WAS OFFERED FOR FREE SOMETHING SHE NEEDED AND DID NOT HAVE AND REFUSED TO TAKE. HERE IS A MUCH BETTER OPPORTUNITY: ADMIT TO MURDER AND WE WILL NOT ASK FOR THE ELECTRIC CHAIR.
THE PART ABOUT FINDING THAT SOMEONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD STOLE SOMETING IS A RIOT, AS IF ONE OF SANTAGELOS’S KID BROUGH HOME A CAR AND COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE CAR WAS OBTAINED.
“SHERMAN: And we understand that point. And the reality is that an overwhelming number of people who have been sued tell us the same story, that they didn’t know what was going on, they didn’t know it was illegal, and so on and so forth.”
UNDERSTAND THAT POINT? THIS GUY IS READY FOR THE MOTHER THERESA AWARD OF THE YEAR, FOR BEING SO UNDERSTANDING HE FIRST TRIES EXTORSION AND IF THAT DOESN’T WORK, HE SUES THE VICTIMS.
“SHERMAN: We basically try to settle at a reasonable number, taking into account all the circumstances of the particular case. In this case, if Ms. Santangelo did not do this, then she should tell us who did, and we would modify the complaint accordingly.”
A REASONABLE NUMBER? RESONABLE PER WHOM? ANYWAY THAT WOULD BE ZERO. AND WHAT ARE ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICUAL CASE? MONEY IN THE BANK TO PAY THE EXTORSION BUT NOT ENOUGH TO PAY A LAWYER? NO ACCESS TO THE MEDIA? NOT SELF EMPLOYED? NO POLITICAL CONNECTIONS? MANY KIDS TO FEED?
NOW THIS IS A GREAT ONE. SANTANGELO, WHO IS NEITHER A LAWYER NOR A DETECTIVE NOR A COMPUTER EXPERT SHOULD INVESTIGATE WHO DID WHAT ON THE COMPUTER THEN PROCEED TO MAKE A LEGAL AND TECHNICAL CONCLUSION AND THEN SQEAL ON WHOEVER SHE CONCLUDED IS THE CRIMINAL? WHAT A RIOT. OF COURSE SHE COULD THEN BE SUED BY THE PERSON INJURED BY HER SWEALING.
“SHERMAN: Parents have to assume some responsibility for their kids. I would probably do what you said you would do, which would be settle the case and let that be a lesson for the kid. We had one grandfather who had those kids work off the amount that he paid to settle as a way of teaching them a lesson and making this a family event.”
I LIKE THE LOGIC OF THIS MAN. THE PARENT SETTLES BY DISHING OUT 5,000 DOLLARS THAT THE PARENT NEEDS MORE THAN A RECORD COMPANY AND THAT IS A LESSON FOR THE KID? HOW ABOUT THE GRANDFATHER WHO COULD SHOOT HIS GRANDSON FOR COSTING HIM $5,000 AND LATER FOUND OUT THAT THE RIAA METHODOLOGY FOR PROVING WHO DOWNLOADED SONGS WAS FATALLLY FLAWED?
THIS GUY CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 29th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
The message is clear for 2006.
DON’T BUY RIAA MUSIC !!!
The money they receive is being used to sue parents, children and grandparents.
Do not buy any Sony products.
Cancel CD club subscriptions to BMG and EMI music companies.
(add to this list as appropriate)
December 29th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
This statement is from the Boycott-RIAA mission statement: “Copyright reform will undoubtedly be extremely difficult to achieve due to the fact that the RIAA’s entire purpose is to lobby our government to change the law in their favor.”
“This could be the Enron of lobbying”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10621077/
December 29th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
I’d like to add…. That I believe that anyone in Government that has accepted money (even a penny) from ANY member, or related company of the MPAA/RIAA types that they then pushed to have laws changed or written – should be sent to prison.
Last time I heard, PAC’s were not legal – so what gives? Didn’t Hatch accept a few hundred thousand from them? JAIL!
Just my extra penny’s thought…
_-Jile-_
December 29th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
“In this case, if Ms. Santangelo did not do this, then she should tell us who did, and we would modify the complaint accordingly.”
This is an admission that RIAA did not know if Santangelo downloaded any files or is guilty of anything and that the lawsuit has no basis and is frivolous.
“SHERMAN: Parents have to assume some responsibility for their kids.”
Thousands of minors have been sent to jail in the USA for really horrendous crimes. Has a parent ever been sent to jail with their child because, as Sherman says, the parents are responsible for the actions of their child? What a crazy idea, send the innocent to jail!
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 29th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
“In this case, if Ms. Santangelo did not do this, then she should tell us who did, and we would modify the complaint accordingly.”
This is an admission that RIAA did not know if Santangelo downloaded any files or is guilty of anything and that the lawsuit has no basis and is frivolous.
“SHERMAN: Parents have to assume some responsibility for their kids.”
Thousands of minors have been sent to jail in the USA for really horrendous crimes. Has a parent ever been sent to jail with their child because, as Sherman says, the parents are responsible for the actions of their child? What a crazy idea, send the innocent to jail!
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 29th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
I know I will not buy a single CD or any music online as a part of the profit will go the the RIAA! I call for a mass boycott of the RIAA in 2006. When will they learn this wont work!
December 29th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
It is an easy solution to this problem. DON’T STEAL MUSIC OR MOVIES OR GAMES OR ANYTHING ELSE ONLINE!
If you go into Target or Wal-Mart and steal a cd, you will eventually get caught, and get fined thousand dollars. Should we all boycot Target or Wal-Mart for trying to protect their property? Should they be boycotted for following the law? No? But you want to steal from hard working musicians and download their stuff, then boycott them when you get caught.
You are all a bunch of crybabies!
December 29th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
There is a difference though. The Fair Use laws (recording act and such) from the 70′s were designed in a time when “personal use” and “personal distribution” meant dubbing a tape and handing it to a friend.
We’re now talking about not passing it to one or two friends, but instead competing with the Artists for their entire market of customers with one fileshare. As more people get internet access and become technically competent, the problem will get even worse.
Downloading music created by your favorite artist and not paying for it is not illegal according to US copyright laws. But there is a strong argument that it is un-ethical.
Turning around and becoming a music stributor is a more difficult subject from a legal perspective. Sure, copyright laws do mention “for profit” but there is still much room for interpetation when it comes to mass distribution of music. There’s just no way the RIAA or your favorite musician can compete with “instant download” and “free”.
You can’t confuse your readers by talking about mp3 files or players being illegal. I rip all of my purchased music to disk, I play it in my MP3 player or on my computer. This is soooo much more convenient than swapping CD’s. The innovation in the area of music players is exactly where we as consumers have gained from this whole fiasco. Had this not happened, we’d all be playing music from CD’s in unwieldy “portable” devices that skip and are difficult to carry around.
What’s the solution? I’m not sure there is a technical or legal solution to the problem. Give too much control to the content owners and you end up with no innovation in players (you play music in the approved RIAA devices and that’s it, you can’t copy them to your computer or make a “super-jukebox”). Don’t give them any control and keep going down the current road and you risk the incentives for people to make music in the future.
Sure, the RIAA has an antiquated/outdated model that is badly in need of overhaul in the internet age. But that doesn’t change the need to protect those who make content so we continue to have it in the future.
As manufacturing and other technologies are moved “off-shore”, the United States will continue to focus it’s leadership and financial success in intellectual property and similar areas. This is why the US is trying hard to get other countries to enforce copyrights.
Brian
December 29th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
Just a few things about your post (responding to your points)
First off, I should probably say that I can see RIAA’s point, though their methods are idiotic, of questionable legality, and consist of them shooting themselves in the foot.
1. Downloading copyrighted materials from the internet IS illegal; using ANY copyrighted material without permission is against the law, and you need a licence to use it (hence, all the End User Licence Agreements [EULAs] none of us read any more). Buttons on a browser have nothing to do with the legality of downloading specific files.
2. I have no idea what your point is, it sounds like you’re ripping him for something which isn’t even that bad gramatically.
3. I would call a settlement with RIAA an opportunity, just not necessarily a good one; you frequently have opportunities to do things such as jump off a bridge or stab yourself, though neither of those are generally preferable ones.
4. One can understand a point and not change their behavior segnificantly because of it. Sherman isn’t asking for any awards for understanding another point of view, even if he IS being a jerk about how he reacts to it.
5. “Reasonable” is of course subjective, that’s why civil cases go to court much of the time. It is UNreasonable to assume that somoene who steals music (because that is an accurate way of describing it) should get off scott-free if caught, the problem here is how much RIAA’s response is out of proportion to the actions of the file-sharers.
6. Wow…. just… wow. I don’t know where to begin. First off, it’s still illegal to shoot children, even if you ARE their grandparent. I hope that was a joke, but considering the content of everything up to this point, I really can’t be sure. As for your argument about who can use the money more, allow me to phrase it this way; would it be right for whats-her-face here to walk into a bank vault and grab 5 grand, just because she can “use” it more than the bank? As for it being a lesson to the kid, i think Sherman made the assumption that the parent would give the child hell for making them pay 5 grand, and if I were the kid, I know it would be a HELL of a wake-up call for me.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
1 last thing I forgot to add… TYPING IN CAPS LOCK DOES NOT MAKE YOU MORE CREDIBLE- IT IS JUST ANNOYING. SEE? ARE YOU ANNOYED YET? I KNOW I AM JUST FROM READING WHAT I WROTE.
Please, take this to heart, stop writing with caps lock stuck in the “on” position, and tell your friends.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:33 pm
another riaa shill
December 29th, 2005 at 11:48 pm
Hey, I said I disagree with their methods, I’m just trying to take a reasoned approach to this. If I were in control, I’d say screw it, let people download what they want as long as they buy it for real if they use it a lot (otherwise, you’re just being a leeching prick), but we gotta realize that RIAA DOES have half a leg to stand on with their general premise (though not with their methods of enforcement).
December 30th, 2005 at 12:03 am
Since when did stealing copies of a physical CD equate to distributing copies of the original file online while retaining the original? Your analogy is incorrect.
What the hell is up with people and these stupid analogies anyway? It goes to show how outdated people’s perception of technology is.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Well, there’s nothing wrong with tyring to protect their property. However, the question here isn’t whether people caught with downloading or uploading illegal material shouldn’t be punished. The real question is on the way they obtain their information. Before anybody should be forced to pay fines or punished for anything, there must be solid proof that shows that person is responsible for that crime.
However, in the RIAA/MPAA case, NONE OF THEIR CLAIMS ARE BACK BY SOLID EVIDENCES. That’s what Patti is agruing about. Putting an entire family’s financial means on the line with JUST an IP address as evidence is totally unfair. How would you feel if the police knew that someone in your house is responsible arm robbery? However, since they aren’t sure who the robber was, they’ll just charge you, the owner of the house, for that crime. How is that just?
How is fair to her (Patti S.) if she is being slapped with a lawsuit for something she knew nothing about? Is that fair? Would you like it if the RIAA/MPAA sends you a lawsuit and you weren’t guilty of the said crime? Would you pay the settlement and admit guilt for something you weren’t guilty of? Seriously, the way the RIAA/MPAA is approaching this problem is pretty messed up. The sad thing is, most people would admit guilt to something they didn’t do just to make the problem go away. That, right there, is extortion…..
To top it off, the crime doesn’t not justify the punishment. How in the heck is a single copyright infrignment punishable for up to $150,000 in fines? That’s rediculous. The price of a CD cost $15. You can steal a CD from the store and pay a lesser fine than what the asking fine is for a single copyright infrignment. Let’s say a CD has 12 tracks. If you were caught downloading 12 tracks, assuming you’ll pay the minimium of $750 per violation, that’s $9000 for that CD!!!! Trust me, if you stole a CD right now from the store (please don’t), you won’t be fined $9000 for that CD. This isn’t fair.
December 30th, 2005 at 2:22 am
“1. Downloading copyrighted materials from the internet IS illegal;”
No it is not, and there are several ways this can be proven, but I will use an example to prove that the statement is wrong.
First let us clarify a point: Downloading and uploading existed well before p2p existed. Anything that comes from outide a computer into a computer from the www is downloaded.
Ok, if you visit my website you will find that there are about 30 music mp3 files you can listen to if you wish. The songs are all copyrighted, meaning that they are copyright registered at the Copyright office. To listen to one of these mp3 files the file is automatically downloaded by your computer even though your intention is only to listen to it. If your OS is Windows, a copy of the downloaded file is saved on your hard disk to the /windows/temp folder, even though you may not be aware of it because you are not computer savy. So there you have, your computer downloaded and saved a copyright registered song and you did nothing illegal. The file can remain for days in the /windows/temp folder.
Ah, you could say, the owner of the web page authorized you to download the file. No so. We only authorize you to listen to the file. The downloading is an inevitable byproduct which was never specifically authorized.
Obviously if you download without realizing it, any one or all the mp3 files in my web site you are not breaking the law. If it were against the law, I could not help you break the law by placing the files on my web page for you to listen. Yes I could probably figure out how to stream the music so the file is never downloaded, but since I have no way of knowing if you and others have a fast enough connection, I am not interested in that option.
Since my purpose is that you listen to the music I could not possibly object to your downloading the files, let alone declare the downloading illegal and a crime for which someonelse (a parent if you were a minor) should be punished.
“First off, it’s still illegal to shoot children, even if you ARE their grandparent. I hope that was a joke,”
No it was not a joke. Mr. Sharman believes that a grandfather can be sued because of the actions of a grandchildren. If RIAA does such an absurd thing, if the grandfather turns out to be an irrational demented person, what he may do is unpredictable. Really, the idea of suing a grandgather to give a lesson to a kid borders on the criminal. The so called “lesson” (or wake-up call as you call it) could turn out to be a family war that may never heal.
BTW, file copying for non commercial or personal use is not infringement or theft and dont say it is to the judge because you would be calling him/her a criminal. You see it is impossible not to be a criminal infringing thief under RIAA’s definitions and have a computer that copies (downloads) all sorts of copyrighted (or non copyrighted files that have copyrights) matter files with images, sounds, text. software, etc.
PS: The reason I used capital letter was to distinguish the comments of Mr. Sharman from those of mine. Sorry if it caused confusion.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 30th, 2005 at 2:47 am
(In response to:
“It is an easy solution to this problem. DON’T STEAL MUSIC OR MOVIES OR GAMES OR ANYTHING ELSE ONLINE!
If you go into Target or Wal-Mart and steal a cd, you will eventually get caught, and get fined thousand dollars. Should we all boycot Target or Wal-Mart for trying to protect their property? Should they be boycotted for following the law? No? But you want to steal from hard working musicians and download their stuff, then boycott them when you get caught.
You are all a bunch of crybabies!”)
That’s exactly right. “We” are all a bunch of crybabies. We shouldn’t steal music or movies or games online.
While we’re on the topic, could you tell me exactly how I can digitally *steal* a movie? I was unaware that matter could be sent through wires or WiFi…
The idea that downloading copyrighted material is “stealing” is an entirely false mantra beaten into your head by the music industry. When I steal a CD (if I steal a CD), that CD is NO LONGER at the store. The owner NO LONGER has the CD; you have deprived the owner of his CD. When I download a CD, a COPY is made. This is NOT theft; it’s copyright infringement (allegedly).
While speaking of copyright law, is it illegal to record TV shows? As far as I know, it is not. In fact, certain devices (*cough* VCRs) do this – and these certain devices have been fought by the media industries before.
Now making a copy of a show (which is certainly copyrighted) isn’t illegal; why should making a copy of music be illegal? In both cases, the material copied was *not* originally owned by the person copying it, and in both cases no money is made from the copy. No one is being deprived of anything.
The RIAA would have you believe that downloading music is “decimating” their “industry”. They are very, very wrong. Let’s say I like music. Now I haven’t listened Santana before – although I’ve heard a lot of talk about them. There’s no way in HELL I’m going to just go out and buy the CD. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I tend to enjoy having money that I work for – and I tend to not spend it on everything the media says I should spend it on. If I want to find out whether Santana is any good, there’s a very easy solution; I can download the music.
“But oh no!” Say the RIAA, “now he won’t buy our CDs!” Wrong. I would never have bought the CDs in the first place; however, the fact that I now know what Santana is like means that I may buy their CDs. The possibility that I would give my money to them has increased from 0% to something greater than or equal to 0%, depending on how much I liked Santana. The possibility that I would go to a concert increases likewise. Music downloads help their industry – they do not “decimate” it.
The fact is, if I’m downloading music, I wouldn’t have bought it anyway – and if I like a band, regardless of whether I can download the music, I’ll buy from them anyway. For one thing, it’s a helluva lot easier to just buy a CD than to find it online and download it – and then add it to your library, name all the files appropriately so you can tell them apart, add all the meta tags so that your library recognizes the artist, etc. etc. It’s a lot of trouble to go through; it’s much easier to buy a CD, and buying a CD gives you *much* superior quality than *.mp3s. *.mp3 files are NOT replacements for the material – on that basis alone, it shouldn’t be copyright infringement to download them.
Further supporting this is the fact that even if I *don’t* buy a CD as a result of downloading music, I have done one very important thing – if I liked the music at all, I have just single-handedly increased that band’s popularity. Bands live on popularity, and the RIAA lives on the bands’ popularity. That’s why they allow radio stations to provide you that music for FREE. They WANT you to hear their music; it’s what their entire business model counts on. If no-one hears the music, then no-one will buy.
The problem is, they don’t understand that music downloads are NOT a substitution for the actual product. *.mp3s are NOT CDs, they are not NEARLY as high-quality, they may or may not play on various devices (unless you burn them to a CD in regular audio format, in which case the CD is still much lower fidelity). All of these compressed formats are highly inferior to the actual product, and they’re a pain in the ass to deal with compared to a CD; if you download music, you have to reorganize it all to work with your library.
On to your next unfounded statement: “If you go into Target or Wal-Mart and steal a cd, you will eventually get caught, and get fined thousand dollars.” This is ridiculous. No-one is ever fined “thousand dollars” for stealing a CD from Wal-Mart. The amounts that the RIAA asks to “settle” the cases are unreasonably high. The damages that they like to imagine you’re causing when you download a file or offer it for downloading in your library are nowhere near thousands or even hundreds of dollars. The punishment does not fit the imagined crime.
Further on the subject of these exorbitant amounts, let’s ask our good friend Answers.com what “extortion” is.
“extortion, in law, unlawful demanding or receiving by an officer, in his official capacity, of any property or money not legally due to him. Examples include requesting and accepting fees in excess of those allowed to him by statute or arresting a person and, with corrupt motives, demanding money or property unlawfully under pretense of duty. The taking of money or property is generally an essential element of the crime. In most states of the United States, extortion is more widely defined to include the obtaining of money or property of another by inducing his consent through wrongful use of fear, force, or authority of office; blackmail, ransom, and threat of force are included under this definition.”
(“extortion.” The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press., 2003. Answers.com 30 Dec. 2005.
http://www.answers.com/topic/extortion)
Let’s take a close look at that. The RIAA is not an officer, of course, but reading further down, we can see that “extortion is more widely defined to include the obtaining of money or property of another by inducing his consent through wrongful use of fear, force, or authority of office”. Does this sound familiar?
The RIAA in asking for these large “settlements” is obtaining money. On to the next qualification: “by inducing consent through wrongful use of fear, force, or authority of office.” These settlements are “offered” so that the person they are settling with will not have to worry about being sued for much more money. The RIAA is an enormous organization; they have plenty of money to fight one single person with. Anyone going against the RIAA in court is going to have a very tough time, and most people are terrified to risk it – or simply couldn’t risk it at all. The money for such a lawsuit could ruin them financially, while the large settlement is possible to meet (although devastating by itself). Most people simply could not keep bread on the table if they were to go through with such a lawsuit, and especially if they were to lose – which, facing such a large, rich organization, one is likely to do. I think all of this easily shows that the RIAA is “inducing consent” through use of fear – fear of the lawsuit if you don’t pay up.
The question then, is whether it is “wrongful”. I’m not sure how the courts see “wrongful”, but this to me is sick. The settlements they ask are much too high for the alleged copyright infringements, and the suits that they threaten people with would ruin them financially, whether or not they were to win the suits. The RIAA isn’t hurt at all by losing or by winning; they just have to keep suing. It’s hard to celebrate a victory against them in court if it has already ruined your bank account, so most people are not going to see taking it to court as even an *option*. I’d call this “wrongful”, although it’s the only part I think a court might question.
While we’re looking at the legality of the RIAA’s actions, let’s go again to Answers.com and get ourselves a solid reference for “blackmail”.
“black·mail (`blak-’māl)
n.
[originally, payment extorted from farmers in Scotland and northern England, from black + dialectal mail payment, rent]
Extortion or coercion by often written threats esp. of public exposure, physical harm, or criminal prosecution
blackmail
vt.
black·mail·er (-’mā-lər)
n.”
(“blackmail.” Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, 1996. Answers.com 30 Dec. 2005.
http://www.answers.com/topic/blackmail)
Now from this legal dictionary, we get the word’s meaning and its etymology. I think the “Extortion or coercion…” section is the applicable part here. Is the RIAA guilty of coercion via blackmail? Let’s look closely at that definition. Apparently it must be “by often written threats esp. of public exposure, physical harm, or criminal prosecution”. Are the documents written to the alleged IP address holders threats? I think it’s quite clear that they are: The basic message is “Settle or be sued”, where being sued is clearly a threat; it is financially ruinous to the person about to be sued, whether or not they win.
Is it a treat of “public exposure, physical harm, or criminal prosecution”? I’m not sure precisely what the RIAA is filing against the people, but if it’s not “criminal prosecution”, it certainly comes close. Perhaps the courts would not find the RIAA guilty of blackmail, on a technicality. The public should know, though, that for all practical uses of the word, the RIAA is blackmailing these individuals; and they should likewise know, along with the courts, that the RIAA is *certainly* guilty of extortion. If anyone should be on trial here, it is the RIAA. I’m so glad that Sony BMG has decided to be the first! May the rest follow.
Moving onward! “Should we all boycot Target or Wal-Mart for trying to protect their property?” Of course not; Wal-Mart has every right to protect its MERCHANDISE. It would be wrong for me to DEPRIVE Wal-Mart or Target of its goods. Fortunately for the RIAA, no-one is not depriving them of their goods or taking their merchandise; even more fortunately for the RIAA, by downloading music, their products are being advertised, endorsed, and supported by the best media group of them all – individual citizens.
“Should they be boycotted for following the law?” Of course ont! They are following the law. Unfortunately for the RIAA, *they* are not. The RIAA is extorting and blackmailing its customers. This is not following the law.
“But you want to steal from hard working musicians and download their stuff, then boycott them when you get caught.” – Again, of course not! Nothing is being stolen. When something is stolen, one person loses that object, while the thief gains it; in filesharing, no-one loses anything. Duplicates are made. And from hard-working musicians? They certainly are hard-working, and we appreciate that. We appreciate it so much, in fact, that we buy t-shirts with the bands’ pictures on them; we buy concert tickets, and – *gasp* – we buy CDs from them. The “starving artist” card wasn’t the right one to play here.
The artists benefit when you hear their songs on the radio; they benefit much, much more when you download their music specifically, so that you can listen to *just* their music. Wouldn’t every band love to have *only their music* or mostly their music played on the radio – on the radio, which happens to be free? Of course they would. It’s all about exposure in the music business. Filesharing increases that exposure. This is a very simple concept.
And boycott them? who ever said anything about boycotting the musicians? Certainly there have been some shouts for boycotting the RECORDING INDUSTRY, but not the artists. In the event of a boycott, tickets would still be bought; shirts would still be purchased. And those poor starving musicians would realize that maybe the dwindling income from their already-small percentage of CD sales profits would realize that selling their music independently would both raise their profit share from next to nothing up to near 100%, and increase their sales, as the musicians would likely not be boycotted. At least, I’ve never heard of a musician being boycotted for suing his audience…
Then again – maybe we are all just a bunch of crybabies. A thousand dollars, a thousand leaves – it’s really not such a big deal.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:07 am
Hahahaha everytime i read about the RIAA it gets me fired up. what right do they have saying who is downlaoding what? let me give you an example of how somebody can get sued by not doing anything at all- let’s say somebody stole a laptop and got on somebody’s wirless network that was unsecure, and they send a trojan to random peoples’ email and it gets installed, hacker then takes control over inocent victims system, has a zipped file containing lots of songs and copies it to the hacked system and shares those files over a pier to pier network. Now, what gets me is that the RIAA is going to go after the actual owner of the system, completley oblivious to what has just happened. RIAA’s only evidence is the IP address!
December 30th, 2005 at 4:16 am
Just to let you know, because of your greediness and irrational behavior, I decided not to buy any DVD’s or music CD’s for anyone this holiday season, and I really am proud of the rest of our extended family and friends for not giving them out as gifts also. I know that the 2500-3000 dollars that we all would have spent isn’t that much to you, but it gives me peace of mind that we are no longer supporting organized criminal activity.
We have made this our new family tradition.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:25 am
Reader’s Write, you are one fucked up cookie.
December 30th, 2005 at 6:13 am
If the RIAA is obtaining information about music and movies downloaded on your or my computer by “breaking into or snooping around on your hard drive, this is illeagle Search and Seizure”. Violation of our 4th. Amendment Rights! We should now sue them in Fedral court..Perhaps a Class action suit. Hopefully a program recomended by Jon@p2p.net, “Peer Gardian” will help keep thes greedy Bastards at Bay.and other programs and tricks I dont know about but would like to..Perhaps. I would really like to spread the word on safe filesharing that would make us “stealth” but need more info myself. I dispise The Practice of “Bullying” women and children & having to pay $14 to $20 for an album with one good song and the rest “filler” Screw them, Their days of unbrideled greed is coming to an end! These Cartels are Cowards!
Helldriver@adelphia.net
December 30th, 2005 at 6:26 am
http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=
/video/tech/2005/12/27/downloading.suit.cnn
You’ll have to copy and paste the whole link.
December 30th, 2005 at 7:04 am
And since when people like you think that you deserve the fruits of my hard work for free? If you want to use the software that I spent many many hours writing and debuging, then I expect to be paid a resonable amount for your use of it. Resonable amount being defined by how much time and effort it took me to write it, and how many licenses that I plan on selling.
The theory is quite simple. I make something, you pay me, and you get to use it. In return, I have the incentive to create more software because I can make more money. Why should I give it away for free if I’m using it to support my family (put food on the table, closthes on their backs, a roof over their head, etc…)?
You say that I’m greedy? No, I just want what anyone wants: to live a comfortable lifestyle for my self and my family.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
“As manufacturing and other technologies are moved “off-shore”, the United States will continue to focus it’s leadership and financial success in intellectual property and similar areas. This is why the US is trying hard to get other countries to enforce copyrights.”
1. Manufacturing and other technologies are not moving “off-shore” at all. The process is different. What is happening is that the US is falling behind in product design and in manufacturing technologies. In brief, the US is no longer very competitive. The cause in my opinion: The US education system has been broken, another victim of American politics, too much money is spent on armaments, and companies are run from the nationless Wall Street and by lawyers and accountants whose only short term purpose is putting money on their own personal pockets. Remember Heron. And Heron was not an exception.
2. It is not the US that is focusing “it’s leadership and financial success in intellectual property”. Who depends on IP for their survival are privately owned international firms, called here cartels. The shareholders of these cartel firms are spread all over the world. The so called US leadership is actually non existent. To my knowledge no one has made an analysis to see how much American are helped by the income from IP and how much that is costing Americans. After all, if an IP protected medicine that costs 2 cents to manufacture but costs 2 dollars to buy in a US pharmacy, then the Americans are paying dearly for the so called benefits of IP.
3. One of the countries where copyright laws are least respected is right in the US and the government (all three branches) couldn’t care less. Visit my web site and you will get an idea of how deceiving is the so called copyright protection in the US. There you will see how:
a. 500+ of songs were literally stolen from my family by music publisher ACEMLA and the court said that was not infringement. 80 of the songs were even unlawfully copyright registered by the thief publisher and that was not found to be infringement by the US run court. See here:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/peer-acemla.htm
b. A music publisher (Peermusic) took over or stole the ownership of 14 songs that were composed by my father, using the publisher’s own words in a letter, “Is there a way to get said manuscripts without the author suspecting that we need them to register in Washington.”. The judge said the songs belonged to the publisher because the timely registered the songs. The songs were really never registered at all and the judge never even mentioned the “without the author suspecting” letter. See here:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/fuste-opinon-analysis.htm#1387
c. Sony has produced at least 17 records with songs my family owns and never bothered to request a license. We sued in 2001 and the case has gotten nowhere in a US run court. See here:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/venegas_v_sony_lawsuit.htm
d. We have found aver 60 US made records with our songs, all unlawful, without a license. In the 12 years we have owned the songs (through inheritance), not a single record company has paid a single cent in royalties. We suspect that about 2 million dollars are unpaid. Yes, that is the great American copyright enforcement. Actually it is more like a joke.
Apparently the only enforcement that is going on is an attempt to gets American kids to behave properly as defined by the nationless cartels and do as ordered by the cartels and frightenned-of-extortion parents.
Sorry pal, but someone is feeding the wrong ideas to American about almost everything and it is mostly being swallowed without any critical thinking. That is where the educational system is flunking.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 30th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Did you know that artists get nothing when their work is played on the radio? Actually they get less than nothing, as the payola expenses are reduced from the money paid to the artists, a reason whty many times they get nothing from the record company.
On radio, the royaklties paid go to the so called composer associations or collectives and little if anything go to composer and nothing to the recording artists.
Dis anyone complaint before? No really.
Did RIAA complain about the injustice to the artists? No.
I formerly owned and ran a small software development company before the Windows era. One of the things I learned was that unless you were a big and well established software company you had to sell the away at less than cost so as to make money from servicing the software. Maybe tour case is different but surely your problem is made worse by RIAA if the backlash is that copyrights are eliminated after a revolution of the freeloaders as you seem to call the downloaders, to eliminate the criminilizing of America. You see the majority, not RIAA, will eventually decide.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 30th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
“And boycott them? who ever said anything about boycotting the musicians? Certainly there have been some shouts for boycotting the RECORDING INDUSTRY, but not the artists.”
The vast majority of musicians get paid as the do their work. So they are paid fairly. But recording artist are another thing. These get a raw deal from the record companies and are genrally contract-trapped. There are a few exceptions and these are usually the big name ones.
However, if RIAA destroys music distribution industry as they will do if they are sucessful in this stupid idea of suing and molesting the current and future customers, then artists will inevitably suffer. This why artists should not be silent (as they mostly are) about the RIAA’s stupid ideas.
Artists should be proposing alternate methods of compensating them for their work, where physical distribution of CDs will not be necessary, as is inevitable in the long run. In the long run all physical media will almost dissapear.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 30th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
“let’s say somebody stole a laptop and got on somebody’s wirless network that was unsecure, and they send a trojan to random peoples’ email and it gets installed, hacker then takes control over inocent victims system, has a zipped file containing lots of songs and copies it to the hacked system and shares those files over a pier to pier network.”
RIAA’s Sharman put it nicely in his intereview. He stated:
“SHERMAN: Well, but somebody has to assume responsibility for what’s happening with kids. And I think parents need to have some kind of conversation with their kids about how to use the computer the right way and the wrong way.”
Obviously the solution is that the owner (the somebody in Sharman’s comment) of the computer should talk to the thief “about how to use the computer the right way and the wrong way.”.
As an alternative, the owners could have placed a label on the laptop: “A message to the thief. Please do not use this computer to steal songs. as I may be harmed by the theft of songs.” I am sure Sharman would agree with this idea.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 30th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
“But you want to steal from hard working musicians and download their stuff”
Crybaby here!
Is Elvis a hard working musicians.
Is Lous Armstring a hard working musician?
Is Enrico Caruso a hard working musician?
Is Frank Sinatra hard working musician?
Is John Lennon a hard working musician?
Is Bing Crosby a hard working musician?
Are the Beatles hard working musicians?
What RIAA should do is stop hiding behind the skirt of dead and mostly broke musicians.
December 30th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Since it’s now a well-established fact that duplicating copyrighted material is theft. Of course.
December 30th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
I don’t. I haven’t bought a CD since 1994.
I used to work in the radio industry and I am very much aware of the criminal behaviors of the music industry (payola).
I have no sympathy for them.
December 30th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
For one thing, typing in all caps makes you look like a fool.
Secondly, Sherman makes the case that /unauthorized/ music downloading is illegal. This is true. It has nothing to do with the “save as” function any more than shooting someone being legal because buying bullets are. In any case, one might make the argument that you don’t know if your download is authorized, so you are not breaking any law. However, the uploader most assuredly is.
We cannot win any arguments against the *AA unless we raise our logical and legal arguments to a new high, not by posting in all caps and ignoring half of the opponent’s argument.
December 31st, 2005 at 1:15 am
One of the major problems with the entire anti-piracy industry is that it relies very heavily on a virtual “cone of silence” surrounding confrontations.
Basically, Titles 17 & 18 of the United States Code (Copyright Law) permit people who are confronted with copyright violations to make something like a “no contest” plea for a significantly reduced fine.
It works like this: If you move to formal copyright violation litigation, you could be fined $150,000 to $250,000 per copyright violated. However, if you plead using the “no contest” style process, your fines will only range between $750-$30,000 per copyright violated.
So, here’s the scam: What’s it called if I know that I can accuse you of some dastardly deed, or threaten you with something, and that you will immediately pay me whatever it takes to avoid making this “something” public? (Yes, I know the word, but you’ll have to fill in the blank yourself.)
Essentially, this precise issue is one of the smoke and mirrors tactics of the anti-piracy industry. The enforcement players are very well aware that all they have to do is threaten a person or a company and someone, somewhere, will write a check in whatever amount the enforcement player demands. Free money–no wonder there are around 100 global copyright enforcement players.
As Sherman stated in this interview, the RIAA was very disappointed that she didn’t simply pay up and avoid the formal confrontation. He should be disappointed–now he’ll actually have to work to prove she is guilty.
It all becomes much more complex than this but I won’t bore you with details.
December 31st, 2005 at 1:42 am
“Since it’s now a well-established fact that duplicating copyrighted material is theft. Of course.
No such thing has ever been established in a court of law:
1. Under the pre 1978 US copyright law, most copyrighted material passed into the public domain because the copyright owner did not bother to file for a copyright renewal period. Then you either renewed or the copyrighted work went into public domain. This alone makes your statement incorrect.
2. Also under the pre 1978 law, many works were renewed and the renewal period expired, at which time the copyrighted work passed into the public domain.
BTW: You would be amazed how many works that went into the public domain or were in it all along and are still being claimed as belonging to someone for the purpose of unlawful exploitation. Example: All or almost all the national anthems of Latin American are licensed to radio stations for a fee by BMI and unscrupulous publishers that claim to own the anthems. Also, the Star Spangled Banner has hundreds of ownership claimants (Check the ASCAP web site) but the song is in the public domain.
3. Duplicating material that has a current copyright owners is legal if the owner authorizes it or simply allows it or invites the copying. I do not specifically authorize the copying of the songs in my web site, We invite listening, but if you are to listen the songs they are first duplicated to your hard disk without you even realizing it. Since I do not object to that copying byproduct and I am the owner, it is then lawful by default.
4. Then there is the no mans land, where copying is neither lawful nor unlawful or is simultaneously lawful and unlawful because the laws of several countries (or the more important jurisprudence) do not cover every situation or contradict each other. A clear contradiction is that a work has several copyright holders and in one country (USA) each owner may authorize the copying but in another (Europe) the authorization of all owners is mandatory, an important issue on the Internet, a multi country system. The point: No mortal may be able to determine if an authorization received was valid or not and thus cannot know if the copying was legal or not.
5. Then there is “fair use” copying. Fair use in not defined anywhere in such a manner that a person can decide if what he/she wants to copy is sure fair use. Only a court can determine if a prior copying was fair use, but, pardon the redundancy, only after the copying occurred. This after the fact method of determining if fair use occurred, make the proposition of fair use a useless one. Recently the director of the library at a major university said in an interview he could never understand what fair use. The meaning is that it is not clear if a researcher copies 5 pages of a book which is no longer published but it is not in the public domain, may face a $150,000 lawsuit from a RIAA like publisher and the only option for the professor is to pray that the judge sides with him/her, that it was fair use. But regardless that a cour decides there was infringement, it is never theft, since nothing physical was taken from the owner.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 31st, 2005 at 2:01 am
“For one thing, typing in all caps makes you look like a fool.”
I thought I had already apologized for this. So here it goes again. I am sorry I created such a great inconvenience to you, whoever you are. The apology goes, even if you work for or are paid by RIAA.
Ok, now to the real stuff. You say that Sherman makes the case that /unauthorized/ music downloading is illegal.
“Secondly, Sherman makes the case that /unauthorized/ music downloading is illegal.”
Today I wrote this as a reaction to a posting by Julian Bond on the story “How the RIAA gets its victims” (surely you disagree with the title). I will repeat my views here:
How reliable is an Internet authorization is something that will always be imposible (with current technology, software and laws) to establish. Anyone can say “it is ok to download the songs and I am the owner of both the recording and the song”. We all know that if that is not on a signed document by a properly identified individual it is meaningless. Here in my juridiction such an concession of rights (I believe) has to be on a notarized public document, based on a rule written two hundred years before electronic documents came into existence.
Additionally anyone, not the copright owner, can edit an mp3 tag and state in it that the song is in the public domain or that copying is allowed by the owner when in fact he ownership may not exists or the owner is only a fractional owner who shares ownership with others who may oppose the granting of free copying righs (we are now in one of many very ambiguous – and never read by the legislators – parts of the copyright law, that allows each claimant on a copyright to independently authorize the use of the copyrighted matter).
Addituinally anyone edit a DVD and replace the no copy warnings with an “You may copy this DVD to your friends” message.
So can anyone take a CD or a DVD or a song and register it under a false owner name as a copyright owner and then authorrize copying. As a matter of fact 80 songs belonging to my family suffered this fate and the courts said that it was not infringement and took no action against the obvious infringers. A sure invitation to other to do the same thing.
Surely the entire copyright copying rights are nothing but a cloud of smoke left in the wake of technology. Congress and judges have no ideas what has hapenned or what hit them.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 31st, 2005 at 3:16 am
Um. Forgot to use my <sarcasm> tags apparently. My intention was to ridicule the idea that people using these filesharing programs to obtain music are “stealing”. It’s not even remotely related to theft.
December 31st, 2005 at 4:17 am
As you said though “I rip all of my purchased music to disk”… Nobody, according to the lame laws on the books, have the right to rip their own cd, even for their own use… Especially if they made ‘any’ attempt to protect the media (even if you can beat it with a black marker).. In fact any kind of circumvention fits under the ‘international terrorist’ title according to the US Patriot Act and they could arrest you for ripping a quasi protected disk, without court order, and can hold you without trial for an indefinate period of time.
Thats the kind of stupid power we’ve given our Gov’t (the kind of power our President ‘cant live without’)…
Disagree? Look into it.
The reality is though that even if 1,000,000 people download a song, it does not equal 1,000,000 lost sales – in MANY cases it sells to people that would otherwise NEVER have bought their music… Sure, a VERY small percent of people who were actually going to be their customers are now going to use p2p souly and never make a purchase but really, even if they never buy a cd – they will get posters, dvd’s, or go to concerts.. Freely distributed mp3′s are the best source of advertising they have ever seen – and has ‘increased’ their sales in the last few years (especially on lesser known artisits) and I’ll conceed that on uber-paid artists their pay is prolly going to go down (oh darn) as they have to SHARE the limelite with backyard bands that are now being noticed – but who bloody cares? Senator Hatch?
The artists simply do not deserve to be multi-millionaires for a few damn songs – at most, they deserve a working man’s wages, give them $15/hr x 2080/hrs …. thats about all their ‘work’ is worth imho.. Not, work 3 months on 12 crappy and 2 good songs and DEMAND millions.. sorry but HELL NO… even if they worked 24hrs a day for those 3 months and received 1 million for it that would be nearly $500/hr.. Sorry, but no.. Let the artists ‘starve’ and only get 15/hr.. ((now ask me what I think the studio’s should be getting lol.. they should be getting the drippings from the artists, not the other way around))..
It’s time for the RIAA/MPAA type companies to go away – if every artist put 100% of their music on p2p – without drm but under the creative commons protection – they would still have people flocking to their concerts and would LIKELY make more money that way than using the damn RIAA leeches.. that get most of the artist’s money anyway.. If they want to bloody complain, they should be complaining about the moronic deals they have and not with their loyal fans wanting to remain that… fans..
Now lets look at a few things though.. I own a negative scanner – once I bought it I have not developed a single picture, I only get “negative only” service on my film… the company (primefilm) that made my negative scanner should be sued for all the losses Walgreen’s is having because I no longer pay $6/roll for prints… But, that will never happen.
What about that copymachine – If I see an article in the news paper I will copy it and distribute it to ppl I think would like to read it – its common practice and accepted in the world as ‘normal’ to do that.. even though I’ve copied an entire article and shared it without charge.. Music is the same pot calling the kettle black when we do the same with music.. and honestly the argument isn’t weither I share music with 1 person or 1,000,000 – because if its illegal to share it with 1, then it’s illegal to share with 1,000,000.. if its legal to share with 1 then its legal to share with 1,000,000. Thats the bottom line – because you cant validate sharing of any kind and still have an enforcable layer to work with.
Should I be arrested for recording a tv show and then giving copies of the vhs tape out to my friends – and if they choose to copy that or even give that copy itself out to their friends – increasing the distribution range – what then, should all vcr’s and sharing of tapes be illegal too?
The lines that are being drawn are unenforcable on a global scale and are unrealistic – they will eventually give people such heart burn that even if people were interested in trying and buying music they wont bother because the damn drm on them is going to eat their cd player or whatever new virus sony plants on their cd..
I’m just damn tired of the argument – sharing has always been around, from the PERFECT COPIES of reel to reel that were around in the 60′s – that the military had no problem with their soldiers listening to during the war – to the copies of tapes between friends in the 80′s to the mp3′s of today – its not going away and it’s going to be the primary format of distribution for music globally / in fact, no, it ALREADY IS the primary format for distribution.. If artists want to be rich – they better be able to have concerts.. the lazy ones that dont want to perform (even the ones I like, such as all electronic mixing trance mixers) are going to have to accept there’s no money in the future of non-performing musical arts.
Just my 10 cents and a bit extra…. sorry for the extended rant but ‘fair use’, or the lame lack therein gets me going..
_-Jile-_
December 31st, 2005 at 4:26 am
What I TRULY believe must be changed to stop these ridiculous charges from the RIAA is the law stating that if someone downloads a file and “steals” it to their computer they can get charged $X thousand dollars. I think that law needs to be further looked into because right now the RIAA has way too much power that even a small CD distribution store doesn’t even have.
What I don’t get is how can the RIAA sue someone for $5000 or even just $1000 for a SINGLE song when a kid could walk into a store and steal a CD with 10+ songs, a booklet, the actual CD, and the CD case but only get a find for no more than $300??? Something obviously is wrong here. The RIAA is abusing a law that is giving them an insane amount of leverage against the consumers.
WE NEED TO WRITE CONGRESS OR SOMETHING AND CHANGE THESE LAWS ON FINE AMOUNTS TO BE REASONABLE SO RIAA STOPS GOING AFTER EVERYONE WHO MAKES A MISTAKE.
We need to form up as a large group to take on these greedy and powerful RIAA assaulters that are ruining peoples lively hoods by suing for insane amounts of money!
December 31st, 2005 at 6:50 am
Thank God for creative commons and GPL licenses – I’ll just use the software people release that way – and if I like what I use, I’ll continue to donate to the ones I like – I loath paying before I try a product, especially in these days and times you cannot just ‘trust’ a program is good enough to do the job you need it too (way too many crappy programmers out there)… Shareware from a few years ago did the same thing and did pretty well for the good coders out there – the crappy coders, never made crap.
http://www.fsf.org/
http://creativecommons.org/
http://sourceforge.net/
Just my 10 cents.
_-Jile-_
December 31st, 2005 at 7:03 am
Thx for the link.
Just watching his smug face talk makes my stomach upset. Patti, I really hope you win the case!
_-Jile-_
December 31st, 2005 at 3:09 pm
“What I don’t get is how can the RIAA sue someone for $5000 or even just $1000 for a SINGLE song when a kid could walk into a store and steal a CD with 10+ songs, a booklet, the actual CD, and the CD case but only get a find for no more than $300??? Something obviously is wrong here. The RIAA is abusing a law that is giving them an insane amount of leverage against the consumers.
”
One answer. The laws are pushed by the likes of lobbysts Jack Abramoff, who are connected to the parties and make hundreds of millions off the connections, in plain sight. Legislators are mere reps of the lobby and the political mob. They and their aids have no need to read or understand the laws that are passed.
That is why the laws seem to have been written by a commitee of jackasses.
Some suggestions for the solution:
a. Limit legislators to one term.
b. Prohibit non citizen, corporate lobbies.
c. Prohibit donations to a specific candidate from persons that cannot vote for the candiate.
d. Prohibit the existense if proffesional, full time, salary paid legislators.
e. Eliminate one of the parts of congress, the Senate.
Here in Puerto Rico we had a terrible problem with legislators who did nothing for the people, as learned at Washington. We demanded a referendum to halve the legislature, over the legislatures’s almost unanimous objection. Over 80 percent of the voters went along with the referendum’s proposal. In essence, we kicked 1/2 of the legislature in the ass, out, effective 2008 America should learn from us. The people need to take control from the useless (for the people) parties.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
January 1st, 2006 at 12:16 am
There are some serious issues that need to be addressed by the citizens of this nation. Corrupt politicans is a major one.
When it reaches the point that a party can close its doors while formulating a bill without admittance by the opposing party then you know there is a stink coming from behind closed doors. Worse, when it comes time to vote on it, the other politicans aren’t given much time to familarize themselves with the contents and implications when there are 15-30 possible proposed bills, each one 700 pages or larger, and they are only given a yes or no vote without any sort of debate to expose just what the bill contains. These sort of back room manovuers are happeing all the time and the present adminstration really stinks of these sort of acts. Worse it isn’t about what is best for the country, it is about party politics and who can swing the bigger stick.
We need in the worse way term limits where a lifetime politican doesn’t exist and can’t form the payolla access to laws from lobby groups. We need limiting access of those lobby groups that doesn’t over ride the needs of the people.
Further, much of the laws that are constructed aren’t done from any other method than looking at whatever an industry has in place and deciding those are best practices and should be law. It’s sort of like putting the fox to guard the hen house, it’s hardly effective in bringing about what is good for the people. Instead it results in what is good for the industry, often at the expense of the people.
One has only to look at IP and copyright to see that this is exactly what has happened. The cartels are winning themselves no friends and at some point this isn’t going to wash. I am still waiting for these backed up cases to start appearing before courts whose time is already a log jam from case overload. Many judges are seeing just what is going on but can not make any sort of rule without it appearing before them.
It also looks as if the RIAA feels that infringement is a second income. The cartels are steadily reducing their output of new artists. They’ve also lost ground on shelf space in the market place by dealing with the chain stores. It equates to not as much money coming down the pipes as the customer can’t see what all is out there from what is on the shelf in the store, and certainly you can’t increase the sales of goods you never put out. To feed the money monster, it appears that infringement cases are the next income maker. As long as potential victims roll over and pay up that is. As soon as it looks like they are going to start standing up in mass, the RIAA will have to go back to the drawing board. There aren’t very many individuals that are going to be able to meet their demands for infringements even if ruled in favor of. So in the long run they have painted themselves in a corner. One that isn’t going to pay off. One doesn’t increase business by making enemies of ones customers and all but the RIAA and cartels seem to know this. The cartels carry the attitude that if they put it out on the market it should be good for a gold mine, no matter what it is. Their attitude is that they don’t have to earn money, that the customer should be beating down the doors to pay for crap. Only reason that isn’t going on is pirates according to their viewpoint.
Over and over I see folks saying, “No more purchases for me”, the boycotts on. Every one of those infringement case victims have friends and you can bet those are being influanced to do the same. This is an ever increasing pool of non customers and it will continue to grow larger. As an end result it is a stance that the cartels can not maintain over the long haul.
January 1st, 2006 at 10:48 am
Actually, most of the top heads in the RIAA should be in prison for various white collar crimes.
They just aren’t charged or investigated because they own politicians (more of a universal problem with the United States).
I don’t respect big media’s copyrights because I don’t feel they deserve it. If I’m breaking a “law” (and I use that term loosley), then so be it. I do it rarely anyway, since most big media content is mind rot bullshit.
Come and get me. I even help people commit “copyright infringement” (by giving them the pirated media so they don’t have to do it themselves; mainly because they would probably end up an RIAA/MPAA/etc victim if they did due to ignorance).
I have purchased a CD or two in my lifetime; even a DVD. Those are rare exceptions though. It has to be something worth while.
January 9th, 2006 at 6:55 am
I couldn’t agree more. Think about this for a second. What would happen if everyone quit downloading AND quit buying their crappy music? Then we would surely make a difference.
Personally: I will never buy a Sony product of any type again. The rootkit wiped me out. I will never trust them again. I WILL NOT FORGET!
January 9th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Possibly germane to this whole argument, but hardly ever noted, is the way the recording industry treats its own artists. Back when the Beatles ruled the world (or so it seemed), their record company was quietly taking 95% of their royalties: if Courtney Love’s tirade some time ago is any indication, they’re still doing that sort of thing.
January 12th, 2006 at 2:35 am
RIAA has to be breaking or violating a law with this method…My deep gut feeling is telling me that they are breaking some sort of law and as of now I will use all of my resources to exploit which one they are breaking. I’m no lawyer or legal expert but I just know they are doing something wrong here…Dark Inferno Network will back this woman all the way. I know what its like to have very little money and i have very little to spare so i personally do what i can.
As the song ten thousand fists would say, 10 000 fists in the end and those big 4 is going to know the meaning of that very soon
January 12th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
I have to admit that i do agree with her side of the story. The record industry is trying to hide behind a sense of morality, but they have no morals themselves. They no that she didnt do it, but continue to drag her through the mud. Its a bunch of hypocripsy. If you can always talk about what someone should have done. Credit card companies tried that not so long ago when someone had there identiity stolen. In life peopel cant be wary of everything, crime happens. no matter how well you protect yourself.
One could say that the blame lies with the industry, for not doing anything to protect their copy-righted material from being copied. IF i have a car and i leave the keys in the car with the window rolled down, my insurer would say i didnt do enough to protect myself. They would not say i was a victim and replace my car. The record companys shoudl be responsible to providing some degree of copy right protection on there music. Instead of of creating such material in an open fomat that can so easily be copied.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
“The RIAA Sucks A Big Weenie” by American Lesley Jane.
DOWNLOAD IT NOW, FOR FREE, Spread The Message.
http://www.soundclick.com/americanlesleyjane
First there was a trend of recording artists becoming thugs.
Lo and Behold, now the Music Industry Itself has “gone thuggy”.
HELLO WORLD!
My name is Lesley Jane.
I am the OWNER of Two Free Websites which add up to over 500
songs, by Myself, American Lesley Jane, and by My Band, BEATLESEX,
AND YOU ALL ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO
HELP YOURSELVES TO just a whole lot of GREAT MUSIC,
For FREE, Know whut I mean, Vern?
…and the RIAA cannot do a gosh darn thing about it.
N’yeah, N’yeah–N’yeah N’yeah N’yeah.
Became I AM The Proprieter. I Own This. I Make The Call.
My Music Is Free, and the RIAA really does suck a big weenie,
look around you, it’s happening everywhare.
The Truth is, if you make a good record, even if it is free, people
will love you enough to buy your record, because you’re cool,
and they wanna own the actual CD. Making it Free To Download
does not change that, just as long as your music don’t suck!
This is the Real Problem. A complete sell-out of Quality. The Industry decided to put out crap, and people have better sense than to
buy too much of it. It’s your own damn fault RIAA.
And now you wanna shake folks down like the no-talent bunch
of noisemakers y’all are puttin out now? Forgit it. You’re in
for the fight of your lives RIAA.
WE WILL NOT GO SOFTLY INTO THAT pile of crap you expect
people to pay for. I’ll Tell You What. Music is the Language of God. Guess y’all kinda forgot that one, huh?
‘Cause most of that stuff y’all are puttin out, it ain’t music,
and it shouldn’t be sold in the first place. Fire everyone in your
A&R departments, and start over, while you can.
The Industry Is In The Hands Of The People Now.
We Put The Music First, Since You’ve Forgotten How.
Hope The Whole World DOWNLOADS Me.
Sue The Ones That Don’t Know Me.
‘Cause The RIAA Bites The Big Baloney.
And The RIAA Rides The Bony Pony.
Weenie! Weenie! Weenie!
MOM SANTANGELO, You Are An Inspiration
To Us ALL.
God Bless,
Much Love,
~American Lesley Jane
United States Government Registered Superhero
http://www.soundclick.com/americanlesleyjane
http://www.soundclick.com/beatlesex
God Bless America. Land Of The Brave. Home Of The Free.
_____________________________________________________
Coda.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I Am Not ANONYMOUS, OR A Coward. I don’t have an account here,
and I have better things to do than to join up, log in, to make my
one statement. I said who I am. I Am American Lesley Jane.
THE RIAA ARE THE COWARDS.
THEY DON’T HAVE THE NERVE TO EJECT THE NON-TALENTED.
~Lesley