RIAA: Undesirable Element
p2pnet.net News:- “You have a multi-billion dollar cartel sueing unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids, all kinds of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations,” said Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman.
RIAA is, of course, short for Recording Industry Association of America, owned by EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) and, finally, Warmer Music, which is, significantly, the only American company.
“And,” Beckerman went on in a DefectiveByDesign conference call, yesterday, “due to the adversary system of justice the RIAA will be successful in rewriting copyright law if the world at large and the technological community in particular don’t fight back.”
This prompted a comment post which said:
It is interesting when a lawyer uses the word “cartel” – that can only mean that they are considering using the RICO Act at some point…and I think it is appropriate.
The tort “Trespass To Chattels” is another legal concept to look into, since the people offering files for download have no reason to suspect that the end-user will be doing anything illegal. After all, the United States Copyright Act allows a de minimus use of copyrighted works for purposes of parody, review and other non-infringing activities.
Thus, the act of downloading is, in itself, not illegal, regardless of the content of such downloads. So the person offering files for download should have a legal basis on the stand that no person is allowed who will be using the list of files, or the files themselves, for any reason other than those afforded by the Copyright Act specifically.
And, since the RIAA and its minions are not desirable elements, it stands to reason that they are not to be allowed access to the person’s computer for any reason, thus the Trespass to Chattels tort.
Perhaps a “shrinkwrap EULA” should be prepended to the file list because the courts have historically upheld such agreements when used in software installations, and this is little different, to wit: “by accessing this list of files or by downloading even one file from this computer I hereby state that I will only be using it for purposes of parody, sampling, or review and that I am not working for the RIAA or MPAA in any fashion and I have no affiliation with them in any manner currently nor in the past…”, etc.
Also See:
DefectiveByDesign – The RIAA: running wild, July 20, 2006
Operation Ore – UK comic in kiddie porn case, May 11, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 21st, 2006 at 8:02 pm
And probably true, but that’s not the problem.
Who can AFFORD the legal representation to prove that ?
NO ONE they have sued has the financial backing.
The law is all nice and pretty and all that but is no longer belongs
to the common man .. period.
The common man can’t afford law.
Until THAT aspect of law changes, then none of those
( very good ) arguments mean anything to anyone but scholars
and intellectuals.
That’s the problem. That’s the imbalance.
The only ones that could fix it have all of the incentive in the
world to keep things just as they are.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:30 pm
I’m a lawyer, and I agree with “Readers Write”. Our system works fine when the parties have equal money with which to hire lawyers. But when there is a massive imbalance, as there is in each of these cases, the judges need to stick up for the RIAA’s victims and protect them from being bullied.
Ray Beckerman
http://info.riaalawsuits.us
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com
July 21st, 2006 at 11:25 pm
There were a way to oust judges that were clearly acting for
other than the interests of justice
( Like judges with recording contracts )
As it is, even if a “judge” acts unfairly, it appears that they
hold too much power for ANYONE to complain or question.
Where are the “checks an balances” for them ?
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:05 am
EFF ties its anti-creator rhetoric to the news of the day in yet another sick attempt to further its mission to wipe the creators of music off the face of the earth.
A. Songwriter.
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:48 am
There are effectively is no legal way to hold judges accountable for their actions. The last time a federal judge was impeached was before the 1950’s. It seems that the only way a judge actually is held in account is when a bullet meets his or her body. Judge Joan Lefkow’s family paid dearly for her ruling against one man, for an example. With some of the decisions that comes from courtrooms today, it’s no wonder that there is courtroom violence.
I’m surpised that there arent many more judges killed. The protections provided to most judges is minimal. I just wonder why court houses only put metal detectors at the main entrances and leave side and back exits unguarded. These unguarded exits in many ways can be propped from locking should a person decide to do so. Objects can also be stashed where they can be easily grabbed from an unguarded exit. Judges, even those with body guards are also vulnerable to attack via high powered rifle. Like I said, Im surprised that more bad judges do not meet with violent deaths.
July 22nd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I believe that EULA’s are on very dodgy legal ground….. Different circuits have ruled different things, and no-one has really challenged them properly – i.e. that they had no contract at all with the software publisher. They’ve merely disputed what the contract means.
The copyright law allows you to do anything with software in your possession, except things that would infringe copyright, like redistributing it. In particular you are allowed to patch software. Hence if a “clickwrap” was valid, then you could just patch the software to remove it……..
Emil
July 22nd, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Before anyone says that they are valid under consumer law, I believe for them to count as sales contracts they would need to be presented before purchase, and the terms would need to satisfy the requirements of consumer law – here in the UK the onus is on the vendor to prove that his terms are resonable (if a consumer claims they are not).
Emil
July 22nd, 2006 at 1:28 pm
“EFF ties its anti-creator rhetoric to the news of the day in yet another sick attempt to further its mission to wipe the creators of music off the face of the earth.
A. Songwriter. ”
A liar, more likely.
Before there were record labels.
Before there were contracts.
Before there was commercialism, cash , cocaine, and extortion ..
There were musicians.
These are people that create music.
The REAL artists do it, because they must. It beckons to them,
burns in their blood.
It is an artists joy and burden.
I know .. because I REALLY AM a musician.
The RIAA, and it’s associated labels do not, not have they ever
CREATED anything .. they exploit, nothing more.
When they die, Musicians will still play, artists will still create.
I hope they aren’t paying you too much.
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:12 am
“Who can AFFORD the legal representation to prove that ?
NO ONE they have sued has the financial backing.”
But even if you can afford the legal representation, there is no way of knowing who your legal representation works for, you or the other side or for himself’s interests. I see this problem continuously.
Lawyers and judges are part and prisioners of a legal web and monoply made of buddy lawyers, ex associate lawyers, same club members (yes, the Bars are clubs) lawyers, lawyers who worked for same legal group, and lawyers that owe many legal favors. I see this problem continuously.
Your lawyer may be broke because of gambling habits, drug addition, divorce settlements, etc. and are vulnerable to pay offs and quick settlement schemes designed to solve the lawyer’s cash flow problem. I see this problem continuously.
Then some lawyers make sure your case is in court years, so as to inflate the legal fees. I see this problem continuously. As they say, “money is the root of all evil”.
And lawyers are prone to assuming positions in one case and that position operates against new clients. Such lawyers never alert the prospective of the previous positions and cases. Old positions and cases haunt lawyers. I see this problem continuously.
Also lawyers prefer the corporate client. They will sacrifice the individual clients if that is good for getting corporate clients. I see this problem continuously.
Considering that the common citizen cannot detect or work around the difficulty in identifying the unidentifyable honest lawyer, we have an unsurmountable problem to solve. Anyway, the pool of honest lawyers is not nearly enough to tale all case, so inevitably some will be stuck with the dishonest lawyer. Just like artists cannot identify the honest record company or the songwriter cannot identify the honest music publisher or a patient can identify an honest doctor.
The solution: With slavery (in the USA) it took a civil war to end it. It helped that the pro and anti slavery groups were grouped by region. So, with the legal system “problem” a civil war will not work. That leaves only one solution and it is up to the people that no longer owns what is theirs, the legal system.
Listen to Vals Revolucionario here:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/valsrev-albarosa.mp3
The revolution starts near the end, where we are at now.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:31 am
“the judges need to stick up for the RIAA’s victims”
a dreamline thought
July 23rd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
I assume this is a joke, given EFF has never had anti-creator rhetoric. In fact, much of its work is to protect the rights of creator, most importantly their right to create, communicate and participate in culture (All protected by the UN Universal Declarationof Human Rights).
July 23rd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Russel, you are right.
The suspicion is that this “songwriter” is a public relations troll from the cartels that use the words “artist” and “songwriter” to justify their rhetoric.
I would not be surprsed if RIAA, for public relations purpose, is changed to mean Recoring Industry and Artists Association, after some selected artists and songwriters are invited for membership and board seats.
Fortunately real, flesh and bone artists and songwriters are waking up, thanks to the Internet.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas
July 23rd, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Russell, not everyone thinks EFF is God’s gift.
July 24th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
I still need to update my original Computer Science degree research paper (link below) but the technical content is still valid, and I’m surprised that no programmers have yet to institute any of the technical concepts I postulated:
http://www.hackingiswrong.org/archivez/sfs-riaa-FINAL.htm
(posted in case anyone is interested in legal mumbo-jumbo or just wants a little background on what was going on with these RIAA lawsuits a couple of years ago…)
P.S. Yes Jon, I’m still interested in your offer (last year, heh heh) for me to update this paper, or perhaps write a brand new one.
Tim
January 13th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! QV8OQjyUt1p