vigilg
join:2006-09-07
Desert Hot Springs, CA | Gasping For Money
The RIAA is just gasping for every little opportunity it sees to grab money. If this does not work, they will find some other way. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by vigilg  :The RIAA is just gasping for every little opportunity it sees to grab money. If this does not work, they will find some other way. Agreed. Gasping for money and grasping at whatever end run around due process of law that they think they will get away with. Any organization/school that gives in to these strong arm tactics and surrenders student information should suffer the wrath of the students. Are ya listening Student Government Reps?? Get off your asses and organize an official protest and submit it to the trustees of the school board and let them know that you have greater concerns beyond the BMW Daddy will buy you and watching Chumping for Trump.
--
The Toll
|
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by major marco :Gasping for money and grasping at whatever end run around due process of law that they think they will get away with. The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. Their tactics, while objectionable, are entirely legal. Unless the Constitution is amended so that defendants in lawsuits have the same protections as those accused in criminal proceedings, the **AA will continue to engage in these legal activities.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
GlennAllen
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to vigilg
Unfortunately, what they won't try is to either/both (1) not treat their (former) customers like criminals, and/or (2) not price their products for customers who have nothing but lots of money to spend (aka throw away) on their (crap) products. That would just be too radical of a concept. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
2 edits | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. So you believe that it is entirely legal for entity C to harass and/or threaten to serve a lawsuit upon A in order to get information from A regarding B?
Irrespective of either criminal or civil law, it doesn't work that way. Entity C has to first serve a subpoena on A for those records on entity B. That's called due process of law, and, in this particular matter, since money is involved that entity C is calling a "settlement," entity A is entirely within its right to deny entity C any records it may possess on B. Entity A can confidently tell entity C to go piss up a rope and/or get a warrant and/or issue a subpoena.
--
The Toll
|
|
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
 ·Windstream
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to vigilg
Profit sharing?
It's great to think of all the money the RIAA is making from this scheme, and even better is that they are not legally required to share any of this revenue with their member labels and artists because it is not derived from licensing royalties.
I guess this makes sense though because if your main stream of revenue is down, you have to find new ways to generate it, so they exploited the use of the internet and technologically impaired judicial officers to make millions of dollars in "lost" music revenue...pure genius!!!!
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to pnh102
Re: Gasping For Money
said by pnh102 :The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. Their tactics, while objectionable, are entirely legal. So...they're basically like the mob today, but using lawyers instead of threatening bodily harm. Got ya. |
|
Blackened
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
| reply to major marco
In this case, sadly, that depends upon the University exercising it's due process rights, since the apparent (innocent until proven guilty, of course) infringement happens on their servers. Because some Universities don't, it's up to the student to choose another school who will stick up for due process and their individual rights.
Make no mistake, the RIAA is doing all it can to subvert the law to get what they want, which is why they earned the image of thugs, and why due process should apply for all colleges automatically, especially those who receive any public funding. The fact that some colleges are allowing the RIAA in with the red carpet treatment should be an alarm to students. Every single one of these suits should be fought with as much impunity, and care for individual rights as possible. And students who want their rights cared for need to use more research and be more selective about where they attend, to get public funding cut off for those who cater to corporate interests before individual rights. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :So you believe that it is entirely legal for entity C to harass and/or threaten to serve a lawsuit upon A in order to get information from A regarding B? It is 100% legal.
Any person or entity in the USA can legally sue anyone else for any reason, regardless of merit. Of course, such lawsuits can be declared frivolous or can be dismissed outright, but the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he/she is not liable. Of course, that means "lawyering up" and spending tons of money to defend oneself in court.
Someone else said this once, and it applies here perfectly... There's a reason it is called the "legal system" and not the "justice system."
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by major marco :Gasping for money and grasping at whatever end run around due process of law that they think they will get away with. The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. Their tactics, while objectionable, are entirely legal. Unless the Constitution is amended so that defendants in lawsuits have the same protections as those accused in criminal proceedings, the **AA will continue to engage in these legal activities. Due Process doesn't vanish just because it is a civil case. Even at $11 the University should be saying no unless faced with a subpoena. In any civil case, if you want info to prove your case, get a subpoena. Students might be able to sue the school for invasion of privacy since the school is invading their privacy.
Also, considering this is going throw the mail, it could be against postal laws. Since they are really proving nothing, it could even become Racketeering after so many letters. The RIAA is doing an end-run around the court by (1) creating their own "court" (case numbers and docket?) (2) any lawyer on that letter? (ethics violation of the lawyer who eventually handles it probably--lawsuits or threats are supposed to have counsel's name and contact info and bar #) and (3) settling a supposed "case", without real proof, is tantamount to extortion (we'll sue you if you don't). |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :... Someone else said this once, and it applies here perfectly... There's a reason it is called the "legal system" and not the "justice system." yes indeed. I have learned the hard way that in the American legal system, justice is for those that can afford it. You pay nothing and you are not likely to get any justice; if you only pay a little, you only get a little justice; complete justice is very expensive. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | said by nasadude :yes indeed. I have learned the hard way that in the American legal system, justice is for those that can afford it. You pay nothing and you are not likely to get any justice; if you only pay a little, you only get a little justice; complete justice is very expensive. The Golden Rule(not the bible version): Those who have the gold, rule!! And this version of the rule has applied throughout recorded history.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Thaler
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The RIAA's actions remind me of a Web comic called "Evil, Inc." It's motto is "You can do more evil if you do it legal."
»evil-comic.com/d/20050826.html |
|
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
|  reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :It is 100% legal. Any person or entity in the USA can legally sue anyone else for any reason, regardless of merit. Of course, such lawsuits can be declared frivolous or can be dismissed outright, but the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he/she is not liable. Of course, that means "lawyering up" and spending tons of money to defend oneself in court. Someone else said this once, and it applies here perfectly... There's a reason it is called the "legal system" and not the "justice system." Well, in that case, it would be perfectly legal for me to sue the ISP or a university that decides to give my info up to the RIAA without a subpoena or a court order. If they are so smart to just pony up my info to a private party without my consent, then let THEM pay whatever that party thinks I owe them.
If there is a subpoena and they must cooperate with authorities, then I understand that they have no choice but to give the info up. But if they give it up just because someone says so, they better be prepared to be taken to the cleaners by me.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Pirate515 :Well, in that case, it would be perfectly legal for me to sue the ISP or a university that decides to give my info up to the RIAA without a subpoena or a court order. You are right. But can you afford to pay for an attorney willing to take on an ISP or University. Unless you can interest the ACLU or some other organization that will do it for free, you better be pretty rich to afford the lawyer fees.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to supergirl
said by supergirl :Due Process doesn't vanish just because it is a civil case. I never said that it did. Due Process refers to any sort of activity in the legal process, including the ones that unfairly screw over other people.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Any person or entity in the USA can legally sue anyone else for any reason, regardless of merit. Of course, such lawsuits can be declared frivolous or can be dismissed outright, but the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he/she is not liable. Of course, that means "lawyering up" and spending tons of money to defend oneself in court. Someone else said this once, and it applies here perfectly... There's a reason it is called the "legal system" and not the "justice system." Filing a frivilous suit in itself is actionable (meaning someone can be sued for filing a frivilous suit), and filing a blatantly frivilous suit could be contempt of court. Threatening to file a frivilous suit can (and has been prosecuted as) blackmail.
Why did you decide that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent? The burden of proof in a civil case is on the claimant. |
|
soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA
| reply to pnh102
Actually, due process rights - even in civil cases - derive from the Fifth Amendment's due process clause: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Your state constitution's due process provisions may be broader and provide greater protection than the Fifth Amendment. |
|
soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA
| reply to pnh102
Legal to a point.
In most cases (cases involving strict liability are but one group of exceptions), the plaintiff is still required to prove a prima facie case. Otherwise the defendant can get the claims dismissed "for failure to state a claim" without the burden of proof shifting to the defendant.
Plaintiffs who sue without stating a cognizable claim will often end up paying the defendant's attorneys fees or be sanctioned. Depends on the nature of the claim. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to pnh102
Funny, you said this: "The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. Their tactics, while objectionable, are entirely legal."
That is why I said this: "Due Process doesn't vanish just because it is a civil case."
You forget what you typed?   |
|
