dslreports logo
 story category
RIAA's Legal Assult On P2P Still Flailing
Appeal denied in mistrial ruling for industry's biggest case...
For all the years we've watched the RIAA's "sue 'em all" scorched earth legal campaign, they've only really won one case in court, and that case was recently declared a mistrial. RIAA lawyers couldn't prove actual copyright infringement took place, and the legal precedent was set that simply making a file available for download does not prove you committed a crime. Now it looks like the RIAA's effort to get an appeal of that ruling (preventing a new trial in which they still won't be able to prove criminal activity) has been denied:
quote:
Click for full size
A federal judge has denied the Recording Industry Association of America's request for an appeal of the judge's earlier decision to grant a retrial in its case copyright infringement case against Jammie Thomas. Earlier this year a jury found that the Minnesota woman had violated copyright laws by illegally sharing more than 1,700 songs. The jury ordered the woman, Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay $220,000 to six of the top music labels.
While the RIAA paints their new efforts to make ISPs content nannies as the RIAA turning over a kinder, gentler leaf, the shift is really a result of the entertainment industry being unable to prove guilt in the courts. Because their massive lawsuit campaign did little to actually stop the P2P transfer of pirated material, they're now placing the onus squarely on the shoulders of your ISP. If ISPs refuse to participate, that likely won't work either.
view:
topics flat nest 
cybercrimes
join:2003-12-24
Honey Brook, PA

cybercrimes

Member

verizon

The report does note that Verizon, who has traditionally shied away from playing Internet babysitter, so far has no plans to play along. Some of you might recall that Verizon has battled the RIAA previously over being forced to play content police

im happy im with verizon

snipper_cr
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL

snipper_cr

Premium Member

Re: verizon

said by cybercrimes:

The report does note that Verizon, who has traditionally shied away from playing Internet babysitter, so far has no plans to play along. Some of you might recall that Verizon has battled the RIAA previously over being forced to play content police

im happy im with verizon
I remember quite a few years ago, when the scortched earth practice started, and the AAs started going to the ISPs for customer information, verizon was one of the first to really stand up and protect their customers legal rights. Not to say that others didn't, but they were featured doing it mroe.
FDM80
join:2001-07-16
Silver Spring, MD

FDM80 to cybercrimes

Member

to cybercrimes
I think the reason verizon isn't playing along is that they know that if they do, they will end up footing the bill for being the police.

Unless the RIAA finds a way to make the ISPs play along and not burden them with additional costs then I don't see the ISPs cooperating.

mOjO_420
join:2008-08-20
Bartlett, IL

mOjO_420

Member

Re: verizon

said by FDM80:

I think the reason verizon isn't playing along is that they know that if they do, they will end up footing the bill for being the police.
I disagree. When the Post-911 illegal wiretapping started Verizon resisted then too. Of course they were bullied into it anyway but they were the only one of the big dogs to put up a fight even. You could not call that a profit-driven move. One could argue that it was for PR purposes but I generally think that Verizon is one of the few that believes in civil rights and privacy at some level. How deep that goes is the question...
arthurmnev
join:2001-12-13
Ringwood, NJ

arthurmnev

Member

Re: verizon

oh oh ... illegal wiretapping. Not engaging into the conversation about the wiretaps that saved Brooklyn Bridge in NYC (among many other things). Verizon is not doing it for customers, they are doing it because once you agree to something you will end up owning it. And they dont want to own it.
hihi9
join:2007-05-06
Port Orange, FL

hihi9 to FDM80

Member

to FDM80
said by FDM80:

I think the reason verizon isn't playing along is that they know that if they do, they will end up footing the bill for being the police.

Unless the RIAA finds a way to make the ISPs play along and not burden them with additional costs then I don't see the ISPs cooperating.
You got to be pretty arrogant and greedy to play along with these big boy called riaa,mpaa
remember riaa and mpaa are actually run by the same group of ppl so don't think they are separate entity
isn't it obvious?
greed breeds corruption
winner takes all, loser have nothing
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

1 recommendation

SilverSurfer1

Member

Give it rest, already

The RIAA is the coporate personification of insanity, which is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and again and expecting different results.

AnonMoose1
@sbcglobal.net

AnonMoose1

Anon

Picture

Who are those people in the photo?

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Picture

said by AnonMoose1 :

Who are those people in the photo?
Jammie Thomas and her lawyer.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 edit

funchords

MVM

Why the RIAA wants the ISPs to be Judge and Executioner

The RIAA sees the handwriting on the wall, courts really really really like to see evidence. It's like justice that way, ya know?
said by »news.cnet.com/8301-1023_ ··· -93.html :

Judge Davis threw out the verdict in the case because he argued that "actual" distribution of copyrighted music must be proven for the law to be violated. Therefore, the RIAA had to prove that users downloaded the music that Thomas was making available through the peer-to-peer service. Simply making the content available is not a violation of copyright, under this reasoning.

But the RIAA has said that proving that songs have been downloaded from services like Kazaa is nearly impossible. As a result, the RIAA has long argued that making digital music available for others to download illegally is an infringement on copyright.

Over the years, judges have disagreed on this reasoning, and as a result, they have written different opinions on this issue. As a result, it's very likely that the legal issue of what constitutes copyright infringement will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.
So if the ISPs were to become the RIAA's henchmen, then they can expect those targeted by this legally inept "DMCA Notice" methodology to "react poorly" (sue) after being cut off from their monopoly broadband provider without a shred of actual evidence. And when that happens, the RIAA is ironically not at risk because it's the ISP that took the ultimate harmful action against its own subscriber.

If the ISPs get conned into this, the RIAA walks free. After all, the RIAA just makes notice in good faith based on the information (even less information than in the cases that they actually take to court).

We now know that this information (even when really really good) isn't enough to prevail in court -- so the ISPs are setting themselves up for a lot of exposure here. Why fight the battle that they know -- in advance -- that they'll lose?

WHAT RIAA SHOULD DO

Consider all the information that shows that internet music is an excellent marketing tool. I don't know if it's true, but it's not like free FM-radio play really hurt concert and merchandising sales.

I still maintain that it's pretty distasteful to share a movie or album that is newly released. Reform copyright exclusions to recordings to 5 years, appeal to the people to get behind it as the right thing to do and get it passed, and if it becomes law -- go after the comparably few people that would abuse that. (Am I fooling myself here? I don't listen to much popular music so I'm not really much of a cultural insider.)

Jim Croce doesn't need another dollar for Bad Bad Leroy Brown.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: Why the RIAA wants the ISPs to be Judge and Executioner

I doubt Jim needs much of anything or has for decades...

You may have inadvertently tripped over a major distinction here with "but it's not like free FM-radio play really hurt concert and merchandising sales". Revenues from concert tickets and merchandising sales rarely go to the record label...they are a primary revenue source for most bands though.

I know what you meant though. I have six shiny new CDs received as Christmas presents which I would never have even considered purchasing were it not for Internet radio, specifically Radio Paradise. The RIAA jams fingers in ears and hums loudly when approached with such proof of induced sales, which pretty much defines the problem.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: Why the RIAA wants the ISPs to be Judge and Executioner

said by RadioDoc:

You may have inadvertently tripped over a major distinction here with "but it's not like free FM-radio play really hurt concert and merchandising sales". Revenues from concert tickets and merchandising sales rarely go to the record label...they are a primary revenue source for most bands though.
Yeah, I didn't know that.

But today's labels don't develop talent, either, do they? I know that 50-30 years ago, after an act was discovered, there was actual training and development involved.

So their services are probably less. Concerts do sell CDs -- I bought a CD this summer in a subway out of a guitar case. It was a a-capella doo-wop trio from Philadelphia called "the Underwoods" -- they were hosting an impromptu show and were quite good!

kadar

join:0000-00-00

kadar to funchords

to funchords
Wouldn't that nullify the safe harbor clause?
EasyDoesIt
join:2005-04-12

EasyDoesIt to funchords

Member

to funchords
said by funchords:

Jim Croce doesn't need another dollar for Bad Bad Leroy Brown.
Unfortunately Jim Croce died in an accident in 1973. He was one of my favorites.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: Why the RIAA wants the ISPs to be Judge and Executioner

said by EasyDoesIt:
said by funchords:

Jim Croce doesn't need another dollar for Bad Bad Leroy Brown.
Unfortunately Jim Croce died in an accident in 1973.
Yeah, I know. But since this thread isn't about MPAA, I can't use my copyrighted "Walt Disney / Mickey Mouse" line.

S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

S_engineer to funchords

Premium Member

to funchords
said by funchords:

Jim Croce doesn't need another dollar for Bad Bad Leroy Brown.
Well since Jim is 6 feet under, he wouldnt get to spend the dollar anyway...which is another point. The RIAA supposedly did this in the best interest of the artists, but yet the artists made no money off of this extortion racket...but I digress. Back to Jim...I think its the estate of "Jim" thats trying to still milk whatever royalties that he may have had.
Maybe the RIAA should worry more about setting a mandatory retirement age for these "rockstars" so we don't have to see Mick Jagger drinking Metamucil while wearing Spandex on the Stones Social Security Tour!
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to funchords

Premium Member

to funchords
Music and movies should be limited to 7 years copyright, honestly a good band will make their money in that time and a good band will make much more off their live shows. movies well if it really sucks it was gunna loose money anyway.

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium Member
join:2001-08-02
La Porte, IN

1 edit

ztmike

Premium Member

ISP babysitters for free?

I think the only way ISP's will play along with the RIAA of becoming babysitters is if the RIAA/MPAA pay those ISP's a premium, because I don't see the ISP doing this for nothing $$ wise.

Which would become quite expensive for the AA's if they had to pay each ISP for that.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

Hopefully the shakedown's will be stopped.

First of all I do not condone giving away creative works copyrighted by others. Up until the Internet revolution, individuals were immune from observation of such activities such as home taping. The fact that subscribers traded copyrighted music files over the internet, and knew that their activities could be observed by the RIAA demonstrated that these people were not the brightest bulbs in the string. All their activities did was to give copyright holders ammunition to insist that government require implementation of more draconian copyright protection schemes.

On the other hand the shakedown methodology being used by the RIAA has been in place for years. The RIAA has always used calculated extortion to shake down those businesses targeted for such transgressions as playing copyrighted music without paying a fee to the RIAA. In such a case RIAA Lawyers would figure out how much it would cost the defendant to pay an attorney to defend the business against a frivolous RIAA Lawsuit. The dollar amount demanded would be less than it would cost for the business to defend itself against the lawsuit. In most cases, business management would roll over and write a check to avoid wasting time and money to defend the business against the lawsuit. Since the defendant was a business, management could pay and simply write off the cost as a business expense. On the other hand if the business management took a strong position on the matter and threatened to strongly defend themselves, the RIAA lawyers would simply go away. Individuals do not have the luxury of writing off such a settlement as a business expense. The RIAA is not a government agency and should be sanctioned for impersonating a government agency.
K Patterson
Premium Member
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH

K Patterson

Premium Member

Re: Hopefully the shakedown's will be stopped.

said by Mr Matt:



On the other hand the shakedown methodology being used by the RIAA has been in place for years. The RIAA has always used calculated extortion to shake down those businesses targeted for such transgressions as playing copyrighted music without paying a fee to the RIAA. In such a case RIAA Lawyers would figure out how much it would cost the defendant to pay an attorney to defend the business against a frivolous RIAA Lawsuit. The dollar amount demanded would be less than it would cost for the business to defend itself against the lawsuit. In most cases, business management would roll over and write a check to avoid wasting time and money to defend the business against the lawsuit. Since the defendant was a business, management could pay and simply write off the cost as a business expense. On the other hand if the business management took a strong position on the matter and threatened to strongly defend themselves, the RIAA lawyers would simply go away. Individuals do not have the luxury of writing off such a settlement as a business expense. The RIAA is not a government agency and should be sanctioned for impersonating a government agency.
While you must have a license to play music publicly, RIAA has nothing to do with it. One obtains a license from BMI normally, or buys a service such as Muzak which handles the licensing.

Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium Member
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX

1 edit

Doctor Four

Premium Member

Drop the first 'L' in the title

It should read "RIAA's Legal Assault On P2P Still Failing". Failing to stop "piracy", that is.

Not only are they on the ropes as far as all the lawsuits go, but p2p use continues to increase if you include IRC, Newsgroups, and direct download sites like Rapidshare in the numbers of people downloading music online.

But at the same time, mp3 download sites like Amazon's are doing a pretty good business - at least one of the major labels recently said that sales from digital media had exceeded those of physical CDs for the first time in their history. I believe it was Atlantic who reported this, though I'm not sure.

jbgroup1
Non Conformist
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
Dayton, MD

jbgroup1

Premium Member

Re: Drop the first 'L' in the title

said by Doctor Four:

It should read "RIAA's Legal Assault On P2P Still Failing". Failing to stop "piracy", that is.
No, flailing is appropriate as it means that there is a desperate attempt to try but there is no apparent success.

Anon Name
@pacbell.net

Anon Name to Doctor Four

Anon

to Doctor Four
'RIAA's eagle Assault On P2P Still Flailing'?
hihi9
join:2007-05-06
Port Orange, FL

hihi9 to Doctor Four

Member

to Doctor Four
said by Doctor Four:

It should read "RIAA's Legal Assault On P2P Still Failing". Failing to stop "piracy", that is.

Not only are they on the ropes as far as all the lawsuits go, but p2p use continues to increase if you include IRC, Newsgroups, and direct download sites like Rapidshare in the numbers of people downloading music online.

But at the same time, mp3 download sites like Amazon's are doing a pretty good business - at least one of the major labels recently said that sales from digital media had exceeded those of physical CDs for the first time in their history. I believe it was Atlantic who reported this, though I'm not sure.
It is failing because something that cost cannot beat something that is free
If you got a choice between free vs pay
I believe most would not pay anything because most of us are poor and money is not our creation
It is manmade object for the benefit of the few at the expense of the majority.
Money is not invented so that we all benefit
It was invented by those who want more control over the world and money is the accepted tool
You say that you prefer to pay mean that you have been brainwashed by their propaganda to be a consumer and to live in a small box that they want us in.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

Addidional Comment: Stick a pin in the RIAA's Balloon.

The solution to these shakedowns are simple:
1) Prohibit the RIAA from demanding monetary damages on first notice of the accused infringement. Allow the customer accused of the infringement, to cease and desist or deny infringing if they feel they are falsely accused.

2) Allow the ISP to act as a referee. ISP's typically have abuse departments in place. They are equipped to deal with such issues. If the ISP is held responsible by regulation to act as the referee they will also be in a position to confirm or find invalid a claim for infringing made by the RIAA.

3) If the RIAA accuses the customer of continued infringement, the ISP would be in a position to determine from the accused's IP address and broadband usage whether or not they were in fact continuing infringement. If the ISP determines that the accused customer was not infringing the RIAA would have to pay the ISP for the cost of the investigation.

4) Require the ISP to assist the customer accused of infringement to determine if their broadband connection has been hijacked.

Conclusion:
The RIAA would be prevented from using innocent people as scapegoats by eliminating the monetary incentive of their shakedowns. By involving the ISP in the matter the ISP could be held responsible for providing accurate information about the subscriber, if the RIAA subpoena's customer records. Any accused customer that continues to share or download music files would get their just deserts.

vzw emp
@qwest.net

vzw emp

Anon

Opportunity?

Does anyone else see a massive failure on the part of the **AA's to take advantage of an unprecedented opportunity? The situation they find themselves in is entirely of their own doing. Why should anyone make any effort to help them so long as they still refuse to change their ways?

Imagine you have access to your customers any time, day or night, at home or work. Imagine being able to offer any song in your catalog to anyone who wants it, and be able to complete the transaction and deliver the product instantaneously. Imagine you are always open for business and your store doesn't have to worry about hiring cashiers or clerks, doesn't have to worry about payroll or health insurance, doesn't have to worry about maintaining inventory, doesn't have to worry about leasing, buying, maintaining or insuring a piece of physical property.

With so many companies trying to boost profits, increase sales and reduce costs, it's a very overwhelming thing to think that not a single person in the music industry had either the thought to establish an "in-house" online music store nor the testicular fortitude to bring this idea to fruition. To my knowledge, not one label has done this. Sure, there have been attempts, but they have been doomed to fail as a result of their own ignorant, controlling ways. Instead, that type of opportunistic, forward thinking brilliance goes to, among others, a computer company/electronics manufacturer?

But there was someone who beat the **AA's and everyone else to the punch. The so-called "Pirates". It seems the public knows what it likes and found a way to get it a lot faster than any company in existence. The smarter ones have taken the positive aspects of "pirating music" and found ways to make it into a viable business model. The "smarter ones" unfortunately does not include any member company of the MPAA or RIAA. If hindsight is 20/20 these people are blind.