Chief Delphi - RIAA or no RIAA?

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Chit-Chat (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)

- - RIAA or no RIAA? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48681)

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve W

I believe that the government should more so protect the rights of those that are in the minority. Just because there are fewer people, should they become trod on as the majority marches over them? If so, where would we be today?

Exactly where we are? O_o

Also, I know that there are some serious legality issues you guys have been debating, but haven't we forgotten all about the RIAA and their methods?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegathering

Exactly where we are? O_o

Also, I know that there are some serious legality issues you guys have been debating, but haven't we forgotten all about the RIAA and the morality of their methods?

I am still waiting for some info on their methods and the evidence of their wrong doing.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve W

I am still waiting for some info on their methods and the evidence of their wrong doing.

Did you not read the hyperlinked accounts of the methods of the RIAA earlier in the thread? We brought those up in accusation that the RIAA was acting tyrannical and out of favor for the good of the people.

Do you agree or disagree with our accusation based off those cases?

Here they are collected for reference:
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47552,00.html
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N15/RIAA1506.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02...sues_the_dead/
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...r-summary.html

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?

Quote:

Yes the laws are passed by a relatively small group of people but that is the way our government works. I doubt that the debate over this subject and the final passing of the bills was done in a relatively short amount of time. You claim a "overwhelmingly strong majority" of law breakers but that is not really true is it? Would you say that 200 million people in this country are making copies of CDs? Or is it only the strong people who copy? What is more accurate is the majority of the people you know are breaking the law. I submit that is much less than a million. As to striking down the law just because a bunch of people say it should be struck down is justs plain wrong. We depend on the people who are running the country to examine each issue, decide it's merit and then make an informed decision. If you want a crack at the process, let's give it a try. I will take the place of the opposition in congress. You try and make a law that covers what you want to do. Now to be fair, you have to examine as many of the outcomes as you can think of. "What happens if I word this bill this way? Who will benefit and who will be hurt? Who will be hurt very badly?" Now you have to be honest and not just consider your own little world. You can't just think about what is happening now, but do some crystal ball gazing and see what your bill will be like in the future. You must consider all the people involved, artists, engineers, support people, truck drivers, retail stores, marketing, etc. Now it wouldn't be fair to make you think this up by yourself or overnight. Let's say you have the weekend to think about it, post on Monday morning. Get together with TheGathering or whoever else you want to pull in and then let Steve and myself have a day or two to shoot holes in your bill. Hard facts now, statistics, usage, revenues, etc. Fair enough?

I do not claim to speak for everyone outside "...(my) own little world..." as you put it, because it is impossible for me to represent the opinions of those I've never met. You are attacking the validity of my opinion because of my choice in friends or the people that I have communicated with. You imply that my friends are thieves, and that I'm an immoral criminal. You imply that "my own little world" is small and irrelevant, and that any arguments that I make are invalid, simply because my opinion differs from your own (which you assume is the majority's).

You see the world differently than I do, you draw different conclusions, because you have had different challenges and experiences. This does not make others "wrong" simply because they have reached a different conclusion. You cannot claim that your world, and the conclusions you draw from it are any more valid than the conclusions I draw from my "own little world".

This argument is ad hominim.

I would sincerely ask again that we refrain from using it debate, as it is quite rude, uncivil, and inflammatory.

From the things I have seen, I claim that a majority of the people disagree with these laws, you claim otherwise. Back it up with facts if you want, but don't insult me by telling me how "that's just the world works, get used to it." Your entire argument rests upon this logical fallacy, that others are wrong because they disagree. I'll consider responding to your challenge when we can debate facts and not attack others for their opinions.

-Chris

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?

Here's an interesting article again that Talps linked me to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com

RIAA Spamigation turning a profit?

Posted Aug 22nd 2006 3:30PM by Grant Robertson
Filed under: General
According to a Boing Boing post on "Spamigation", the act of near-automated lawsuit filing ala RIAA and Direct TV, the RIAA is cash positive in their plan to sue every user KaZaa ever had.

"a friend in the know confided about 18 months back that the RIAA's litigation was actually turning a profit: that is, the RIAA's network of sleazy bounty-hunters, boiler-room intimidators, and software-generated legal threats were costing less to run than they were bringing in through the persecution of American music fans."

This would explain so much as to why the RIAA's $3750 settlement offer looks so very similar to the same sort of settlements offered by DirectTV

"The RIAA strategy is an example of a new legal phenomenon that
I have dubbed "spamigation" -- bulk litigation that's only
become practical due to the economies of scale of the computer
era. We see spamigation when a firm uses automation to send
out thousands of cease and disist letters threatening legal
action. We saw it when DirecTV took the customer database
for a vendor of smartcard programmers and bulk-litigated
almost everybody in it."

This type of wholesale legal system gaming has to stop. Continued exploitation of the courts in this way could easily threaten a great deal more than just your pocketbook, the very foundation of our legal system might well be at stake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dslreports.com

As mentioned in the morning bytes, the IP Mailing List explores how the RIAA has turned to an automated system of filing lawsuits against broadband p2p users, dubbed "spamigation", aka bulk litigation. The problem, as explored by p2pNet, is there's quite a number of false positives showing up - such as one man, sued under the wrong name, who had experts confirm his PC never had the files in question. When such a user tries to call the RIAA, they speak to a "settlement officer" usually incapable or unwilling to admit error, hints the report.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegathering

After reading ALL of the articles I still cannot judge. When I read them I see one side of the story and usually a biased one. One written by someone caught with illegal software, one written by a freedom of technology group and the last one by some lawyers that are trying to get rich suing the rich. Never did I see any of the evidence on whether there was just cause or not.

Conclusion is that I still cannot make an educated judgment for or against the RIAA based on what I have read.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberguy34000

I do not claim to speak for everyone outside "...(my) own little world..." as you put it, because it is impossible for me to represent the opinions of those I've never met. You are attacking the validity of my opinion because of my choice in friends or the people that I have communicated with. You imply that my friends are thieves, and that I'm an immoral criminal. You imply that "my own little world" is small and irrelevant, and that any arguments that I make are invalid, simply because my opinion differs from your own (which you assume is the majority's).

I would sincerely ask again that we refrain from using it debate, as it is quite rude, uncivil, and inflammatory.

From the things I have seen, I claim that a majority of the people disagree with these laws, you claim otherwise. Back it up with facts if you want, but don't insult me by telling me how "that's just the world works, get used to it." Your entire argument rests upon this logical fallacy, that others are wrong because they disagree. I'll consider responding to your challenge when we can debate facts and not attack others for their opinions.

-Chris

Chris,
You have read entirely too much into my response. I pointed out that your statement about the vast majority is inaccurate. You do not and cannot personally know millions of people. Thus you cannot know that the "majority" is copying this material. You cannot claim the majority without backing up your claim. This is a two way street after all. I think you will find that the "majority" of people in this country do not listen to CDs on a regular basis (say more than once a week) but the defined demographic in which you fit is skewed the other way. The 18-25 year old is likely listening to recorded music in one form or another several times a week if not everyday. I merely pointed out that in your personal experience, many or most of the people you know who listen to recorded music are listening to selections they have copied, downloaded, or transferred. Is that not an accurate statement? I am not implying you are immoral or that you and your friends are thieves. I can only react to your statements as they reflect on current copyright law. This is the deduction...IF you copy music without the permission of the artist, recording company, publisher or significant other who holds rights to the property AND if there is a law naming these acts as illegal THEN the person who perpetrates these acts is acting in an illegal manner.
I never made the statement that others are wrong because they disagree. Disagreement and dissent is what is required of a democratic society if that society is to prosper and provide for it's citizens. What I did point out and what I believe is that illegal practices performed by a large number of people are still illegal. There is no way to change that without a change in the laws. I am sorry to be so forceful in this argument, but I work in this business. I know people who make recordings, use recordings legally and provide for their families using the gains from their activities. I know of people who have lost their jobs in the recording industry, their livelihood and their life savings when the business they were in failed. I like recorded music, the radio station that is part of the complex I maintain, has perhaps the largest library of classical music in the country. This business is complex and artist driven. Without income the artist cannot survive and without the artist there is no music, no recordings, no distribution, no listening, no enjoyment.
Lastly, by definition this debate is not 'ad hominum' since it is not everyone piling on you and it is definitely not strictly you and I debating in a public forum. It is most certainly not "this is illegal because Chris says it is legal." I have answered and countered each statement from many posters here and often with facts or reports from reputable sources. What remains is the challenge I put forth, do you wish to author/coauthor a pseudo bill that might make it legal to copy recorded music while still protecting the intellectual property of artists?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by www.internetcases.com

Evidence-destroying defendant severely sanctioned in P2P file-sharing case

In the case of Arista Records v. Tschirhart, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has shown little mercy on a defendant accused by record companies of illegal file-sharing.

Knowing that a court order was in place requiring her to turn over her hard drive to be copied, the defendant allegedly used "wiping" software in an attempt to destroy all evidence of her illegal P2P file sharing. In response, the plaintiff record companies moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), for the most severe form of sanctions against the defendant – entry of default against her. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, and provided them with 30 days to submit a proposed order spelling out their damages.

Given that the record companies' expert opined that the defendant had downloaded over 200 sound recordings during 2005, those requested damages will probably be substantial. Statutory damages under the Copyright Act can go as high as $150,000 per work infringed, in the most egregious cases.

In reaching its decision to enter default against the defendant, the court exercised its inherent power to do so, making a note of its obligation to act with "restraint and discretion." It found that the defendant had acted in bad faith. That bad faith was exacerbated – and the default was further warranted – by the fact that the defendant herself was responsible for the destruction of evidence, that the deletion of the files destroyed the strongest evidence relevant to the plaintiff's infringement claims, and that less drastic sanctions would not be appropriate.

Not only was the sanction intended to dissuade the plaintiff from destroying evidence in the future, it was intended to make an example out of her. Merely awarding the plaintiffs their attorney's fees or giving the jury an adverse inference instruction at trial would not have been enough to remedy the situation. Given the defendant's "blatant contempt" for the court and a "fundamental disregard for the judicial process," only default would be an adequate punishment and deterrent to others considering similar conduct.

***

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?

Has anyone thought about Als proposal?

In this weeks news, in our neighborhood, There have been charges laid against a bootlegger of DVD's. There were over 200,000 DVD's seized.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ds-051126.html

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by www.internetcases.com

Evidence-destroying defendant severely sanctioned in P2P file-sharing case

... [Rest of article]

How is wiping one's hard drive (when court ordered to hand it over) any different than Enron executives destroying document after document after document when their company collapsed?