Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless
Beckerman Legal (via Slashdot) ^ | July 29, 2008 | Ray Beckerman

Posted on 07/30/2008 12:19:51 AM PDT by Schnucki

As every federal judge must be painfully aware by now, an estimated 30,000 ordinary people2 have been sued during the past four years in U.S. district courts by the world’s four largest record companies, EMI, SONY BMG, Warner Brothers Records, and Vivendi/Universal, or their affiliates. The suits have been brought for alleged infringement of sound recording copyrights. Although these companies are represented by a trade association, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), none of the hundreds of other members of this association has participated in the litigation campaign. The large majority of the defendants have defaulted, and the default judgments against them have been in amounts that represent more than 2,000 times the actual damages sustained by the plaintiffs.3

Of those remaining, most have paid settlement amounts that exceed 1,000 times the plaintiffs’ actual damages, and a great number of the settling defendants—perhaps most of them— are people who did not actually engage in file sharing, let alone copyright infringement through file sharing, and against whom no legally cognizable claim for secondary infringement could be mounted. However, they are settling because the alternative—protracted, costly federal litigation—is not possible for them.

As to the handful of defendants who have neither defaulted nor settled, most are pro se. Only a very few have had any form of legal representation. And in those instances where there has been representation, the attorneys are usually working pro bono, or on a basis closely resembling it, sometimes as a favor and sometimes even involuntarily.4

The courts of other countries—notably the Netherlands and Canada—are not clogged with these cases for the simple reason that they were quick to recognize the paucity of the RIAA’s evidence and refused to permit the identities of Internet subscribers to be disclosed to the record companies.5

(Excerpt) Read more at beckermanlegal.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: intellectualproperty; riaa; waaaambulance
Interesting paper found via the link at Slashdot.
1 posted on 07/30/2008 12:19:52 AM PDT by Schnucki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

I saw a bust on the news the other night..The guys surrounding the residence had RIAA on their black jackets, rather than BATF, DEA, FBI, POLICE.. I thought it was rather scary.

Is this like a private law enforcement agency that can kick in doors, or what?


2 posted on 07/30/2008 12:32:26 AM PDT by sockmonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

In other news...”Hundreds of thousands of defenseless American citizens are being prosecuted for shoplifting by aggressive big-box retailers!!”
Oh the humanity!


3 posted on 07/30/2008 12:41:23 AM PDT by Drago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki
"The large majority of the defendants have defaulted, and the default judgments against them have been in amounts that represent more than 2,000 times the actual damages sustained by the plaintiffs."

Nobody complains when judgments against big companies, doctors, hospitals, drug companies etc. exceed actual damages. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?

4 posted on 07/30/2008 1:25:28 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki
"The courts of other countries—notably the Netherlands and Canada—are not clogged with these cases for the simple reason that they were quick to recognize the paucity of the RIAA’s evidence and refused to permit the identities of Internet subscribers to be disclosed to the record companies."

What Canada did was tack on a tax of some sort to recordable media such as cd's in which recording artists share in the pool. Canadians as far as I know can still file share within Canada. I don't know if this has been changed recently or not.

5 posted on 07/30/2008 1:31:26 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

Bump for later.


6 posted on 07/30/2008 1:40:05 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Nope...”file sharing” (piracy/theft) is still illegal in Canada...the blank media “levy” goes to record companies/bands to pay for “the copying of pre-recorded music for the private use of the person who makes the copy.”

See: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html


7 posted on 07/30/2008 1:45:00 AM PDT by Drago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Canada is now trying to pass bill C-61, a DMCA more draconian than the American version, and with all the good parts Americans have come to enjoy. Huge fines, big restrictions on fair use, etc. And if it’s ever passed, you can be sure that we’ll still pay the levy.


8 posted on 07/30/2008 3:25:21 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

Smash the RIAA. By any means necessary!


9 posted on 07/30/2008 3:34:15 AM PDT by compound w
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crail

I read an article not so long ago about how the RIAA wanted to “plug the analog hole,” that is, the ability of music users to record an analong signal from any electronic device to a PC.

These people need to be stopped.

And don’t even get me started on the DVD industry!


10 posted on 07/30/2008 3:36:39 AM PDT by compound w
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Nobody complains when judgments against big companies, doctors, hospitals, drug companies etc. exceed actual damages. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?

At least the big companies have Legal Departments and law firms, and can make a defense.

What the RIAA members did was to create another litigation industry, but selected defendents and award levels where defense was not worthwhile or possible. 30,000 lawsuits at a settlement of $3000 to Make It Go Away has created a $90,000,000 cash cow.

It used to be called abuse of Process.

11 posted on 07/30/2008 4:38:35 AM PDT by Gorzaloon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Right; and those big companies, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc., pass those costs onto the consumer. The RIAA is not going after big companies. They are going after you, in your own home, downloading music for your own personal use.

You are neither buying it nor selling it. You likely would not buy it if it were not available through this means. Or, you will buy it anyway. There is no actual loss of revenue through file sharing. It is strictly conjecture on the part of the RIAA that if you were not file sharing you would be rushing to buy the CD. The opposite is more the case.

No, the RIAA and all its predecessors had the opportunity to stop this when the very first wire recorder was made. They had another big opportunity when the post WWII military was coming home from overseas duties with high end stereo systems and every conceivable recording tool. They made a half-hearted try when the digital tape recorder was developed and began commercial sales. The DAT was quickly overshadowed by the Compact Disc so the “problem” went into hybernation.

They failed to aggessively protect their copyrights because they “thought” it was too isolated to be an issue. Then along comes the computer and broadband and its a whole new ball game.

Stealing is stealing but is must be measured in the actual harm done. File sharing is not denial of use or access. I pay for the CD and the music on the CD. That music on that CD is mine. I paid for it. I share it everytime I play the CD and friends are over. I just can’t make copies and sell it as my own personal property.

In reality, though, by failing to aggressively protect their copyright over the history of the recording industry, the recording industry gave tacit approval to and was complicit in the “sharing” process. To change the “rules” now because they want to blame file sharing for loss of revenue when in fact it is because they have an abysmal product is simply wrong. To go after the public who do not have the financial means to adequately defend themselves is extorsion. It should be investigated under RICO.


12 posted on 07/30/2008 5:40:39 AM PDT by Tucson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey
I saw a bust on the news the other night..The guys surrounding the residence had RIAA on their black jackets, rather than BATF, DEA, FBI, POLICE.. I thought it was rather scary.

Not only does the RIAA get to wear those BATF-style jackets when it does a raid, but they alone get to sue anonymous people for infringement.

13 posted on 07/30/2008 11:20:31 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson