Judge Says That Making Available Is Infringement... RIAA Pounces Immediately

from the one-step-backwards dept

One of the key points in the various lawsuits that the RIAA has filed against people for file sharing is whether or not the RIAA can prove actual copyright infringement. Many have argued that there needs to proof that an infringing file was actually distributed -- otherwise, there's no violation under copyright law, which requires "distribution." The RIAA, of course, feels that just making a file available is enough to be considered distribution. It's not a settled matter of law with some judges ruling that making available is not distributing, but others feel the other way. In the latest such case, a guy who was defending himself without a lawyer (generally not such a good idea) failed to convince a judge that making available wasn't distributing. Unfortunately, in not getting good representation, this ruling is now in the books, and the RIAA immediately used it to push other judges to rule the same way. Luckily, the defendants in those other cases do have lawyers, who are questioning the original ruling by pointing out that the guy didn't have a lawyer, the judge made incorrect references to other cases and that the judge never showed how making available qualifies as distribution under the law.

Filed Under: copyright, making available, riaa
Companies: riaa

After Putting Mixtape Creators In Jail, Universal Realizes It Needs Mixtapes

from the produce-your-own-crappy-ones dept

Remember back in January, when a SWAT team, at the direction of RIAA officials, raided the studio of a well known DJ and mixtape artist in Atlanta? This seemed like quite the overreaction to a system that had been known for its successful promotion of many RIAA-backed artists. However, after the DJs were arrested, the entire market was on notice and many mixtapes stopped showing up in the marketplace. In other words, many new acts lost a valuable channel for promotions. So what's a record label like Universal Music to do? Apparently start making its own mixtapes with some DJ that no one's ever heard of. Despite throwing the competition in jail, it seems that this attempt to coopt the mixtape space isn't working very well. The first Universal-backed mixtape has sold less than 6,000 copies since being released over a month ago and many record stores have very little interest in carrying it. Next time, perhaps the RIAA folks will ask the record labels they represent before throwing one of their biggest promoters in jail.

Filed Under: djs, mixtapes, record stores, riaa
Companies: riaa, universal music

Tonya Andersen Trying To Turn Her Lawsuit Against The RIAA Into A Class Action

from the might-not-be-the-best-idea dept

Tanya Andersen has been fighting back against a bogus RIAA lawsuit for a while, and got some attention earlier this summer when she accused the RIAA of breaking the law with its investigation technique. It's also one of a few cases that have questioned whether or not the RIAA's settlement offer process can be considered illegal racketeering. However, she's now looking to turn her lawsuit into a class action case, covering all of those who have been sued by the RIAA. It may be quite difficult to convince a judge that this really deserves class action status, but if it gets that far, it'll certainly be fun to watch. It's been pretty clear for quite some time that the RIAA is abusing the process by making it cheaper to settle than even to defend your innocence (which sounds mighty similar to the classic shakedown). However, whether or not you can build a class out of those offered settlement deals (or sued) isn't entirely clear. But, if it can actually get somewhere, then it might finally make the RIAA recognize that it's practices are questionable. So far, every time someone has accused them of anything like this, they just try to get out of the case and move on to suing others who are less likely to fight back.

Filed Under: class action, racketeering, riaa, rico
Companies: riaa

Michelle Santangelo Sues Kazaa, AOL And Anyone Else She Can Think Of For Her Getting Sued By The RIAA

from the questionable-lawsuits dept

We've been following the story of Patti Santangelo and her family's fight against the RIAA for some time -- but the latest moves by the Santangelo family seem a bit scattershot. Santangelo, of course, was one of the first people to fight back against a bogus RIAA lawsuit. This was fantastic, as many others simply settled, rather than going through the trouble of fighting the questionable charges (especially in cases where parents were sued for the actions of their kids). A year and a half later, the RIAA finally admitted it didn't have any evidence against Patti Santangelo and dropped the case (and tried to get out of paying her legal fees), but then quickly sued her kids instead. This wasn't a huge surprise. The RIAA had been secretly investigating her kids for some time. However, the response of the kids has been a bit questionable. Patti's son Robert's response included every argument in the book against the RIAA -- including a number of weak ones that could hurt his case more than help it. There are a few strong arguments that can be used against the RIAA. Including a bunch of very weak ones probably doesn't help. Now, Patti's daughter Michelle is taking a similarly broad approach, not in responding to the RIAA, but in blaming everyone she can possibly think of for the fact that she was sued by the RIAA. She's filed lawsuits against Kazaa, AOL and the guy who installed Kazaa on her computer, saying they were all complicit in getting her to share copyrighted content, without warning her of the consequences. This is an incredibly weak argument that hasn't gotten very far in the past. This lawsuit just makes it look like she doesn't want to take responsibility for her own actions.

Filed Under: kazaa, liability, music, riaa, santangelo
Companies: aol, kazaa, riaa

RIAA Ignores Court Ruling Over Bogus File Sharing Suit; Doesn't Pay Up Legal Fees

from the maybe-if-we-pretend... dept

In Capitol v. Foster, one of the many RIAA lawsuits where it was later determined that the record labels sued the wrong individual, the judge decided (reasonably) that the RIAA should be responsible for the defendant Debbie Foster's legal bills. This makes sense. She was incorrectly accused with flimsy evidence. It seems only reasonable that the wrongful accuser should pay the legal bills. Of course, as it always does, the RIAA asked the judge to reconsider, and the judge smacked the RIAA down with some pretty harsh words, chastising a number of RIAA practices. Apparently, this ruling stung so much that the RIAA simply decided to ignore it and not pay up Foster's legal bills. She's now asking the court for judgment, so she can go after the record labels for payment of the money owed. This seems doubly amusing (not to Ms. Foster, of course) when you consider the lack of leniency the RIAA provides to those it wants to pay up. Remember the MIT student who was told by the RIAA she should drop out of school and work in order to pay an RIAA fine? Perhaps it's time for the RIAA to get a real job as well, so it can afford to pay its fines.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuit, legal fees, riaa
Companies: riaa

Who Cares How Many Discs Counterfeit Operation Could Have Made?

from the why-focus-on-that? dept

Information Week is reporting on two men who were sentenced to jail for what is being called the "largest CD and DVD pirating scheme to be prosecuted in the United States." From the evidence, it certainly sounds like these guys were counterfeiting all sorts of music, movies and software, so there's nothing wrong with them being caught, found guilty and punished. What I do find interesting, however, is how the various industry associations have been spinning this story (and how the press is accepting it without question). Since these guys were arrested, the story has been how they had equipment that could have made 300 million pirated CDs and DVDs. Note the "could have" part. Because, in reality, authorities only seized a bit less than half a million. It's still significant, but it's less than 0.2% (not 2%, but 0.2%) of what's going in the headlines. In theory, any DVD/CD burner could produce millions of counterfeit discs -- but that's not news. Why is it news in this case?

Of course, this is par for the course for the industry. Remember when the RIAA wanted to count high speed CD burners as multiple burners in trying to boost the size of a bust it made? Or when the MPAA claimed they seized $30 million worth of DVDs when in turned out to only be about $10,000? It seems they like to blow these things out of proportion with big, totally unsubstantiated numbers. Of course, that lets them make the laughable claim that each of these busts is "a significant blow" against piracy when nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, as we've seen, all these CD/DVD counterfeiting shops are facing a much more "significant blow" from the competition from free downloads. Yet, of course, the Information Week piece carries a quote saying that "It cannot be understated how significant it has been." Actually, I'd say it's been significantly overstated.

Filed Under: cd, copyright, counterfeit, dvd, movies, mpaa, music, riaa, software
Companies: mpaa, riaa

German Prosecutors Tell Entertainment Industry They Won't Help Going After P2P Users

from the petty-offense dept

We've never quite understood why in the US and some other countries, a civil matter between businesses and their customers should require help from public law enforcement. However, that's what happened with copyright issues, as the entertainment industry has been able to get various law enforcement organizations from the FBI to SWAT teams to work for them. They've also got the US's top cop proposing legislation for their benefit. However, it looks like folks in Germany have a very different view. Public prosecutors in Germany are apparently telling entertainment industry lawyers that they won't help the industry track down file sharers, noting the "obvious disproportionateness" of trying to go after people for file sharing, and noting that unauthorized file sharing was merely "a petty offense," while pointing out that, despite industry claims to the contrary, "there was no evidence that substantial damage had been done." In other words, they're saying that the German gov't shouldn't get involved in a private business squabble from an industry that is blowing file sharing totally out of proportion -- especially when there's little evidence that file sharing is actually doing any harm. Sounds like a pretty reasonable position.

Filed Under: copyright, germany, riaa
Companies: riaa

Eminem Publisher Suing Apple When It Should Be Suing Universal Music

from the wrong-target dept

We've had plenty of folks submitting to us the story that Eminem's publisher is suing Apple over Eminem songs available on iTunes. It's getting some play around the tech news and tech blog world, but everyone seems to be missing the key point. Eminem's publisher is suing the wrong party. No one denies that Universal Music Group, who distributes Eminem's music, gave Apple permission to sell his songs on iTunes. What's in dispute is if Universal had that right in the first place. In other words, it's a contractual issue between Eminem's publisher, Eight Mile Style, and Universal. Suing Apple seems to just be for the publicity of it. However, what this does demonstrate is how ridiculous it is whenever anyone presents the RIAA's views as "the music industry's views." The RIAA represents the labels, and not the musicians and not the music publishers in many cases -- all of whom have different goals. And, clearly, the label often does things that the other components of the music industry just don't like. However, it's a bit sad that Eminem's publisher has decided to sue Apple rather than the publisher with whom it has a distribution contract. In fact, the complaint is nearly identical to one that a bunch of bands filed last year. It's just that those bands (such as the Allman Brothers and Cheap Trick) had their lawyers actually sue the record label (in that case, Sony Music), rather than Apple.

Filed Under: copyright, eminem, itunes, riaa
Companies: apple, universal

RIAA Backs Down Slightly After Being Countersued For Trying To Shame Man Into Settling

from the yet-again dept

If you hadn't noticed by now, the RIAA will go to great lengths to get people they accuse of file sharing to "settle" a case before it ever goes to court -- especially when the evidence they have is especially flimsy. However, with the threat of much bigger fines as a possibility, many people feel compelled to simply pay up and move on. Luckily, some people fight back -- and the RIAA almost always ends up backing down when the facts are presented. The latest such case takes place in Tennessee, as pointed out by Ray Beckerman. A soldier was accused of unauthorized file sharing for six songs, but in the evidence filed with the court, the RIAA lawyers included screenshots showing 4,600 files from the guy's computer including pornographic content. The guy claims that this clearly has nothing to do with the case, but is a situation where the RIAA is abusing a copyright infringement claim to try to shame the guy into settling. He still insists he's innocent and that lots of other people had access to his computer at the time the charges refer to. After countersuing over this issue, the RIAA has now backed down from listing the 4,600 files and is now only showing 367 sound recordings that it believes are infringing. Rather than admitting that it was abusing the lawsuit to pressure the guy into settling (and this change is due to the countersuit), the RIAA's lawyers claim they've made this change as a "professional courtesy." How nice of them.

Filed Under: abuse, copyright, lawsuit, riaa
Companies: riaa

Why Does The RIAA Hate Webcasters? Webcasters Don't Play Very Much RIAA Music

from the nothing-like-a-little-competitive-pressure,-huh? dept

Back in March, when the word came out that the new royalty rates for webcasting were much higher than in the past, we were confused. After all, webcasting helps promote music -- so why would the RIAA (and its SoundExchange spinoff) want to set rates so high that it would kill off this promotional channel? The answer isn't that hard to figure out. Traditional radio, of course, is dominated by a few similarly formated stations that all play RIAA-backed music. 87% of the music you hear on the radio is from an RIAA-member record label. However, when it comes to music on webcasts, the story is quite different. Jon Healy, at the LA Times, points out that only 44% of music on webcasts are from RIAA labels. This, at least, based on the findings of Live365, one of the larger webcasting services out there. So, with more than half the songs coming from non-RIAA labels, no wonder they're less interested in keeping webcasts alive. And, of course, the situation really is a win-win for the RIAA (in the short-term). It either kills off those webcasters who don't contribute to the homogenization of music, or it forces them to pay large sums even if they only play non-RIAA music. Of course, this is a strategy guaranteed to backfire in the long run, as it simply pisses off even more music fans who will simply look elsewhere for music.

Filed Under: music, radio, riaa, webcasting
Companies: riaa