Recording Industry Looking At Bribing ISPs To Side With It Against File Sharing

from the incentives dept

At the MidemNet event this past weekend, there were multiple discussions concerning the role of ISPs in solving the recording industry's problems. Some believed that ISPs were obligated to be involved, some felt that ISPs should be totally separate, and then there were some viewpoints in between. However, one theme that popped up a few times was the idea that having ISPs acting as enforcers could "open up new business opportunities and revenue streams for the ISPs." That seemed a bit odd, because the ISPs would be spending time trying to crack down on file sharers and would be losing customers. However, now it's becoming clear what may be meant: bribes.

Well, more technically, they're calling it "revenue sharing." Thus, there are reports of ISPs being offered a deal, whereby they have to crack down on file sharing, kicking off file sharers -- but then get a split of any money obtained from music fans who pay up when challenged by an antipiracy company. I'm sure there are some ISPs that would be open to such a thing, but it won't stop a lot of angry users from looking for a more customer friendly ISP. Also, when your whole business model is based on squeezing people who don't have very much money in the first place, it's difficult to see this surviving very long.

Filed Under: bribes, isps, riaa

RIAA Just Can't Seem To Stop The Momentum On Filing Those Lawsuits

from the legal-inertia dept

On December 19th, it was announced that the RIAA was giving up on its legal strategy of suing individual file sharers, and instead was going to go with some mysterious agreements with ISPs (that no ISPs will admit to) to cut off those accused (not found guilty of) file sharing. In talking about it, the RIAA insisted that it had actually stopped filing lawsuits back in August. Of course, that was quickly proven to be not true leading the RIAA to clarify, saying that it hadn't started planning for any new lawsuits since August, but somehow couldn't stop lawsuits already in motion (this, of course, makes no sense).

Of course, now it's looking even worse, as on December 26th, well after it announced an end to the lawsuits, and insisted no more were going to be filed, a new lawsuit was served on an individual for file sharing. Apparently, the RIAA continues to have trouble with some rather basic facts. Saying you're not suing individuals anymore would be a lot more believable if, you know, you stopped suing individuals. Just saying...

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, riaa
Companies: riaa

RIAA Apparently Unable To Stop Lawsuits In Motion

from the legal-inertia? dept

Following last week's announcement that the RIAA was going to back off using mass lawsuits, some were pretty confused by the RIAA's subsequent claim that it had actually stopped filing such lawsuits back in August. In fact, it turned out to be an outright lie, as plenty of lawsuits had been filed pretty much right up until the announcement. However, the RIAA is now trying to explain its "no new lawsuits" message by claiming that it actually meant no new lawsuits in the pipeline. The ones filed since August were apparently already "in motion" and apparently in RIAA-land once you kick off the process of filing a bogus lawsuit based on flimsy evidence, the inertia is simply too powerful to pull it back and stop it from running its course. Or did I misunderstand the RIAA's statement on the matter?

The folks at the RIAA and at various major record labels have complained to us that we don't give them a fair shake, but every time we think about giving them the benefit of the doubt, they pull out some totally bogus claim like "no new lawsuits" and, when called it on, follow it up with a whopper about these legal wheels in motion, as if they had no way of stopping the lawsuits from actually moving forward. Do they really think that everyone is stupid?

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuit, riaa
Companies: riaa

RIAA's New Policy Isn't About Deterrence, It's About Sidestepping Due Process

from the it's-for-your-own-good dept

On Friday, the RIAA announced its plan to end their campaign of suing thousands of alleged downloaders; instead, it has negotiated with ISPs to disconnect subscribers who the RIAA identify as repeat infringers. From what little is known about the system, ISPs would pass along warning emails to the customers the RIAA claims are downloading copyrighted material. Following 2-3 warnings, subscribers would have their connection terminated.

Speaking to CNET on Friday, RIAA President Cary Sherman said that the tactical change was an attempt to deter would-be infringers. "The idea is to create deterrents. This deters people from engaging in illegal behavior." This is either misleading or mistaken, if the claim is that warning emails and the threat of having to switch ISPs is more of a deterrent than an incredibly expensive lawsuit. Unless the RIAA can convince ISPs to flood their subscribers with warning emails early and often, more people are likely to hear about the end of lawsuits and stop fearing potentially costly litigation or settlement.

The more likely reason for the change in approach is that the RIAA recognizes that the lawsuit approach has been an abject failure. Not only does it alienate fans, it is costly and rests on shoddy legal theories. As courts have begun to realize that IP addresses aren't solid evidence and that "making available" doesn't constitute infringement, the RIAA has been forced to realize that their goals don't align with thoughtful justice. So, what's a dying industry to do? Obviously, cut out those pesky judges and their principles of due process. Although Cary Sherman insists the wrongly accused will "have a place to go and make their complaint," the lack of specificity is as worrying as the RIAA's previous mistakes concerning their lawsuits.

Filed Under: due process, lawsuits, riaa
Companies: riaa

Record Labels Disobey Court Order On How Student Info Can Be Used

from the this-is-a-surprise? dept

Ray Beckermann points us to the news that in a lawsuit involving various record labels against some USC students, the record labels asked the court to help identify the students -- which the court granted on the condition that the only use of the student info would be to seek injunctive relief (i.e., get them to stop file sharing) rather than monetary relief. However, as LAist is reporting, it only took a few months for the record labels to, instead, demand money via a typical pre-settlement letter, that demands thousands of dollars to get the RIAA and labels to not sue you. This certainly appears to be contempt of court, going in direct contrast to the judge's order.

Filed Under: court order, injunctive relief, riaa, usc

RIAA Just Keeps On Suing Students: Conversation At The End Of A Gun Barrel

from the some-conversation dept

The folks at Warner Music Group insist that their efforts to convince universities to enforce a not-so-voluntary "usage fee" on all students is part of an attempt to start a conversation on new business models. However, they conveniently leave important stakeholders (those who would be forced to shoulder the bill) out of such a conversation, and have still refused to actually participate here in the conversation. So far, their only "participation" was having a PR person send a statement scolding me for daring to raise questions about such a plan. Apparently, the sort of conversation Warner Music wants is one where everyone lines up and agrees with Warner Music.

And, of course, it should surprise no one that the RIAA, where Warner Music has plenty of influence, is still out there filing more lawsuits, even as Warner insists it's turned over a new leaf and is looking for a more reasonable solution. In other words, this isn't a "conversation" at all. It's a protection racket. Warner Music and the other major record labels are just going to keep suing until people agree to hand them a big chunk of money, apparently.

So, Warner Music, if you really want people to believe that you've turned over a new leaf, and that you're interested in a real conversation about new music industry business models, how about you call off the legal dogs and stop filing lawsuits against both individuals and companies and actually participate in a conversation? We're still more than willing to help facilitate such a conversation.

Filed Under: conversation, lawsuits, riaa, students
Companies: riaa

RIAA Sued For Racketeering Yet Again

from the we'll-see-how-this-works dept

A few people have filed lawsuits against the RIAA for racketeering in the past, though these charges have always been dismissed. In one such case, where the filed charges were dismissed over the summer, new claims were filed again charging the RIAA with racketeering for extortion, mail fraud and wire fraud in its ongoing efforts involving weakly supported threats against alleged file sharers demanding money to avoid being sued. The file-sharing defendants are trying to turn this into a class action lawsuit on behalf of everyone falsely accused by the RIAA. Given the (lack of) success of all previous racketeering lawsuits on this topic, I wouldn't get too optimistic of this one going anywhere just yet.

Filed Under: extortion, mail fraud, racketeering, riaa, wire fraud
Companies: riaa

Judge Slams RIAA Tactics

from the about-time dept

Early on, in the RIAA's legal campaign against file sharers, it appeared that judges were mostly siding with the RIAA, and taking the RIAA's claims at face value. However, due to widespread backlash, and an improved understanding of how the RIAA's tactics are legally questionable, it appears that opposing lawyers have become much better at pushing back on some of the dubious claims by the RIAA, including the basis for the whole campaign. It's nice to see judges are beginning to recognize this as well. While we've seen it in judges rejecting RIAA arguments in court, in one case, it appears that Judge Nancy Gertner pointed out how ridiculous the RIAA's position was and suggested they stop their legal blitz:

"...counsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...."

The RIAA used to count on the "sympathy" vote in court, and played the role of a "victim" quite well (they're pirates! they're stealing!). However, it appears that many judges just aren't buying it any more.

Filed Under: judge, lawsuits, riaa
Companies: riaa

Judge Reject's Woman's Request For A Jury Trial; Orders Her To Pay RIAA

from the vexatious-indeed dept

Ignoring numerous other court rulings concerning whether or not "making available" is copyright infringement, a judge has rejected a woman's request for a jury trial in her file sharing lawsuit, and ordered her to pay the $7,400 fine already set. This was the case we had just discussed last week, where the woman claimed that the RIAA only had evidence that she had shared six songs, even though she admitted to making 37 songs available. There was already an agreement in place that the fine would be $200/song, so the real question was whether it should be $7,400 or $1,200. The woman argued that, in light of the Jammie Thomas mistrial and other rulings, the RIAA needed to show actual infringement, rather than just that the files were made available. Unfortunately, this judge rejected that argument and ordered her to pay the full $7,400.

Filed Under: making available, riaa, whitney harper
Companies: riaa

RIAA Calls Another Critic Vexatious After She Points Out Flaw In RIAA Logic

from the time-to-get-a-thesaurus dept

It appears that someone in the RIAA's legal team discovered the word "vexatious" lately and now likes to use it. First, the RIAA declared lawyer Ray Beckerman vexatious, and now it's trying to pin the same word on a woman who is demanding a jury trial in her battle against the RIAA. We had written about this case back in August, where the woman used an innocent infringement defense to try to get the fines for file sharing decreased. That is, she admitted that she had shared the files, but rather than accepting the $750 to $150,000/per song fines that might entail, she claimed that she had no idea what she was doing was illegal, and that the law allows for such cases to be reduced to a $200/song fine.

The RIAA initially pushed back on this, but eventually relented and let the judge set a $7,400 total fine, thinking that the case was pretty much wrapped up. Except... there's the problem of the Jammie Thomas mistrial ruling, which added to a long list of rulings that claimed that "making available" files wasn't necessarily infringement. So, the woman in this case, Whitney Harper, is now pointing out that the number of files she's "guilty" of infringing should be reduced based on the Thomas ruling. She notes that while she made 37 songs available for download (hence the $7,400 fine), the RIAA only has evidence that six songs were downloaded. Thus, she believes the fine should be reduced to $1,200, and would like a jury to hear the case. You can understand why the RIAA might be frustrated, but considering how quickly it rushes out to tell other judges in ongoing cases whenever one judge rules in its favor, it seems only reasonable to have a court reconsider this case in light of the Thomas ruling.

Filed Under: innocent infringement, lawsuits, riaa, vexatious, whitney harper