The RIAA's Playbook: No New Business Models Without RIAA Ownership

from the it's-that-simple dept

Mathew Ingram covers the details of Muxtape's run-in with the RIAA. As you may recall, last month the rather useful site that let people create online "mix tapes" that could be streamed to others was shut down thanks to the RIAA. The site's founder has now admitted that he tried negotiating with the RIAA, but that it was nearly impossible. The RIAA's representatives started the "negotiation" by saying they were about to shut the site down, and then complained to Amazon (whose S3 service hosted the files) to get access to the files blocked. Now, that concerns me for a few reasons. I had created a Muxtape when it first launched, but it had no RIAA label music on it. So, why would Amazon block access to it?

However, the real point of the post is just to highlight how the RIAA views these things. As has been discussed, the RIAA wants to shut down these types of sites. By now, we've seen the pattern over and over again. The RIAA has always been unable to actually innovate with its own online offerings -- in large part because the record labels still think about how to control the music and how to limit what consumers can do with it. So, instead of learning what's innovative, the RIAA has simply decided on a two pronged strategy: (1) get every new and innovative site shut down and (2) offer them one way to return: if they hand over a big chunk of equity.

Very few people seem to be talking about this, but most of the "agreements" that the big labels have reached with various new and innovative sites have involved handing over equity. Basically, the record labels are using a protection racket system: give us some equity, or we'll shut you down. Of course, all this is really doing is slowing down much needed innovation in the music marketplace. Instead, we get bells and whistles like MySpace Music (owned, in part, by the major record labels), rather than something truly useful and innovative.

Filed Under: bullying, business models, music, negotiations, riaa, startup
Companies: muxtape, riaa

RIAA Goes After Ray Beckerman, Demands Monetary Sanctions

from the wow dept

If you follow the various RIAA lawsuits against music fans over unauthorized file sharing, you certainly know the name Ray Beckerman, a lawyer in New York who not only has defended clients against the RIAA, but runs a wonderful resource, called Recording Industry vs. The People, that keeps people informed on various issues and cases related to the RIAA's campaign. We don't always agree with Beckerman, though we do side with him in the vast majority of cases. He is fighting an important fight, standing up for people that the recording industry has often unfairly bullied through the use of questionable legal tactics and flimsy evidence. Before Beckerman came along and took a very public stand, exposing the RIAA's playbook, there was almost no one in the legal community standing up to cry foul at the RIAA's actions.

Apparently, the RIAA has had enough of him, however, and has filed motions against him directly, asking that he be declared a "vexatious litigant" and demanding monetary sanctions. Specifically, the RIAA is claiming that Beckerman made false statements, sending the RIAA off on tangential efforts, while trying to block every effort by the RIAA to obtain the evidence it needed in the case. Plus, the RIAA's lawyers are not at all happy that Beckerman posted all of the motions he filed to his blog, claiming:

Finally, as this Court is aware, Defendant's counsel has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass Plaintiffs. Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions.

While it's unclear how much truth there is to the false statements claims, complaining about the blog is simply ridiculous. From the beginning of the RIAA's legal campaign, its own executives have always insisted that the lawsuits were part of an educational and PR campaign to promote that downloading was illegal. On the whole, the entire filing has the feeling of sour grapes on the RIAA's lawyers' part. They don't like that they lost, and they hate the fact that Beckerman keeps exposing their tactics and flimsy evidence. Clearly, he's getting under their skin a bit. It was much easier suing music fans with questionable evidence when no one was standing up for them.

Filed Under: lawsuits, ray beckerman, riaa, vexatious lawyer
Companies: riaa

RIAA Exec Jumps To The ESA: Expect Lawsuits Against Video Gamers

from the what-sort-of-references-does-he-have? dept

You would think that anyone taking an objective look at the RIAA would recognize what a complete disaster the organization has been over the past decade. It's fought off every new innovation in the marketplace (remember, it tried to kill off mp3 players as illegal), alienated a huge number of its biggest customers and failed to do much to actually get the industry in a position to capitalize on new distribution and promotional methods created by the internet. In other words, it's done plenty to hurt the industry while doing almost nothing to help it. You would think that might make folks in similar organizations think twice about hiring execs from the RIAA, but perhaps not.

The Entertainment Software Association -- basically the RIAA for video game companies -- has apparently hired a high level RIAA exec. And not just any high level exec, but the guy who was in charge of the RIAA's disastrous litigation efforts. The ESA hasn't been as widely reviled as the RIAA or MPAA (or even the BSA), but it has had its run-ins with folks in the past. And, of course, it was just about a year ago that the ESA's boss was whining that he wished more countries copied the DMCA. No wonder Davenport Lyons is having a field day suing people for file sharing video games. It appears that the video gaming industry is looking to follow in the footsteps of all the RIAA's mistakes.

Filed Under: esa, kenneth doroshow, litigator, riaa
Companies: esa, riaa

And Another Useful Online Music Service Shut Down By The RIAA

from the one-by-one dept

Ever since it launched, people have waited for the RIAA or its member record labels to go after Muxtape. The site allowed individuals to upload MP3s that they had and create a streaming "mixtape" of music. It was actually a pretty cool way to hear new music from individuals you trusted -- just like sharing mixtapes back in the 80s. You might think that, perhaps, the recording industry would recognize how successful mixtapes were back then in promoting certain bands, and wouldn't freak out about an online version. But, of course, this is the RIAA we're talking about. While the details aren't clear, Muxtape has shut itself down, claiming that it needs to get some stuff sorted out with the RIAA. There is always the possibility that it's doing this to get extra attention, but if we take the company at its word, then it seems likely that the usual pattern is happening. An RIAA label is demanding some ridiculous license fee, and threatening to sue if it doesn't get it. If it's a label like Warner Music, it's probably also demanding equity in the company. Either way, it will be interesting to see if Muxtape ever comes back, and what the details of its "resurrection" will actually be.

Filed Under: copyright, mix tapes, riaa, streaming music
Companies: muxtape, riaa

Woman Who Claimed RIAA Infringement Damages Were Unconstitutional Settles For $756/Song

from the cheaper-to-settle-than-to-fight dept

We were a bit surprised last month when Denise Barker, who had been fighting the RIAA in a file sharing lawsuit decided to take the strategy of admitting guilt but challenging the constitutionality of the Copyright Act. That seemed like a longshot that was unlikely to play well in court -- especially a court that had already decided against her in interpreting the whole "making available" thing. So, it should come as little surprise that Barker has agreed to settle, rather than fight on, even if her lawyer, Ray Beckerman was more than willing to keep fighting.

The settlement comes to $756 for each of the eight songs she's accused of sharing, and the details of the settlement work out that she'll be paying $110 per month for 55 months (running through February of 2013). That adds up to $6,050, which I imagine will put a crimp on Barker's spending on actual music. While she did break the law, and admitted to breaking the law, the punishment does seem way out of line with the "crime." It's arguable that she did any "damage" at all to the recording industry, as there's a decent chance that she actually helped promote certain artists.

Filed Under: copyright, denise barker, lawsuit, riaa, settlement
Companies: riaa

Universities Realize That The RIAA Is Taking Advantage Of Them In Lawsuits On Students

from the pushback-time dept

We never quite understood why various universities were cooperating with RIAA demands that they send "pre-litigation" letters to students accused of file sharing. These non-binding letters are often used to pressure students into paying fines, even if they're based on weak (at best) evidence of file sharing. It certainly wasn't in any university's best interests to basically help out a private organization in a business model dispute with its students. Yet, some university officials, falsely convinced by the RIAA that this was more than a business model dispute, decided to help out. And the response? The RIAA has increased the flood of notices, and then convinced Congress to move forward on legislation that would legally obligate universities to act as the RIAA's copyright cops.

It appears that more and more universities are realizing that they got shafted. The EFF points out that there's widespread anger among university officials who felt they were trying to find a middle ground by cooperating, but instead find themselves swamped with more and more notifications and this new legislation that increases their legal liability over a business model dispute. And, the worst part? Now that they're pushing back in court, the RIAA points out that dealing with these notices before wasn't a burden, so universities aren't being truthful that they're now a burden. How's that for a thank you for helping out originally?

If it hasn't become clear by now, the RIAA doesn't view universities as partners in all of this -- and any university that thinks of the RIAA as a partner is about to get steamrolled by the RIAA legal machine. It's time that more universities stood up not just for their own rights, but the rights of their students as well not to be targeted by questionable "pre-litigation" threat letters without more significant evidence. And, it wouldn't help for the RIAA to finally recognize that this entire battle has done nothing to deal with the real issue: its own inability to recognize that its business model needs to change.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, music, riaa, universities

Ray Beckerman Picks Apart RIAA Lawsuits For Judges' Benefit

from the nice-work dept

Ray Beckerman, as you may already know, is a lawyer in New York who not only has defended numerous people against RIAA lawsuits, but also runs the Recording Industry vs. The People blog, where he chronicles what's going on in these cases. While I believe he sometimes pushes the envelope too far in his claims about what the RIAA is doing, there's no denying that he's been a tremendous force in shining some much needed light on some of the RIAA's more questionable activities, while also helping those who are severely outgunned in various lawsuits.

As numerous folks have sent in, Beckerman has now also written up something of a primer for judges in The Judge's Journal, a publication of the American Bar Association targeted at judges. It basically explains the many problems with the way the RIAA conducts its lawsuits, noting how it often uses questionable means, weak evidence and general bullying tactics in filing its cases. It also relies on the fact that it comes off as more credible than an individual (often defending themselves -- sometimes in jurisdictions far from home). Beckerman highlights all of the problems with the way the RIAA runs its cases, and makes a series of quite reasonable suggestions for judges in how to handle such cases should they show up in court. It's a good guide, that also highlights many of the underhanded tactics that the RIAA uses in filing its cases. It's well worth a read if you haven't seen it elsewhere.

If I have one complaint, it's the same one I leveled against John Duffy recently. While the article does mention Beckerman's website, it does not mention that he represents many clients against the RIAA (including in ongoing trials). That would appear to be something of a conflict of interest, in that he's making a bunch of suggestions for how judges should basically side with his arguments in those cases. I guess I'm learning that such "disclosures" are generally not considered necessary in the legal community.

Filed Under: judges, lawsuits, ray beckerman, riaa

Once Again (With Feeling): RIAA Told To Pay Tanya Andersen's Legal Fees

from the pay-up,-fellas dept

Despite suing the wrong person multiple times, the RIAA has always pushed back when asked to pay for the legal fees of those wrongfully sued. Tanya Andersen has fought back pretty hard on that claim (and then sued the RIAA separately on other charges as well). Despite multiple tries, the court has repeatedly sided with Andersen pointing out:

Copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs specifically, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement claims as plaintiffs did in this case. Plaintiffs exerted a significant amount of control over the course of discovery, repeatedly and successfully seeking the court's assistance through an unusually extended and contentious period of discovery disputes. Nonetheless, after ample opportunity to develop their claims, they dismissed them at the point they were required to produce evidence for the court's consideration of the merits..... this case provides too little assurance that a prosecuting party won't deem an infringement claim unsupportable until after the prevailing defendant has been forced to mount a considerable defense, and undergo all that entails, including the incurring of substantial attorney fees.

Back in May, the court again sided with Andersen on the issue of legal fees, and has now entered its final ruling telling the RIAA to pay up nearly $108k to cover Andersen's legal fees in defending herself all these years.

Filed Under: legal fees, riaa, tanya andersen
Companies: riaa

RIAA Goes Judge Shopping After One Judge Actually Pushes Back

from the sneaky,-sneaky,-sneaky dept

The RIAA has been known to pull all sorts of tricks over the years to get what it wants, but this latest one may be the most sneaky of all. Last week, Ray Beckermann was notified that the RIAA was dropping one of the cases it had filed against one of his clients, Warner v. Cassin. In that case, a judge had been reviewing a dismissal motion, and appeared to find Beckermann's argument that "making available isn't distribution" compelling. So, perhaps it wasn't a huge surprise that the RIAA dropped the case before they lost it. But, then, a day later, Beckermann discovered that the RIAA had refiled the identical case in the same court, but rather than using the defendant's name, Cassin, it had filed it under a John Doe complaint, as if they didn't know who the defendant was. As such, the case got handed to a new judge. Basically, it appears that the RIAA didn't like where one judge was heading with the case, so got it dismissed and immediately refiled the case (potentially under false pretenses) and had it handed to another judge. Beckermann, of course, has made all of this clear to both judges -- but it seems incredibly sneaky that the RIAA would even think to go that far. Hopefully the court recognizes this judge shopping for what it is.

Filed Under: cassin, judge shopping, making available, ray beckermann, riaa
Companies: riaa, warner music

Would You Believe Copyright Infringement Notices Are Based On Faulty Information?

from the and-that's-against-the-law... dept

This has been pointed out before, but never by an academic study: it turns out that many of the infringement notices that get sent by the big entertainment companies are based on incorrect information, often accusing perfectly legitimate content of being infringing. The study, by some professors at the University of Washington, proved that the notices are sent, rather haphazardly based on whether or not an IP address participates on a file sharing network -- and not whether or not it actually uploads or downloads any content. Specifically, these researchers set about to monitor file sharing networks themselves, and introduced a software agent that watched over what was happening -- but which did not actively upload or download anything itself. But what happened? The researchers received 400 notices claiming that their IP address had participated in unauthorized file sharing. Basically, as suspected, the industry watchdogs merely list out (easily faked) IP addresses, and use that as their entire body of evidence to file a claim.

So, while this isn't that surprising, it's even more proof of just how flimsy the RIAA/MPAA evidence is when they file these suits. Even worse, when this information is the basis of DMCA takedown notices, it's potentially a violation of the law -- as part of filing a DMCA takedown is swearing that you have proof that infringement occurred. The scary thing is that all of this has been pointed out to the industry before -- and yet the folks involved still seem to think that they are above the law. For all their moralizing about "pirates" not obeying the law, you would think that they would be careful about making sure they weren't breaking the law themselves. Apparently not.

Update: Realizing I left out the best part. In showing how the IP addresses can be easily faked, the researchers used the IP address of three laser printers who were then accused of "making available" unauthorized material. Somehow, I get the feeling this particular research paper is going to find its way into a variety of legal battles in the near future.

Filed Under: dmca, file sharing, flimsy evidence, infringement, mpaa, notices, riaa, university of washington