What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.129 Comments
- pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46Further proof the RIAA isn't for one second trying to protect the actual artists. It's really about control. They want to maintain the control they think they still have over music distribution.
Sorry, but as my favourite T-Shirt says: "Your failed business model is not my problem." - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Okay, I must have missed something. The subject of the article is "RIAA vs. Hollywood", but the article itself say that the MPAA (ie Hollywood) "filed an amicus brief supporting the RIAA's argument".
How does the MPAA supporting the RIAA equal RIAA vs. Hollywood???? - millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28It's just a matter of time until they pull a Sony and the RIAA sues itself...
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Where can I order that shirt?
I still like my "F the RIAA" bumper sticker more ;) - Pas3n7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Well the title of the article is "RIAA vs Hollywood in p2p case"
This is the most confusing article I've seen ever in my life:
"The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), in its blind obsession with profit, has allowed greed to get in the way of intelligence, provoking a massive, unwinnable confrontation with Hollywood and its MPAA, the American Association of Publishers and the George W. Bush administration in the shape of America's self-described Top Cop, attorney general Alberto Gonzales, all of whom are lining up against not only Barker and all the other RIAA victims out there, but against the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the trade associations which represent most of the giants of the internet and computer industries, says Beckerman."
If someone can make a diagram of that, I'll give you a cookie. ((RIAA vs MPAA/AAP/Gonzales) vs (RIAA victims/EFF/Trade associations))? I can't figure it out.
"Shortly after, the MPAA filed an amicus brief supporting the RIAA's argument, the American Association of Publishers requested permission to file a similar brief, and the United States Department of Justice wrote to the Court indicating the possibility of filing a "Statement of Interest"."
Now it's turned around? Excuse me while my head explodes. - pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19As requested above, you can get the T-Shirt here:
http://www.giantrobotprinting.com/store/shirts/commies/ccbusiness - wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16My favorite says "Home taping is killing the music industry! (and it's fun!)" with a tape and crossbones on it. :)
But that's a close second. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Did I misread something? I thought the article said that the MPAA and the Fed jumped into the case on the side of the RIAA
- Shopko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I think the whole "RIAA will shut down the Internet!!!! zomg1!!" thing is a bit of an exaggeration. But yes, the argument they're trying to make is pretty ludicrous. They want us to believe that merely having a shared folder on your computer is evidence of intent to commit copyright infringement... Yeah, that's not going to fly. Surely, no judge could possibly be stupid enough to let that argument fly, right?
tarzan99: Yeah, I got the same thing from the article. It seems the MPAA and others are interested in the RIAA's line of reasoning. Did we both miss something? :) - jas8522, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Haha, I bet one could make it happen. Something along the lines of finding an employee of the RIAA with a shared folder on their work computer, and sending the information about it anonymously to the higher-ups in the RIAA who don't know this employee actually works for them. Then all they have to do is take the bate and file a lawsuit. But then again, it would probably become more of a 'RIAA versus [insert name]' case, rather than against themselves.
Wait, what about all those dummy files they placed on Kazaa back in the day? That would require them to have shared something, and according to the claims presented in this article, having a shared folder should be against the copyright act... - smedrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The article is ridiculously confusing...and the author seems to have copied most of the content verbatim from another blog.
- pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Yes and we all know the Internet is American (tm).
- wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9After reading the story, this is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. This could end not only the Internet, but InTRAnets, home networks, everything. It's completely absurd, and something needs to be done about.
...Any ideas? - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14RIAA is like Jay Leno. Just when you think they've finished embarassing themselves, they ***** on their own shoes.
- snoozzell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10You didn't read the article. The MPAA is supporting the RIAA's argument that having a shared files folder is equivilent to copyright infringment.
READ: "Shortly after, the MPAA filed an amicus brief supporting the RIAA's argument, the American Association of Publishers requested permission to file a similar brief, and the United States Department of Justice wrote to the Court indicating the possibility of filing a "Statement of Interest"."
This means that all of those groups support the RIAA's argument. - InvisionUK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Geekee:
That may have been their argument, but they didn't word it that way. You know, I used to be a lawyer. In law, it's very very important to words things very very accurately and carefully. Otherwise you could have a huge mess on your hands.. kind of like this one actually. - sroske, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9This is the orginal article. It reads fine to me. I hope if the States' Internet goes then Canada's will remain. I am shocked the USDJ actually sided with RIAA in this case, or whatever a "statement of interest" means.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
On the Importance of Elektra v. Barker
This is a personal opinion piece by Ray Beckerman, who is one of the attorneys representing Tenise Barker in Elektra v. Barker. Thanks to Jon Newton of p2pnet.net who inspired it.
What is the most important RIAA case in the country?
Arguably it's Elektra v. Barker, pending in Manhattan federal court before Judge Kenneth Karas, a recently appointed judge who is a former federal prosecutor.
Not because there's anything different about the complaint -- it's the exact same boilerplate complaint the RIAA has used in 19,000 other cases.
Not just because Ms. Barker made a motion to dismiss the complaint -- i.e. attempting to stop the lawsuit in its tracks on grounds that would be fully applicable to ALL the RIAA's cases -- because there are probably a dozen other cases in which such motions have been made and are pending.
It is the most important case because the RIAA has made it so.
The RIAA apparently made a considered decision to choose this time and place to go for broke.
The RIAA -- seemingly deliberately -- provoked a massive confrontation, in which the MPAA, the American Association of Publishers, and the United States Attorney General, are lining up against not only Ms. Barker and all the other RIAA victims out there, but against the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the trade associations which represent most of the giants of the internet and computer industries.
Ms. Barker made a simple motion to dismiss the complaint, saying it did not give her adequate notice of the infringement she's accused of.
In response, the RIAA made its most shocking and outlandish arguments to date, claiming that merely having a 'shared files folder' on one's computer, and thereby 'making files available for distribution', is in and of itself a "distribution" and a copyright infringement. I.e., even if the recordings were legally obtained, and even if no illegal copies were ever made of them, the defendant is still guilty of copyright infringement.
Learning of this, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the U. S. Internet Industry Association -- realizing that if this absurd argument were accepted the entire internet might be shut down in the United States, since the internet is nothing more than a giant network of hyperlinks making files 'available', and also realizing that Ms. Barker doesn't have the financial resources to wage a full scale war protecting the entire internet from destruction -- were quick to file amicus curiae briefs pointing out to Judge Karas the absurdity of the RIAA's arguments.
Shortly thereafter the MPAA filed an amicus brief supporting the RIAA's argument, the American Association of Publishers requested permission to file a similar brief, and the United States Department of Justice wrote to the Court indicating the possibility of filing a "Statement of Interest".
All to collect about $6000 from a young nursing student who lives in the Bronx?
I don't think so.
Links to all the applicable litigation documents are collected under Elektra v. Barker in
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/04/index-of-litigation-documents.html and
http://info.riaalawsuits.us
(Fortunately, publicly filed documents are in the public domain -- last I heard -- so I can still lawfully "make them available" to you.)
-R.B. - trialofmiles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Can someone explain what the Elektra v Barker case has to do with Hollywood?
edit: Looks like this was already discussed above while I was reading the article. - jfritz828, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Don't blame Al Gore because you don't like his Internet... Go find your own!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You didn't read the article. The RIAA thinks having a shared folder in any case means copyright infringement. Thus, this was mean the Internet as a whole should be shut down because the Internet is just a network of hyperlinks, and such.
- Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Absolutely right pjh.
It's more than anything an indicator that they've completely lost perspective. They have become so obsessed with control and their own profit that they've forgotten what their original objective was.
So much for protecting artists and intellectual property rights.
I think it's time to shut them down, for stifling the consumer's choices, having anarchical rule over music which should be able to be used by the purchaser for whatever personal means they like, and being a terrible 'representative' of music artists and the industry in the US.
I smell a hollywood blockbuster..
Jimzip :D - chuckythe2651, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is insanity!!! These companies are going to tear down the net one service at a time. What is next blogs (they commonly use copywrited images or "stolen" news stories). RSS must really piss them off. The name alone probably offends them Really Simple Syndacation, that is just a breading ground for thieves looking to distribute copywrited material. Hell lets make it a little more generic. What about most webpages? You are telling me every picture on the net is licensed (except of course home pictures of course)? No of course not. You know...if we didn't have a net it would be next to impossible for copywrite violations...they should just take down the whole damn thing...so we can "Protect the Artists."
The freaking government has to get it's head of of the pants of these companies and stop this now! I have already forwarded this story to my Senators and Congressmen. All of you who love the net need to do the same thing. We may not have the money these freaking companies/associations have but we do have a voice. - GeorgeZimmer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9welcome to amerischwitz, where you leave your rights at the door along with the anal lube
- pr0t0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I know many here are just being sarcastic, but I often worry about the younger generation seeing this and getting the wrong idea.
Al Gore said the following: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." He was talking about putting the legislative policies and funding in place so that further research and private investment could be done when he was a Tennessee Representative 1977-85. Of course the other side of the isle and talk show hossts seized this as an opportunity for derision.
Snopes is your friend. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Not to be an Al Gore apologist or anything, it's just that this quasi-joke is so old. - InvisionUK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Again, I'm afraid the law does NOT read between the lines. If the prosecutor claims something, that later turns out to be invalid (for example, all shared folders on Earth do NOT contain copyrighted material) then it can have serious repercussions.
Of course not forgetting that the RIAA is so enormously huge they'll be let off with a slapped wrist. - CatfishJones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Apple Computers did just that.
http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_Accidentally_Sues_Itself - Bluezdood, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Exactly. Whoever wrote the tag either didn't read, or did read but didn't understand, the article.
- CreepingDeath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6just more proof how stupid people are, both the *IAA folks and the whoever posted this to Digg.
They better hurry up and sue Microsoft, Apple, Novell, Redhat, and anoyone else who makes/distributes an OS since they are just tools for piracy. I mean they can all share folders right? - jfritz828, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The issue is that the RIAA cannot prove that the woman willingly distributed files, or even that transactions occurred with her computer, yet they claim because she has a 'Shared Items' folder she is a distributor and they want their $$$ from her.
They have zero proof in this case, and the MPAA and DOJ are now jumping in to agree with the RIAA and take this woman down. - wtfunkymonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Anything short of a revolution would be ineffective, I'm afraid.
- matth1jd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6marked as inaccurate
- jfritz828, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is a lead in to having a copyright license on ALL documents and media in digital format, and DRM functionality determining if you are allowed to view it.
1984... Yeah right... That was a typo... It's here and now... You will not be allowed to read, listen, or view any content on the net without the exclusive permission granted by the copyright holder. - netmancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That would never happen. The **AA's could say whatever they want, but it's just baseless chest-thumping. Every corporate computer network has shared folders. Windows comes built with "administrative shares", hidden shares on your c drive. Like Microsoft is going to be sucessfully sued for the creation of the "File and Printer Sharing Wizard".. They can blow smoke out thier asses all they want, but sooner or later they're going to choke on it.
- Scotty87, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9you see the weirdest things happen in America
- Cabal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It is America after all...
- tony23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@wheremyarm "...Any ideas?"
Sue the RIAA.
Class action would be nice, but a ***** of small claims suits would be better (call it "Mass action"). Much harder to defend 10,000 different lawsuits filed in different states than ONE lawsuit filed for 10,000 clients.
Any ideas what the RIAA could be sued for? Even if it's just for $1? - nygscott, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8It's pretty disgusting when litigation takes the place of business foresight.
- diggerphelps, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I fail to see how this is the "RIAA vs Hollywood."
The RIAA and MPAA seem to be on the same side in this case, unless I'm reading it wrong.
"Shortly after, the MPAA filed an amicus brief *supporting* the RIAA's argument" - cypherz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yes. easy. don't buy music from outfits that pay the RIAA tithe. Only buy music from indie labels. I've been doing that for a while and I've never felt like I've missed out on anything important.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I just went to the RIAA web site. Isn't visiting a site going to a shared folder on a computer and receiving a file. Is that site a violation of what they trying to outlaw. If I downloaded the source of the HTML file, is that copyright infringement, or would I have to e-mail or share it to break the law.
- Strangers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In a way, I hope they're succesful in their case to actually underline how ridiculous they're being. Maybe then the majority will wake up. But even if they do win, the internet will never be "turned off" or "shut down". It's not going to happen.
- n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm surprised their case wasn't immediately dismissed for being ridiculous and moronic. Claiming that having a FOLDER on your computer amounts to infringement of their copyrights is ***** insane. If the RIAA wins this one, they have free reign to sue anyone hosting any files on the net, or even having a computer with a net connection.
- ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In response, "the RIAA made its most shocking and outlandish arguments to date, claiming that merely having a 'shared files folder' on one's computer[...] is in and of itself a 'distribution' and a copyright infringement,"
Not only can they all share folders, but WinXP has a Sharing Folder activated as a default when you create a new user. This is another reason the RIAA should sue Microsoft. I'd like to see that, the RIAA going against someone that isn't too broke to challenge them. Talk about an asswhooping. - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And as much as I dislike Microsoft, this will pit the RIAA directly against the incredibly deep pockets of Gates and Co., too. There's a decent amount of file sharing capabilities built into XP and Vista. I doubt Microsoft is too keen on having to recode all of that stuff.
- r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I think this deserves some kind of award for being THE most confusing article ever.
- Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You missed the point.....the claim was that having a 'shared' folder was a violation of copyright - not that you were actively sharing that folder. A shared folder could be to share on your local network to another PC you own, to sync with a portable device, etc. Likewise having files in a folder that you 'could' share on P2P is not a crime until you actually DO share them on P2P.
- xntrk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3having a file on your computer called shared documents, that allows you to share files is illegal? emm.....last time a check a windows XP install comes with a file called that. so if i put anything into it(i can't remember if it puts something in there by default or not) am i breaking the law?
the balls on the lawyers for the RIAA must be HUGE!!!
stealing music is illegal but suing everyone isn't going to make them buy more music, it would make them have less money with which to purchase music.....but really RIAA needs to find another way to do buisness that doesnt envolve suing its custormers and DRMing the ***** out of all the cds we buy.
bring back fair use, maybe we'll stop stealing, or at least like/respect you more - ole1kanobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If a file is not copyrighted by the RIAA and its in a shared folder obviously you can't be sue by the RIAA, duh."
Hate to break it to you, but I could sue G. Bush for peeping in my windows late at night.
Just because I bring a charge against someone in a court of law doesn't mean I am right or wrong, it just means I am suing on those grounds so if they wanted to, the RIAA could sue you for being stupid. It doesn't mean they are right or wrong, just the fact that they decided to sue you.
It happens all over America each and every day. Pick almost any county in any state that is close to the mean average population level and you will be sure to find some stupid lawsuit that someone filed that is completely ridiculous, but this is America and everyone gets their day in court, even if they are an idiot with a frivolous case. - bradisbest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If the RIAA happens to win this one, I believe that congress will have the sense to pass a low making it legal to use the Internet.
Am I hoping for too much? - trialofmiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@gukid
"It really bugs me that no one has ever tried to fight these lawsuits."
Didn't you read the article? Elektra v Barker is pending in Manhattan federal court, because Denise Barker is taking the case as far as she can.
For status on other RIAA lawsuits refer to
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com
or
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/ -
Show 51 - 100 of 129 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is