recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com — In Warner v. Stubbs, in Oklahoma, the defendant filed her answer and counterclaim against the RIAA on August 23, 2006. In it she likened the RIAA's tactics to "extortion".The very next day, on August 24, 2006, the RIAA turned around and asked the Judge for permission to withdraw its case:
Aug 25, 2006 View in Crawl 4
toupeeAug 25, 2006
>> "I am a firm believer that a majority of the people who are named in these lawsuits are actually guilty and should just pay up."Sure, the majority may well be "guilty", but of what? Downloading a few dollars-worth of music? It would be different if the RIAA said "All right, pay us $16 for that album, and $8 for this one." I mean cripes, it's pure profit; they didn't have to do basically anything - not even lose bandwidth. But instead they go around demanding thousands of dollars for what may well be a $22 loss. Thousands of dollars that go towards not the artists who are responsible for the music, but the crooked f**kers in charge of this increasingly-unnecessary organization.Sorry, but screw that.
blitzennAug 25, 2006
This is what had ought ot be illegal. RIAA is now obviously only going after people who cannot or do not have the means to fight back. Is this justice? Only the wealthy can afford to make RIAA back down? This indicates that real justice can only be bought. One-sided justice is free for all.
shredswithpiksAug 25, 2006
oh noes! unauthorized lyrics!
sophiaperennisAug 25, 2006
Finally we move one step closer to getting the judges to understand the wrong-doings of the RIAA extortion tactics. We're not there yet, but we'll get there one step at a time.
bjason82Aug 25, 2006
Here's a crazy idea as a way to fight back against the RIAA... quit buying CDs.. Everyone complains about their tactics but they're still making millions, if not billions every year. At this point I would much rather pirate music out of spite. Plus, if you're smart about it you wont be a target...they go after file uploaders, not downloaders.
mrmatchgameAug 25, 2006
RIAA= PUSSY!!!!!!
gd007Aug 26, 2006
It is profit for them.
treborAug 26, 2006
get up, stand upstand up for your right-bob marley
raybeckermanAug 27, 2006
Yes each individual sued can go into court, demand a jury trial, and defend him or her self. Each federal courthouse has a special "pro se" clerk whose job it is to assist "pro se" litigants (i.e. litigants who do are representing themselves). The problem is that some people are just not comfortable doing it.There is also a compromise between representing yourself and being represented by a lawyer: you can represent yourself but have a lawyer advising you in the background.
Closed AccountSep 11, 2006
> Kind of hard to presume someone is innocent when > they get a letter in the mail with their IP > address and proof that they were sharing files > from that IP since it is their ISP that they > subscribe to at home. You're buying into the RIAA's arguments that an IP address identifies a person and a filename is proof of copyright infringement.Is "sk8er boi.mp4" an Avril Levigne video or is it a funny video of my friend wiping out at a skate park? The RIAA doesn't even download the files to check. They see a name and extension and assume that it's copyrighted material owned by a record company.Was I the one offering Coldplay music on a filesharing network, or was it my neighbor who was using my WiFi connection? The RIAA makes a presumption that it was me -- despite the fact that almost all consumer WiFi routers ship wide open with no encryption.Could the file even be downloaded? Again, the RIAA makes a presumption: If the name can be seen, the file can be downloaded. Yet I know that there are people who have offered files that can't be downloaded (gets them past the anti-leech mechanisms in much of the P2P software).> The court system of this country needs to lay out > a procedure to cases like this. If someone is > found guilty of sharing a movie for instance, then > the person should be forced to pay some kind of > damage plus court costs. If the person is found > innocent, then the company should be forced to pay > court costs. As it stands, court costs have to be > paid for by someone other than the taxpayers.And, if the RIAA loses, it should pay for all reasonable legal fees for the defendant. It should also have to pay for the damage caused to the defendant's good name. It should also have to pay for the time that the defendant had to spend on the case. And it should pay for the defendant's "mental anguish" caused by the lawsuit.> Having the RIAA pull a number from their asses > isn't a solution to settling out of court either. > I can't see a solution to this to be honest. It is > their product, so the cost of not going to court > should be dictated by them. Or should it be?I say that it should not be. The court system should not be used as part of an extortion scam. If the damages requested were reasonable (say, $50/song or less), then it would be prudent for an innocent person to take the case to court, but the RIAA asks for huge sums and the defense attorneys are telling their clients "whether you did it or not, if you are found liable for damages, you'll be financially ruined for life -- so settle for $3,750. Plenty of innocent people have been found liable in civil suits."> At the same time though, copyright > infringement is happening. The RIAA should have a > legal right to protect their property.They do have that right, but they are perverting the entire legal process by filing cases that they never intend to prosecute in a court of law. Rather than file one case per defendant, they file hundreds at a time as a single case. It is complete BS for them to press lawsuits that they then back out of at the first sign that the defense is not going to roll over.> So what is > the RIAA supposed to do? See above.> You talk about people's > life savings being taken from them, if they were > found guilty in courts of law would you still feel > the same way?No. In a court of law, juries of their peers decide what are fair compensatory and punitive damages. Award amounts are not set by the plaintiffs.> You would think after many errors and alienating > their customers, the RIAA would have started > scaling back on the lawsuits. Maybe only going > after those they KNEW were breaking the law. > Instead, they are spamming the system with a load > of lawsuits which do nothing but make them look > bad. I sure hope the government sees this kind of > abuse taking place and kicks the crap out of the > RIAA soon. Thats what this is....abuse.On that, we agree completely. And I'll go further: The RIAA should ask for reasonable penalties. Not $.99 per song, but not $50K per song, either. If the defense wants to go to trial, the RIAA should show up in court and finish what they start instead of dropping the suit to avoid having a judge actually make any rulings about the legality of what they are doing.> On the other side you have the people who think > they are entitled to any software, music, or movie > out on the internet. They think that because it > exists on P2P, it should be their right to > download. Of course, the company that OWNS the > product they are downloading had better not say > anything or else they are a bunch of Asshats. Then > you have the people who claim they are boycotting > the RIAA, which is fine by me. They say that the > RIAA and MPAA put out nothing but a crap product. > Then, these idiots go download the music/movies to > view/listen to at their convenience. Hippocracy at > its best! All true. But let's not ignore the fact that the RIAA consists of a bunch of monopolies. Yeah, I know that sounds contradictory, but hear me out. If your favorite band in the world is The Goo Goo Dolls, then you have only one source for their music: the label on which they are signed. You can't just choose to prefer, say, the group Train, if the label charges too much for the Goo Goo Dolls, puts DRM on the CDs, or otherwise makes it difficult or expensive to get the music.And the record companies have been taking advantage of this for years. I remember when CDs first came out. LPs cost about $7.99 and the CDs were priced at about $15. "Higher cost to produce" they said. Well, now CDs can be pressed for a few pennies, but have you seen the price drop down as manufacturing costs dropped? Heck no.> I apologize for my negative attitude earlier. Sorry for seeing this so late, but I wanted to tell you that I've got a lot of respect for you. It's far too infrequent that someone apologizes on here, and you're a good man for doing so. It is a lot easier to argue your position than it is to really consider the other person's argument.