recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com — In SONY BMG v. Merchant, in California, the defendant's lawyer wrote the RIAA a rather stern letter recounting how weak the RIAA's evidence is, referring to the deposition of the RIAA's expert witness, and threatening a malicious prosecution lawsuit. The very same day the RIAA put its tail between its legs and dropped the case.
Mar 27, 2007 View in Crawl 4
smartitguyMar 29, 2007
We seriously need to make way more effort and devote more time to saying/writing f**k THE RIAA.There are only a measly 44,000 instances of it on the web.<a class="user" href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22f**k+the+RIAA%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=">http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22f**k+the+RIAA%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=</a>
geekitechtureMar 29, 2007
Yes, but that's probably why it worked (less than perfectly professional wording). Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the horns.Think about it, the RIAA acts just like a school yard bully, pushing the quiet, humble kids around, becoming more brazen and bold as it wins more "fights," striding around with a c**ky attitude that can scare almost anyone.In the face of that, what do you do? Pretend you're the lawyer and the RIAA is bullying your client just like a kid. Do you respond the way most of the "kid's" lawyers do -- mumbling some weak words, deferring the caae to a later point in time, trying to remain "invisible" to the c**ky adversary you're up against? Or do you finally get up in his face, on behalf of every "kid" who's fallen before him in the past, and tell him "what time it is?"If you choose the latter (I'm so glad this lawyer did) do you speak weakly and humbly, or do you use bold and confident language that gets right to the point and makes no bones about who appears to be right and wrong in this case? His attitude and demeanor were perfect. I salute him for a job well done.
ozydingoMar 29, 2007
Although some of the things in this letter obviously don't apply to everyone getting sued by the RIAA, it would probably be a good idea to take a lesson from this letter. Print it out and bring a copy to a lawyer you can afford, see what (s)he can get from it that (s)he wouldn't have thought of already, and attempt something similar. There's a lot of good material in here, and a lot of ideas to look for in terms of case precedents--I believe some of them were specifically CA state cases so I'm not sure of their applicability to other states, but it would be a good idea to look for similar cases that do apply.
ozydingoMar 29, 2007
@powerpants & OPQuite right on the middleman point. The "problem" that the record labels face is not that p2p and downloading threaten to promote rampant pirating. It is that they threaten to make music distribution much easier for the independent musician. This cuts them out of the profit loop. It makes their business utterly and wholly useless, save for perhaps a little extra strength in the marketing they're able to offer. But as file-sharing and uncontrolled, decentralized music downloading really take hold, they no longer dominate the market of music distribution. Any musician will then be able to more effectively market their music without needing to sign a contract with one of the big labels. They don't actually believe that each download is a lost sale and hundred more as others download from that downloader thereby necessitating civil litigation to recoup losses. They're trying to protect their monopoly, and perhaps make a little money while they're at it. Nothing more.
ozydingoMar 29, 2007
They too often sue without enough evidence for your point to be valid. Whereas I'm sure a lot of people they do sue are in fact guilty of filesharing, they are not acquiring the evidence that they are. It'd be like the cops pulling people over randomly and charging them with speeding. It's very likely that they have been speeding at some point during their trip, but unless they clock them or have other evidence they can't charge them for it.And it is fine to hate those who take advantage of wiggle-room in the morality imposed by a legal system. A legal system cannot be perfect. If you find a way to behave immorally while still behaving legally, I can still hate you for it. I can also be displeased with the legislators that allowed such a loophole or moral ambiguity, but they're not the ones being immoral, you are.
sh0rtbus56Mar 29, 2007
wtflol its still stealing. dumb bitches
alabamawandererMay 6, 2007
Quite strange I couldn't see any graphics in IE7 or FF.
cliffordmerkelMay 14, 2007
Awesome. But I'm not surpised.
barbe66May 26, 2007
Smoking Aces! Good stuff, i hope they have a lawyer insurance ;)<a class="user" href="http://www.sanderskissler.com">http://www.sanderskissler.com</a><a class="user" href="http://www.travelinsurance2000.com">http://www.travelinsurance2000.com</a>