digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at blog.wired.com

RIAA Critic Publishes a Paper on the RIAA Litigation Process

blog.wired.com — New York attorney Ray Beckerman, an outspoken critic of the Recording Industry Association of America, has acquired the ear of thousands of federal judges nationwide. His lengthy must read paper, "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless" chronicles RIAA litigation start to finish from the investigative stage to the eventual lawsuit payment.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kipin, on 07/29/2008, -1/+50Thank you Ray Beckerman!
  • PHiZ187, on 07/30/2008, -1/+21Read/subscribe to Ray's blog: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
  • PoorNTx, on 07/30/2008, -1/+33I'm no lawyer, but I read the entire paper and agree that it is a "must read".
  • Skelly11, on 07/30/2008, -1/+65Dear Ray

    Thank you for your fight against the RIAA

    Sincerely

    the Internet
    • scoot2006, on 07/30/2008, -1/+4*Interwebs
    • hexydes, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1More like:

      Sincerely,

      America (and possibly the world)

      Just because copyright law is important to the Internet right now (due to it being the medium most often used in these cases), that doesn't mean that it does not spill over into every other facet of our lives. The judgments passed in these cases create precedent which can be then used by the illegal RIAA to cite in future cases that may or may not have anything to do with the Internet.
  • TheUKDigger, on 07/30/2008, -8/+24***** THE BPI,
    ***** THE IFPI,
    ***** THE RIAA !!!!
    And long live the Pirate Bay!
    • shutaro, on 07/30/2008, -10/+5Two of my best friends were killed by them, you know.
    • Mohonri, on 07/30/2008, -2/+8You know, you had credibility until you mentioned the Pirate Bay.
      It's important to separate the two topics: piracy (illegal in the US, and the RIAA/MPAA/etc have the right to fight it) vs. abuse of the legal system (the topic of this article).
      I'm all for fighting the RIAA's questionable or illegal use/abuse of the courts. I also think that copyrights are ludicrously long, and need to be shortened. However, I also believe there's nothing wrong about having the legal ability to pursue those who infringe copyright. While the Pirate Bay provides a very valuable (and, occasionally, legal) service, a vast majority of its users visit with the sole intent of getting something for nothing.
      • migshark, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3The Pirate Bay does host legal content too, you know. The article also includes opinions on how difficult it is for anyone to actually place the blame on a human being, rather than a computer - hell the article says a lot more than just his concerns over the abuse of the legal system.

        The fact is, the misconduct of the record companies is largely due it being near-impossible to convict a pirate legally. That has knock-on connotations whether you like it or not IE: piracy is unstoppable/incompatible with the legal system thus it would be impractical to prohibit it.

        The article is the groundwork to legalize piracy and protect people's rights to privacy. It may very well not be his wish to see piracy legalized, but this is likely to be used by someone with that agenda.
      • hexydes, on 07/30/2008, -0/+31. The Pirate Bay does not host any content, only torrent files. Very important to note that.

        2. Piracy is a direct result of the RIAA and MPAA doing things like extending copyright from 20 years to whatever it is now (like 120 years, not like it matters since it will just be extended again). This is what happens when you try to control information. Copyright was injected into our Constitution originally to give an author (an author being someone who created a work, not an organization that essentially owns thousands of artists) a short period of time to capitalize upon their unique work in our monopolistic economy for a short period of time. The purpose of this was to encourage people to continue to create unique pieces of work so that they could be fairly compensated for a short amount of time. It wasn't made so that they could live off of one song for the rest of their life, and it CERTAINLY wasn't made so that multi-billion-dollar corporations could form an illegal cartel and use it to sue tens of thousands of American citizens.

        If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, I would recommend keeping him away from guns, because I'm pretty sure we'd be looking at Revolution #2.
  • Hueylewis, on 07/30/2008, -0/+4Glad someone is standing up to them. I am assuming he is RIAA specific and doesn't deal with the MPAA? If we could get someone to stand up on that front, filesharers could hopefully get the legal advice they need to stand up to the big time corporate lawyers!
    • Tomchei, on 07/30/2008, -0/+5Well to the MPAA defense, the RIAA went after anyone who touched a computer.
      The MPAA really went after the people who were caught uploading, distributing DVDs, or camming in theatres.

      Still don't like either of them.
  • Twinked, on 07/30/2008, -3/+10Very insightful read. Thanks Mr. Beckerman!

    Obligatory: ***** THE RIAA!
  • aladrin, on 07/30/2008, -1/+10Beckerman has been following the RIAA for quite some time now and doing what he can to thwart their evil (and questionably legal) tactics. I'm glad there's an at least 1 lawyer out there that actually cares about this country and isn't just in it for the money.
  • TheUKDigger, on 07/30/2008, -12/+7Digg this down if you love the RIAA
  • jsd8cc, on 07/30/2008, -1/+26"'The concern of this court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants.'
    —Judge S. James Otero,
    Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. v. O’Brien, 2007.1"
    http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/080729LargeRec ...

    I think that pretty much sums it up right there.
    • mikephimikephi, on 07/30/2008, -3/+1yeah, I stopped reading the .pdf after that point too
      • hexydes, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2You shouldn't have; though that paragraph is a pretty damning summation of the RIAA, there is a lot of good specific evidence presented later on.
  • dupswapdrop, on 07/30/2008, -2/+11Stop buying music, stop funding them, they are still making piles of money or else they couldn't afford to keep suing people!
    • bwdd, on 07/30/2008, -5/+7You realize they GET money from suing people, right?
      • BDOUG, on 07/30/2008, -0/+7Right, but the amount they get compared to sales & royalties is a drop in the bucket, and their attorneys don't work for free.
      • bdbr, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Actually a label exec testified in court that they lose money on these lawsuits because the costs are so high.
    • IKORKYI, on 07/30/2008, -1/+3by not buying music you're just hurting the artist (and their label). I think that labels steal too much money from the artist, but that is a second issue.
      • tjowens, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3If you want to support musicians buy their merch. (T-shirts, posters, etc.)Since the bands get effectively zero bucks from you buying their albums and all the profit from their merch it is a much more direct way to help them out.
      • hexydes, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3Too bad, that's what you get for working with the RIAA and their member corporations. Maybe if they're not making enough money they should go out on tour.
      • IKORKYI, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2it didn't used to be that an artist had to go on tour to make themselves some money. it used to be that the tour supported the album, not the other way around. take radiohead for example. they realize that they make next to nother from album sales, so they figured out that if they give it away for free, there's virtually no hurt to them, but a huge benefit to the fans. THAT is the way you kick music execs in the balls.
    • bdbr, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2Don't stop buying music, just stop buying music from RIAA labels.
  • augmental, on 07/30/2008, -1/+7Good read. It is amazing to me that the courts would allow these clowns to do this to people. ..."But we have his IP address and this screenshot from his KaZaa session your honor"...give me a break. It's too bad that most people just pay out, although I know that it would be a time hassle to go the other route.
  • Zeraw, on 07/30/2008, -9/+0***** THE RIAA! Two of my friends were killed by them!
  • XtheXlanternX, on 07/30/2008, -2/+16Buy directly from the band. Support your local scene.
    • dizavin, on 07/30/2008, -2/+2but... local bands are almost always terrible.
      • xXShadowstormXx, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3... no they are not, not always.
      • XtheXlanternX, on 07/30/2008, -2/+2Hey genius, all bands came from somewhere.
  • rhartman, on 07/30/2008, -1/+8After reading Ray Beckerman's article, I'm amazed that some intrepid crusader of a lawyer has not initiated a class action lawsuit against the RIAA for their abusive litigation and tactics. They have thoroughly "gamed the system" to suit their needs and some sort of redress is required.
    • maz2331, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Give it time. Ray will probably be the guy too.
  • oboredone, on 07/30/2008, -6/+1Good read, but damn it I hate PDFs.
    OoO and ***** the RIAA.
    • BDOUG, on 07/30/2008, -0/+5Try FoxIt reader or some other 3rd party reader. Far less obnoxious than Adobe Reader.
  • Ymeg, on 07/30/2008, -8/+2God bless the RIAA
    ***** you, two of my friends died from pirating.
    Downloading music should result in the death penalty.
    Digg up if you love kittens and puppies.
  • levelred, on 07/30/2008, -1/+5Someone buy this guy a lap dance!!!
  • jeremyduffy, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3Anti RIAA gets immediate digg.
  • mkoby, on 07/30/2008, -0/+6I wonder what percentage of Digg users actually know that downloading music you didn't pay for is quite illegal? The issue of the RIAA lawsuits is not whether or not they have a right to sue those violating copyright laws but rather the methods by which they acquire data and the John Doe lawsuits they are clogging the court system with.

    I don't agree with the RIAAs methods but they, as representatives of their industry, do have a right to sue those found to be violating copyright. I'd just rather then sue actual people rather than "John/Jane Does", have proof of actual criminal activity, and make sure that the proof can be back up with facts not misunderstandings of technology and play on words (ie "Making available").

    Does anyone on Digg actually understand this? I just want to make sure that the issue is with the tactics the RIAA uses rather than the question of if they have a right to sue/prosecute that legitimately infringe.

    FYI I totally support anyone who will fight for fair-use, and legitimate use of purchased media (I bought it I should be able to do what I want with it within fair-use). I also support alternative distribution methods being utilized by bands like NIN and Prince. Lets take back the music by bypassing the labels who only care about the money and not the art.
    • hexydes, on 07/30/2008, -0/+4The problem is, the "law" has been written and paid for by the RIAA. Copyright was meant to provide a limited period of time for individuals to capitalize upon their unique creations. Eventually, the industry changed from being individual-oriented to studio-oriented, and eventually when the bigger studios bought and consolidated their way to the top, they formed a cartel, called the RIAA. The sole purpose of the RIAA is to give the member studios power and protection. The protection came in the form of extending copyright from 20 years to 120 (currently) years. The power is now coming from being able to walk into court and sue 100 John/Jane Does without even a sniff of credible evidence to their suit.

      Piracy is a direct response to the RIAA's artificial manipulation of the market. If you have sympathy for the fact that they should be able to sue people for copyright violation, it is ill-placed because the RIAA has twisted and contorted the original spirit of the law for their own intentions of maintaining an iron fist over the media industry.
      • dizavin, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1actually... no. Copyright Law was designed so that the individual can scratch a living off of their own creations and have a leg to stand on when facing outright piracy. the problem with the RIAA, is with the labels that employ them. the copyright that a songwriter holds once a song has been written and submitted to congress (or Parliament, if your from canada or the united kingdom) but record labels demand that you waive that copyright and sign the song over to the label, as a condition of your contract with, said label. the artist doesn't own or generate money from the recording. the label does. and the label then cuts the artist a percentage of the revenue, as part of the deal. (one of the other parts is that the label picks up the bill for actually MAKING the album. witch, in the past, was known to be expensive as hell.)

        piracy isn't a direct response to the RIAA, it's the complete opposite. the RIAA is simply a heavy-handed reaction by a group of people getting screwed by technology that they don't understand or can't keep up with. being able to sue someone for violating a copyright that you own is WHY we have copyright, in the first place. it deters piracy.

        you have it all wrong. piracy IS a problem and people SHOULD stop doing it. if you think CD prices are too high? buy from iTunes instead! if you think the quality in your record store's selection sucks? buy independent! vote with your dollar, people!

        jesus, even I, myself, used to work at a record store until it had to close it's doors and let the whole staff go across the whole company, because of you people.

        stealing music because you're too cheap to pay for something you love is not "fighting the good fight". it's theft.
    • dizavin, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3eh.. I've been preaching the same logic for months now and it's like throwing potatoes at a brick wall.

      the article is about how an IP address an unlicensed "investigators" are screen-capping information in an Azeureus or Kazaa windows and using that loose information to build a potentially devastating legal case against someone. but everyone on the internet wants to believe it as a "get away with theft" blank card.
    • maz2331, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1It's all about the abuse of the process and one-sided "interpretations" of the law, not condoning the likely infringers.

      I see it as almost identical to the uproar we see when cops beat someone without good cause, or charge a "frame-up" criminal case and are caught in a lie under oath.

      It's the same objection to torture and indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" without recourse to the courts. I have less than zero sympathy for any Al Qaeda members whatsoever. Shoot em in the balls, let 'em bleed slowly to death, and feed their bodies to hogs for all I care. BUT... it's necessary to prove it first. And prove it honestly and in an open court subject to public scrutiny.

      It's the same as the outrage you feel after learning that the Innocence Project has freed over 200 people from capital murder and felony rape charges.

      There is a reason for Due Process, and it's a damn good one. It's to keep from making bad mistakes that really hurt innocent people, even if a few baddies get away.



  • hexydes, on 07/30/2008, -0/+4While this is a FANTASTIC criticism of how the courts are currently being manipulated by the RIAA, as well as a well-constructed recommendation of how they should handle such predatory cases in the future, after reading the entire document, I can't help but think that the root cause of all this is simply that copyright in the United States is broken. This is brought up a lot, but looking at all the nonsense that this article is having to defend against just shines a light on how broken the copyright state is in America. When we have a system in place that allows one cartel of four multi-billion-dollar corporations to come together and sue tens of thousands of American citizens based on nothing more than a number that links to them, that's proof enough to me that the system is broken.

    My recommendation:

    Step One: Throw all copyright law out.

    Step Two: Re-implement copyright as it was originally laid out in the Constitution of the United States of America (i.e. twenty years).

    Step Three: Make resources available to those in the branches of government (especially the judicial branch) that are spelled out plainly, clearly, and simply that will help them make informed and proper decisions in regards to technology.

    The RIAA (and other similar illegal cartels) are destroying our country. The government is supposed to represent and protect the people that put it in place, not let a select minority manipulate it to their own ends.
  • RayBeckerman, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3Thanks for your support.
  • UnleashX, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3The problem is they charge $350 to $10,000 PER $.99 song.

    The RIAA is just extorting money from college kids and grandmas. They target people who cannot afford to fight the charges in court and they use questionable tactics to get their evidence.

    STEALING MUSIC DOESN'T HURT MUSICIANS! It hurts the recording companies who are already stealing from musicians. Many artists use free downloads to promote themselves. Benny and Benassi, Kid Rock, and Nine Inch Nails.. to name a few.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.