RIAA countersued

[abc-123]

@dcsos:

@celtic_druid: actually I meant if no sign was posted at all in the first place, but on second thought, you're right, it was a bad example. Ok, here's another.

Is it considered littering if you spit on the sidewalk in the U.S.? It is here and you can get ticketed/fined for it. But is it considered littering if you do it in the middle of nowhere surrounded by a forrest and only a few feet away from some beaver poop? When you're born and raised in the United States or Canada, at what point does someone pull you aside and explain to you that spitting on pavement is illegal? Get my drift? A good sneeze can cost you a heafty sum in the city and you wouldn't ever have known it until the fine was demanded. You would have had no way to prevent this fine if you can't afford to pay it and had you known what the law was, you might have obided by it. But the point is that nobody ever explained it to you. Same thing with the tv caps. The average person does not know the finer points of law nor the obscure laws. How is it fair to demand restitution from them in that case?

[DVD_NDN]

I'm in northern Ontario myself.

I'm personally aware that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In most cases, where the crime is not 'serious' (yes I know- then where does the line become drawn that defines 'serious' vs not) the law enforcement officials will often let it go with only a warning.

Conversely, it is clear that a warning is somewhat of a charity - its not expected nor should it be.

As far as international visitors go, I would think that it would become a matter of diplomacy once a charge is laid. I recall a case a few years bacl where a young man was caned for spray-painting grafitti in... was it thailand - regardless of where - he pled ignorance did he not? And still, despite pleadings from diplomats, including the Pope himself (john-paul II), the sentance was still caried out (Though I do believe it was lessened..).

In recent memory an australian woman who was visitng ... oh geeze, I cant recall, it was an asian/subasian country I believe, she was charged for bringing in large quantities of marijuana. Pot, she claimed was not hers, and must have been put there by a stranger in the airport. Her sentance was carried out none the less (And again due to international diplomacy, her sentance was lessened I believe).

All I'm saying is that I think its established that once you enter another country you become subject to their laws. It is up to the individual to become aware of local laws so as not to break them.

If I broke a law in another country, I would probably do the same as most others too (being honest) I would plead ignorance, innocence, and cry to my canadian embassador, in hopes that the charges be dropped, lessened or something....

[BobK]

@AlecWest: there is still an argument for vicarious or contributory copyright infringement but it will take many years before our society is considered computer literate enough so as to hold someone liable for failing to secure their network.

I would hope that doesn't happen until they also hold you responsible for bank robbery when someone steals your unlocked/unsecured card and uses it for their getaway.

[GullyFoyle]

"Americans like to talk about (or be told about) Democracy but, when put to the test, usually find it to be an 'inconvenience.' We have opted instead for an authoritarian system *disguised* as a Democracy. We pay through the nose for an enormous joke-of-a-government, let it push us around, and then wonder how all those ******** got in there."
-- Frank Zappa

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
--- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, by Robert Heinlien

Pretty much sums it up.

[GullyFoyle]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051004-5382.html

Brace yourselves, this is where it really starts to get freaky. In her countersuit, Anderson claims that the Settlement Support Center acknowledged the probability of her innocence, but informed her that should she refuse to settle, the RIAA would proceed with a suit in order to discourage others from attempting to defend themselves against unwarranted litigation.

Lets have a look at the countersuit:

Despite knowing that infringing activity was not observed, the record companies used the threat of expensive and intrusive litigation as a tool to coerce Ms. Andersen to pay many thousands of dollars for an obligation she did not owe. The record companies pursued their collection activities and this lawsuit for the primary purpose of threatening Ms. Andersen (and many others) as part of its public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.

The record companies have falsely represented and pleaded that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen's alleged downloading and distribution of copyrighted audio recordings. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment

If what she says is true, it means that the RIAA is using the threat of litigation to extort monolithic amounts of money from innocent consumers. The very prospect sends shivers down my spine, but is it true? Would the RIAA really attempt to defraud a disabled woman out of her meager social security income? If the RIAA does in fact perpetrate extortion on massive scale, it would constitute one of the most horrendous acts of large scale corporate fraud ever recorded and it would utterly annihilate the credibility of the politicians that have expressed support for the RIAA's anti-piracy efforts. Is the RIAA an evil empire driven by inhuman avarice, or is 42 year old Tanya Anderson a gangster rapping pirate in search of an easy way out?

Anderson isn't the only one crying foul. Employees of Kim's Video and Music Store in New York claim that they were wrongfully arrested in June on bogus piracy charges when New York Police Department officials and RIAA representatives raided the store. Econoculture, a web site devoted to the defense of modern music culture, has a chilling article containing numerous allegations of egregiously unlawful behavior purportedly perpetrated by the RIAA and law enforcement agents.

According to the article, the police officers may have confiscated CD-R discs legally produced and burned by independent artists, simply because the discs did not look like the legitimate, recorded CDs distributed by RIAA member companies:

RIAA regional officer Kenneth Rivera, who worked as an undercover agent on the Kim's case, identified the store's mix tapes and CDs as piratical, testifying in an affidavit that they "listed unfamiliar company names, do not display the name of the owner of the copyright, have packaging inferior in quality when compared with legitimate discs," and because "many are recorded on CD-R media. Legitimate recordings released by RIAA member companies do not release their recording on CD-R format."

Ironically, Rivera's breathless description of his pirate bounty sounds an awful lot like the run-of-the-mill product that any college band would put out as their own. The investigator obviously hasn't attended a basement show or visited a dance club in the last decade or two. One thing that readers can divine from his statement above is that he knows the CD-R format-the latest accessible recording tool-is allowing bands to bypass the label system altogether. That's a big no-no to RIAA's board of directors.

If the article is to be believed, it indicates that, in an attempt to crush their only competitors, the RIAA uses law enforcement agencies to wrongfully arrest individuals that legally distribute content produced by independent musicians!

The sheer depravity of it all inspires cynicism. If the RIAA is found guilty of fraud and extortion, I bet that SCO will sue them for infringement of a business methods patent.

To borrow from South Park " Those Bastards!"

[junkmalle]

If the RIAA is found guilty of fraud and extortion, I bet that SCO will sue them for infringement of a business methods patent.

Now that's funny!

[beric3236]

Maybe we could sue them for being a cartel - they do fit the description, but then they have an ace in the hole. To wit: We have the best justice system and the best goverment in the world that money can buy.

[painkiller]

To add to the mix, I would like to describe an event that happened to me 8 to 10 years back.

This is a demonstration that not everyone is on the side of "right" - even though it would appear that they should be.

--------

Upon arriving home from work, the days' mail included a collection notice. The return address indicated somewhere in Minnesota.

The details of the enclosed letter said my wife was seen by a doctor at a local hospital over three years prior - and that we never paid the bill.

Both of us did not recognise the doctor's name, nor could we figure the reason my wife would have been in that hospital at that time. (Just didn't add up.)

I called the collection agency and explained I would like more information.

I made it a point to be entirely rational and pleasant. Unfortunately, the woman on the other end of the line would not cooperate, nor was she pleasant.

After that, I had to wait until a workday to call the local AMA offices.

After doing that, the person there said I was the fifth person in a row to call about the same, exact situation involving the same doctor and hospital.

Here is what I learned from that incident.


1) What appears to be official, may yet be a mistake - or worse yet, a criminal attempt. The end results largely depend on you, and how you handle it. (Since that incident, it was reported in our local paper of a doctor attempting extortion by means of false billing.)

2) In the state of Maryland, there is a 3 year statute of limitations concerning individual's purchase/payment receipts. In other words, beyond those 3 years, you do not have to present such documentation to prove your payment, nor can you be held by an accuser attempting to force you to pay such a past claim older than 3 years.



Lastly, and what I am about to add here everyone likely knows, what can be placed on the internet isn't always the absolute unvarnished truth.

As an example, the person who added their message to this thread with a logo and username giving the appearance they were a part of the RIAA ... now why on earth would I believe that?


One more tidbit, a large part of the time - the news you hear and read never really tells you 100% of the whole story. They can't. Not enough time/space to do so.

[somebodeez]

Very good point, Painkiller.

[GullyFoyle]

2) In the state of Maryland, there is a 3 year statute of limitations concerning individual's purchase/payment receipts. In other words, beyond those 3 years, you do not have to present such documentation to prove your payment, nor can you be held by an accuser attempting to force you to pay such a past claim older than 3 years.
.

I beleive medical bills are exempt from that. Medical bills are for life.
federally all bills have to be off your credit record after six years. Except medical.

Somewhere this morning I saw that Riaa salaries have been leaked. They were outrageous.

[painkiller]

No.

[Neroon]

Well we have no way of knowing if the counter - allegations are true. If they are then i'd expect some politicans to "adjust" their posistion on file - sharing laws. Their 1st priority is getting re-elected. That means they need big money support, but may never be percieved as business henchmen.

[BobK]

I recall a case a few years back where a young man was caned for spray-painting grafitti in... was it thailand - regardless of where - he pled ignorance did he not?

No, not exactly. He was 18 years old and he knew that vandalizing cars was illegal- so he didn't pled ignorance. He did claim that he was ignornant of the penalty- meaning that he figured if he got caught then he might get a good talking to like he would back home, but he didn't think he'd get any real punishment.

[Sillyname]

In this post-911 world, you have to expect that certain personal rights will be surrendered, willingly or not, to keep the country safe.

I found a terrorist under my skin last night.

Should I try to back him out with a match or use nail polish remover to smother him?

[AlecWest]

On October 6th in this topic, I posted this:

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1385252&highlight=#1385252

and Adam responded:

...there is still an argument for vicarious or contributory copyright infringement but it will take many years before our society is considered computer literate enough so as to hold someone liable for failing to secure their network.

Well, it didn't take years ... but the current response seems to be way too little and way too late. And, the very first person to post a "talkback" response to this blog article pretty much said so:

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=1857

About the only thing I can think of that would "solve" the issue would be to require all persons using wireless routers and NICs to buy NEW routers/NICs - encrypted in such a way that the NICs can only recognize the router it was bought with. Could such a law be in our future?

[GullyFoyle]

I wonder if this falls under the RIAA umbrella
http://boingboing.net/
Sony's EULA is worse than their rootkit
If you're unfortunate enough to buy music from Sony, you may think that the worst thing they'll do to you is screw you by infecting your computer with malicious rootkit software. Not so! Rootkits are only the beginning. If you want to see how Sony really gives its customers the shaft, have a look at these conditions in the license you have to agree to when you put a Sony music CD in your computer:

1. If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That's because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.

2. You can't keep your music on any computers at work. The EULA only gives you the right to put copies on a "personal home computer system owned by you."

3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids "export" outside the country where you reside.

4. You must install any and all updates, or else lose the music on your computer. The EULA immediately terminates if you fail to install any update. No more holding out on those hobble-ware downgrades masquerading as updates.

5. Sony-BMG can install and use backdoors in the copy protection software or media player to "enforce their rights" against you, at any time, without notice. And Sony-BMG disclaims any liability if this "self help" crashes your computer, exposes you to security risks, or any other harm.

6. The EULA says Sony-BMG will never be liable to you for more than $5.00. That's right, no matter what happens, you can't even get back what you paid for the CD.

7. If you file for bankruptcy, you have to delete all the music on your computer. Seriously.

8. You have no right to transfer the music on your computer, even along with the original CD.

9. Forget about using the music as a soundtrack for your latest family photo slideshow, or mash-ups, or sampling. The EULA forbids changing, altering, or make derivative works from the music on your computer.

Someone tried to tell me the other week that the iTunes Music Store's days were numbered, because the music industry would shortly begin selling tracks directly to the public. Oh. Really. Does a company that makes you agree to terms like these, a company that infects your computer with malicious software, seem competent to offer a service directly to the public? The music companies are like high-strung obnoxious rock-stars -- they need a buffer, like an agent or a retailer, to sit between them and the people who pay them. If we were to have to deal with the music oligarchs directly, the experience would be so toxic that 100 percent of the world would turn into Kazaa downloaders in 30 days. Link

[ROF]

1. If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That's because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.

Correct. Since you no longer own the original you are no longer entitled to the music. Hopefully you have insurance which will allow you to re-purchase the CD and reinstate your right to have the music stored on your personal computer.

2. You can't keep your music on any computers at work. The EULA only gives you the right to put copies on a "personal home computer system owned by you."

Most workplaces forbid you to install software on their machines. You are at work to work not listen to your tunes.

3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids "export" outside the country where you reside.

That is a governmental policy, not exclusive to Sony or Audio recordings.

4. You must install any and all updates, or else lose the music on your computer. The EULA immediately terminates if you fail to install any update. No more holding out on those hobble-ware downgrades masquerading as updates.

Read your software title licenses. Most include this as well. It's their way of ensuring you have the best experience with their media. While this isn't always the case, it's not an exclusive sony requirement.

5. Sony-BMG can install and use backdoors in the copy protection software or media player to "enforce their rights" against you, at any time, without notice. And Sony-BMG disclaims any liability if this "self help" crashes your computer, exposes you to security risks, or any other harm.

I highly doubt it says this in those words, but Yes all software and media include a clause about the company not being responsible for any damage caused by installation of their software.

6. The EULA says Sony-BMG will never be liable to you for more than $5.00. That's right, no matter what happens, you can't even get back what you paid for the CD.

$5 is pretty good considering used CDs are traded in for less than that.

7. If you file for bankruptcy, you have to delete all the music on your computer. Seriously.

I doubt it says this as well.

8. You have no right to transfer the music on your computer, even along with the original CD.

Correct. Fair use allows you to media shift. It does not allow you to transfer this shifted media even with the original. This is industry standard stuff not exclusive to Sony.

9. Forget about using the music as a soundtrack for your latest family photo slideshow, or mash-ups, or sampling. The EULA forbids changing, altering, or make derivative works from the music on your computer.

Industry standards again. This is not exclusive and has most countries have laws which support this.

[GullyFoyle]

Anything you question go to the Boing Boing link and check out the original link. I doubt any piece of the EULA idiocy is incorrect.
Just because a law exists makes it neither fair nor sensible.
Here are some examples
http://www.stupidlaws.com/
http://www.stupidlaws.com/technology/ten_woman_driver.html
There is a law on the books of TENNESSEE that says a man must run in front of a vehicle that a woman is driving, and, that the car may not go faster than five miles an hour!
http://www.ahajokes.com/stupid_laws.html
http://www.ahajokes.com/laws009.html
# It is considered an offense to shower naked.

# You are not allowed to break more than three dishes per day, or chip the edges of more than four cups and/or saucers.

# It is illegal to block any traveled wagon road.

# Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon owner.

# If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.

# It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.

# You may not fart in a public place after 6 P.M. on Thursdays.

http://www.dumblaws.com/
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/georgia/
t is illegal to use profanity in front of a dead body which lies in a funeral home or in a coroners office.
Members of the state assembly cannot be ticketed for speeding while the state assembly is in session.
Donkeys may not be kept in bathtubs.
Signs are required to be written in English.
No one may carry an ice cream cone in their back pocket if it is Sunday.

http://anduin.eldar.org/~ben/funny/html/180.html
- CANADA:
- Pauline M. Marshall offers a couple from her home town in Fort Qu'Appelle Saskatchewan (Canada). (since not all silly, outdated laws are from the US)

1. It is illegal for a teen to walk down main street for Fort Qu'Appelle with their shoes untied.

2. It is illegal to leave your horse in front of the Country Squire (local hotel) without hitching it securely to the hitching post (which was removed yeeeeeaaaars ago).
California:
1. Community leaders passed an ordinance that makes it illegal for anyone to try and stop a child from playfully jumping over puddles of water.

No wonder lawyers defend the law. They make oodles and oodles of money navigating through this idiocy.
For a fun time check out the legalese talk in the Great White Hype. There is a very nice description of the fight contract explained to Samuel L. Jackson by his lawyer.
It reminds me of the EULA.

[thecoalman]

Anything you question go to the Boing Boing link and check out the original link. I doubt any piece of the EULA idiocy is incorrect.
Just because a law exists makes it neither fair nor sensible.
Here are some examples
http://www.stupidlaws.com/

Stupid but still the law.... :P Most of those laws are VERY old and at the time made sense for whatever reason. they have just never been removed from the books. I know our state just recently did just that, removed old and archaic laws such as those.

[adam]

3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids "export" outside the country where you reside.

That is a governmental policy, not exclusive to Sony or Audio recordings.

You do not have to delete your music or movies or anything else if you move to another country. Export means to ship to another country for sale. Just moving there and bringing your stuff is not exporting. In most countries you can even sell that good once you are there, (consumer to consumer transaction) you just can't bring it there specifically for sale.

As for laws listed on stupidlaws.com, its entertaining but it doesn't really mean much. Those are called dead laws. The only reason they still exist are because no one has standing to challenge them, because they have never been enforced. They are local ordinances many of which date back to Puritan times. They are an example of purely ad hoc legislation. Two people get into a dispute over something silly like whether they can bring their elephant into town or not. So they bring it up at the town meeting and they pass an ordinance to shut them up. "ok you can bring your elephant to town but you've got to feed the meter as if it were a car." The law is meaningless to anyone but these two individuals.