The RIAA just got spanked in court in one of those trials where they try to intimidate people into paying a settlement:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp...ster_dismissal

Let me se if I understand this correctly: If someone wants to build a huge music library for their own listening pleasure, pay as little as possible and minimise the risk of being prosecuted by the RIAA, then the "best" way to do so is to pay a modest membership fee to a commercial Newsgroup provider – such as Easynews.

Is that a correct summary? Or am I missing something?

(Mind you, I’m not asking for a formula! Rather I am trying desperately to see some pattern of fairness in who gets sued. Haven’t discovered that yet...)

How the RIAA Litigation Process Works
 

I checked out that first link, and am absolutely astounded by the extent the RIAA is knowingly violating due process. I strongly suggest that anyone interested in RIAA’s tactics check it out.

Perhaps the most comprehensive and interesting article is "How the RIAA Litigation Process Works", which is a third of the way down. I had no idea!

Nor did I. These ex parte subpoenas have not succeeded in Canada, fortunately, and there's a strong movement (further down the same article) among artists in Canada against suing their fans. I am as astonished as ArcticStones is that they succeed in the USA in a venue far from the accused's home. One begins to think that the US government is anti-internet on all fronts.

Look what happened last time they pissed off that community. And that was just a light warning.

You've got it exactly right. And that includes obtaining any software, images, movies, media, whatever. In fact movies are often posted before they are in the theatres. I don't understand the use of P2P at all. Are people just ignorant of the fact that there are much better systems, existing since the 70s, for doing this? I don't get it.

It has lots of good uses also, for discussion, information, and legitimate piracy. Yeah, you heard that right. Like yesterday I really needed to bring up a new VMWare server at a remote site but the official download system was broken. Go to Easynews, grab a pirate copy, solved. I have a legitimate right to have it, but couldn't get it from the official channel. I also often use it to demo commercial software either for my own use or for clients. If we want it, we buy it. Everybody profits from this "piracy."

As far as the RIAA's actions, I think much of it depends on ignorance and a lack of will to fight. Anything can succeed if there is no effective fight back.

My impression is that the RIAA uses methods that make it a pretty lopsided battle. I mean, you’ve just gotten a letter from your ISP (to quote the article, my emphasis), along with copies of an ex parte discovery order and a subpoena. And you have, say, ten days to respond. But you’re in the same boat as everyone else:

"They are not given copies of (i) the summons and complaint, (ii) the papers upon which the Court granted the ex parte discovery order, or (iii) the court rules needed to defend themselves. Most recipients of this "notice" do not even realize that it means that there is a lawsuit against them. None of the recipients of the "notice" have any idea what they are being sued for, or what basis the Court had for granting the ex parte discovery order and for allowing the RIAA to obtain a subpoena.

They are told they have a few days, or maybe a week or two, to make a motion to quash the subpoena.

...if they were to talk to a lawyer they could not give the lawyer an iota of information as to what the case is about, what the basis for the subpoena is, or any other details that would permit a lawyer to make an informed decision as to whether a motion to quash the subpoena could, or could not, be made.

What is more, the lawyer would have to be admitted to practice in the jurisdiction in which the ex parte case is pending, in order to do anything at all."

In that situation I must confess that I would have been one of the ignorant, Carlos. What really disappoints me is that the US courts, by and large, are letting the RIAA get away with this grotesque abuse of the American judicial system.

Yes, that really pleases me. I read that some time ago when Vol de Nuit posted a link. It definitely makes the record companies’ claims that they are suing "to protect the interests of artists" sound very hollow.

In fact, I wish a high-profile journalist would ask the following question:

"The RIAA has sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing, who have on average paid a $3,750 settlement. That's over $75,000,000. Has any money collected from your lawsuits gone to pay actual artists? Where's all that money going?"

Where else, Stones -- to the lawyers, of course.

A certain spot in Cuba?
Sanctioned TCP/IP and POTS taps without judicial review?
Deportation of foreigners to Syria who are transients on their way home to Canada?

The situation is a bit exagerated in that article. I have not been party to an RIAA suit, but I was the target of a domain name dispute brought by a very large company (in court it was me against three $250/hour attorneys), and have a little bit of experience with similar proceedings.

First off, your lawyer does NOT have to be admitted in the originating jurisdiction. He can advise you on how to proceed based on his knowledge of civil law in general. In all US cities there are legal referral services that will supply a half hour consultation for a nominal fee (typically $35 or so). At least that gets you started. In my case I paid that plus $50 to have him file a motion for time, and got 45 days added for a reply. From there I handled it on my own.

If you get one of these and don't even know to look in the phone book or research a lawyer for help...well, that does suck, but the info is out there. Go look.

As far as the information needed for the lawyer, all that has to be responded to is the documents delivered. That is quite simple; you do not respond to the other non-delivered documents yet. So the response is, "got it, I need time to review." And the granting of that extension is essentially automatic.

Actually fighting it may be more difficult. But several people have done it and won, so it's not impossible.

Cory Doctorow just wrote a -brilliant as always- Op-Ed for Informations Week on DRM, how it plays out in the DMCA-skewed market and in particular how Apple has managed to screw the music industry and keep the competition out of their dominant marketshare with the iTMS/iPod combo:

http://informationweek.com/shared/pr...leID=191000408

Microsoft sees the light
 

.
"DRM is not where it should be.
We don't have the right thing here
in terms of simplicity or interoperability."

– Bill Gates
.

Oh, you are way too trusting.

Interpretation:

Microsoft will solve this problem with a new "standard" for DRM. Since everything available now sucks, MS will come to save the world.

Well, I tell ya – I had the hardest time deciding whether to post here.
Or in the Jokes thread. ;)