Lawyer Exposes RIAA’s Legal Bullying
Written by Ben Jones on July 30, 2008For many people, justice is something that is bought and sold in the US, especially where filesharing is concerned. Few lawyers are willing to represent, and fewer still understand the technologies involved in cases. Ray Beckerman is one of the few that seem to, and he now has an article in the current edition of The Judges Journal, about the RIAA lawsuits.
Beckerman’s article, entitled “Large Recording Companies vs. The Defenseless” (pdf) seeks to explain the processes of the RIAA in simpler terms, and makes suggestions for those working in courts to ensure that justice is always kept in mind.
Repeatedly hammered home throughout is that the RIAA has very little by way of a case. Starting with the weakness of the ‘expert witness’, where Beckerman notes that the evidence by the three people at MediaSentry that form the basis of all their lawsuits, don’t meet basic standards). He further discusses the repeated rulings that lawsuits shouldn’t be joined together as ‘Doe 1 , whatever’ (the first almost 4 years ago). The highly questionable tactic of filing a Doe suit, using it to get information, and then filing a named suit, is also mentioned.
Suggestions put forward by Mr Beckerman include watching for wrongly joined cases (and dealing with such cases as a contempt of court), ‘don’t be baffled by jargon’ (simply put as ‘if you don’t understand the case, then maybe the plaintiffs haven’t got one’) and “have all decisions published”.
For those of us keeping track of RIAA cases, the technological details are a little light. But then, Mr Beckerman is not professing to be an expert in p2p technology, nor technology in general. He is, after all, a lawyer not a techie, and could probably explain the tech side as well as I could the rules of disclosure. Instead, he presents a working knowledge that is simple to understand even for the most luddite of jurists. Indeed, as that is the target audience, there is more than a sprinkling of legal terms, but again, none too complex as to defy understanding.
To some, it might appear that the article, a substantial, but not overly weighty 8 pages (with another 2 for footnotes) is nothing more than a rehashing of material previously posted to his blog. However, the coherence and progression of the document means that it is of great use to someone who has just been targeted for litigation, or for their counsel. In this matter, it succeeds, perhaps unintentionally.
Perhaps most significantly, though, is that hundreds – if not thousands , of judges up and down the United States will be reading this, and will keep certain things in mind should a case come to trial in their court. It is entirely likely that many of the judges involved in cases already, were unaware of some of the cases and judgments, and that others have already ruled against practices that may be used in a case they’re involved in. Everything from admonitions for joining cases, to reasons why ex-parte motions should be examined closely.
This article may have done more to dampen the legal juggernaut that the RIAA has unleashed on the American people, than anything short of a Supreme Court victory, or federal legislation. It is another fine example of an entertainment industry having their claims published, and found to be contradictory.
Previously: Two OiNK Uploaders Go Free
Next: Controversy as Rookie Admin Aspires to BitTorrent Domination
27 Responses
Now to make this a commonality for all judges to understand?
I smell pwnt toast.
File shareres have never been criminals of any sort.
On the other hand, the RIAA and industry have been criminals for years.
We have a mission. To destroy these criminals. And party all the way there.
Fuck the RIAA.
Long overdue.
However, I’m not entirely convinced that this will be read and taken in by judges all over the country
Hmm… a general explanation of the most important points of P2P in detail… sounds useful… but somehow I got the feeling, that not all or better, not most judges will read this and convert instantly to a better informed being…
Rather, I guess, many will stay conservative and judging in favor of those with the larger, bling-bling filled pockets…
I currently represent a client pro bono in a copyright infringement case. I think this article may help, especially because of the fact that it is published in an ABA journal.
Good work TorrentFreak. Keep this stuff coming. I regularly check this blog for information like this.
“Shoot all the lawyers… Except that one, he seems very nice”
:D
LOL @ #7
nice reading, thanks dude
Thank you Mr. Beckerman! That made a lot of sense to me and coming from a quasi-legal background (my parents are lawyers), it seems like an excellent argument. Hopefully judges read it.
If this isn’t RIAA bullying, then I don’t know what is:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/508585ce50
no wonder you agree with him here.
as from juridical viewpoints – i do not:)
considering the meaning of Intellectual Property.
“considering the meaning of Intellectual Property”
That assumes one has a working brain to begin with
or sound mind iow
the only way to stop RIAA is to STOP buying music ALL together. Stop buying CDs, stop buying MP3s, stop paying satellite radio. Hit em where it hurst, in the fat overstuffed wallets!
JT
http://www.FireMe.To/udi
The only think that makes sense in this article is that torrents are “defenseless.” Mass criminal action has no defense.
He posts regularly on Slashdot as NewYorkCountyLawyer, so he actually does have a fairly good understanding of tech. Good on him.
@16
“Mass criminal action has no defense.”
Mass lying has no real defense. The only defense you have, from the industry, is money. It is essentially corrupt, and your lying is corrupt.
To the rest:
I have a discussion board at
http://www.28chan.org/fs/
For general discussion on file-sharing.
I suspect that anything likely to be seen by a majority of judges, is going to have a subtle, but widespread effect.
While this will not instantly take root and convert judges from conservative technophobes biased towards the RIAA, to freetard ‘fuck the RIAA’ types, it -will- at least be read, and generate a subtle shift in mentality; from an unquestioning “Hey, if the company says they have proof that this person downloaded X, Y, and Z, and that it hurt their pocket books, it must be true”, to a more careful, nuanced “What weight does this ‘proof’ have, and if it’s true, what loss did the file sharing truly exact upon the RIAA’s coffers”.
You can steal my music if I get to screw your wife and eat your food.
No one ever steals music. People buy it and make copies. stfu please.
I regularly go into shops & steal music in the form of CDs.
Please stfu yerself. ;D
funny how society is falling down.
“No one ever steals music. People buy it and make copies. stfu please.”
quite true, but probably not the best arguement :P
On topic: I LUVZ DIS LAWYER!
Those juge corrupted by the RIAA who take 50 to 200k $ to go the RIAA parasites way are not going to give a fuck!
Let’s keep destryoing there business and let do our best at it.
We don’t need parasites on our planet.
The point many seem to miss or just plain don’t know is that the RIAA is suppose to be collecting royalites for associated or member artists and forwarding these moneys to the artists. And this is exactly what they have stopped doing with the advent of all this litigation. They claim to be collectiong fees for the artists yet stopped paying the artist approximately 8 plus years ago. It is no secret because they’ve said it themselves, the moneys they collect are used to fund additional lawsuits.
When’s the last time any of you musos recived a cheque for radio or television airplay that hasn’t been the direct result of your management taking extreme measures to secure said payments? This has nothing to due with the artist’s ot the writer’s mechanical royalties. Those are held and controlled by the labels, not the RIAA.
Sadly, it took this long to bring this much attention to this subject in a manner that is intelligent and respected; Mr. Beckerman you have my complete appreciation.
Up until this point all of the discussion going on has only been just that, a discussion. We rant, rave, blog, and drag out the soap boxes every opportunity we have, but what direct action have any of us taken to prevent the actions of the RIAA to continue? Most, I would have to imagine, would say none.
Boycotting the sale of music is completely useless. The only entity you would be taking money away from are the stores whose shelves’ the product is on. The Company who produced the CD already received their money from the stores that paid for the right of re-sell for the CD. The stores are the ones who resell it, so your money is paying for the reimbursement of their business expense, not the CD itself.
If the store notices that music sales are down by say $5,000 a month, then the store manager either needs to buy $5,000 less of product a month, pay his employees $5,000 less a month, or charge $5,000 more a month to the customer to offset that loss. In other words, if the store does 80,000 sales a month, it can markup the average sale by $0.06 and still make the same amount of profit. In order for the boycott to be effective, the loss of that profit would need to be significant enough to change the amount of total purchasing power of the store, and not just for a single good. Boycott the sale of one good and you’ll probably just increase the price of another good, or even all of them.
The only effective measures one can take to curb the RIAA’s actions are directly through use of physical intervention, or indirectly through use of legal action. Unfortunately for most people affected by the suits of the RIAA, legal action cannot be taken and generally wind up settling to avoid further financial hardship. That leaves only direct physical confrontation, aside from lying down and allowing yourself to be trampled by an unjust and outright farce.
As a man of honor and integrity I could not allow myself to be a victim of circumstances such as these. I am not a wealthy man, and cannot take the legally advisable means of retaliation in arguing my innocence and having justice served in my favor by the use of legal council. I am not a man of moral confinement; I do not believe our actions are inherently good nor evil. I believe actions are independent of moral obligations and immune to circumstance. So if a person such as myself were to ever be tried for a crime they did not commit, anyone raising such allegations should be greatly concerned.
The taking of a life, viewed in the right circumstances is heroic, just, and demanded, in the wrong circumstance it is viewed as evil, detestable, and greatly protested. If a man is killing hundreds of people and you kill that one man, you are a hero, but only because everyone knew he was killing others, but if you killed that very same man and no one could determine a reason other than “just because”, a hero is the last thing anyone would be thinking. The same action occurred, a life was taken, and regardless of circumstance you either agree its acceptable or not. I agree taking a life is acceptable, but only for survival. Threaten my survival, and all life is forfeit.
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.