Not a week goes by when the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) doesn't try to sue someone under the guise of illegal P2P music sharing downloads. I agree, people shouldn't pirate those works which are not legally their which they have not legally paid for. But with that quick disclaimer out of the way, now comes the time when I get to rejoice in the notion that the RIAA is getting their just deserts.
A California couple by the names of Barry and Cathy Merchants got slammed with legal suit from the RIAA for spoused illegal music file downloads through a P2P network. Like and good citizens facing legal action, they retained legal council in the for of defense lawyer Merl Ledford. Now I hate lawyers just as much as the next person, but Merl sounds like a guy I'd like to meet. I think it was his legal letter correspondence with the RIAA, calling them a "thin skull plaintiff" that impressed me. Ouch, zing, snap! Take that RIAA.
Dubbed as the defense lawyer from hell (though I'm certain he's not wreathed in fire, reeking in sulpher, and the horns surgically removed) Ledford argued that he client, two middle aged conservatives, would not be the types of individual to download "pornographic-lyric gangsta rap tracks". It's more likely that a cracked home wireless network connection, wacky computer virus, bot farm program, or an error on the RIAA'a part is more likely to blame for the Merchants supposed piracy. Honestly, I'm surprised that middle aged white folks don't listen to gangsta rap (this is me being cynical). Who'd want to listen to Celine Dion and Barry Manilow aside from disgruntled youth. Ma and Pa Kent are the driving consumer behind Hip-Hop record sales, right?
In a letter Ledford sent tot he RIAA on behalf of his clients (read it
here), he outlined the fact that the RIAA's method of tracking and isolating suspected music pirates has been found to be technically dubious. He also pointed out that ignoring the RIAA's demands for "
settlement money" in lieu of legal action opens them to the prospect of being sued by defendants. Simply put, the RIAA accuses someone of piracy, demands some money, dangles some legal threat in front of them, and expects them to pay. Hey, isn't that extortion? Yes it is.
“Mr. Merchant has and had no more duty to respond to attempts to "sell" him one of your clients' boilerplate, non-negotiable $3750 settlements than he has to return cold calls from pushy life insurance salespeople,” Ledford wrote.
With the RIAA's weak a water case crumbling, and their subsequent back down, Ledford set forth a $6,880.25 buck settlement (that the RIAA would pay) to cover costs and damages inflicted upon the Merchants. No word yet if the couple received settlement, or perhaps just a gift certificate for 10 free downloads from some on-line music store. Read more here.
forums
_thumb.jpg)
Wish there was a way we could submit news to you guys, lots of interesting stuff that doesn't get put up here.
Perhaps I'll make the suggestion (I will make it in fact) during out next staff meeting that there should be a new section where visitors to the site can submit the URL's and titles of news stories they'd like us to report on. To put it honestly though, news can be a bit of a beast. I do have to spend most of my time testing and reviewing hardware. But finding these zinger news stories (and the RIAA is always good for a laugh or two) can be difficult at times. I wish that I could report o every news article that graces the Interweb, but I have to be selective.
But to offer something to you Smoke (and to other readers out there); if you read a Neoseeker news article that has reference to any Neoseeker articles you may have read, please, leave a comment and tack in the url so I can take a quick look. I'll probablly report back on it. I do try to respond to every comment visitors leave, simply to further expand and explore the subject I've reported on.
As for the RIAA, I wouldn't doubt that within a couple of years all of their litigation and extortion backfires right in their collective faces. No company and or business (with exception of the Mafia, but they don't really exist, right?) has the right to extort money and or compensation from people in they manner they employ.
Like I've commented before; I'd love to see some White-Hat Hacker tunnel his way into the machine of a record company exec. or RIAA member, only to find that they have been swapping songs over P2P or Bit Torrent or something like that. The irony would be so bitter sweet that the RIAA would gag endlessly while the rest of the world would revel in a collective cavity of content.
Maybe some hackers should train their bots and back door exploits on the RIAA, just to see what turns up.
I haven't researched it(yet), but I'd like to know what method the RIAA uses for location file swappers. There are some apps like Kaaza that will allow users to block some of the IP address the RIAA uses.
My guess though; they pose as a user on some P2P portal, show a list of songs, people download tham, then they've been caught. If this is the case, then shouldn't the RIAA face an entrapement charge?
I don't know. I don't pirate music, my CD collection is a testament to that. I don't endorse piracy either. But I don't like th approach the RIAA has taken in going after song swappers. And another thing; doesn't the cost of their lawyers fees and paying people to track file swappers out weigh and financial benefits they may or may not see from suing? Maybe they should open their books and tells us if extortion is profitale.