Scare Tactics 101?

[Lucian]

The RIAA cant really sue people, its all a scare tactic. Theres an article on geek news which explains in detail the whole process the RIAA is going through.

http://geeknews.net/?info=214



According to the article, the RIAA doesnt even have a case to sue us with! I dont know if theres any lawyers on zeropaid who can confirm this, is it true that they have no case?



Quote From Article The whole concept is crazy. The music industry is the only group that thinks you should have a separate copyright for every piece of "art" you hold in different formats. They want a license for a CD, an MP3 and a tape. Your breaking the law if you record a CD to a tape (do they still sell tapes?)

If I buy the Mona Lisa, and then put it behind glass, and charge people to look at it, Im a museum. If I take took a picture of my painting, I can carry it anywhere I go and view it when I please. It's my picture. I dont have to pay the artist again for the same picture I already purchased.

However, if you convert a CD to an MP3, your automatically a criminal. It's the same thing. Im just changing formats on my art. It would be like going further, and looking at my Mona Lisa through a camera on a television. Should I have to pay more money to who sold me the painting because Im using it differently?

[Evil_Dweller_01]

Wow I just read the article..the site has a great point

I think its impossible for them to sue us..

[BlueLieu]

Tell that to the college kids they sued. Of course, they settled out of court. Perhaps if someone was willing to press the lawsuit (and risk the $250,000 per song max fine) this may turn out to be true.

Any takers?

[icontrolthesun]

I'll fight it and then counter-sue when i win (i'm sure a lawyer would want a piece of that action). doesn't matter if the fine is $12,000 or $12,000,000, both will send me into permanent debt. so might as well take the chance.

[Sockfulloflove]

The RIAA is targeting sharers, not converters, or downloaders.

[mojo-ris-in]

Here's the thing though. All the RIAA has to do is win one case and set a precedent in court. Of course if they lose it's a new ballgame but I wouldn't get my hopes up too high that they will lose in court. With the exception of the Morpheus and Grokster case, judges haven't been very kind to P2P and I just don't know if that will change. So yeah to a degree it is a scare tactic but it's also a way for the RIAA to test the waters in court this time with the users as the victims.

[Cerebral_Assassin]

Okay, so they can sue us for up to $75,000.00 per song.
What I'm wondering is, just how much of that money does the artist receive? If the artist doesn't get any of the moolah then I think it's high time they stand up to the RIAA and let their fans have the music for a reasonable price from websites the artists set up themselves. The RIAA and the record companies are in it for themselves, take the incident with Sony and The Dixie Chicks..... the Chicks were making millions of dollars but then one day said, "if we are making all this money then where is it?"
they took Sony to court got their money and are now on a different label.

[isus]

sockfulloflove:
yea, they are going after the sharers... but what makes it 'right' to take a picture of the mona lisa and then share it with your friends?

[jonnymnemonic]

If they sue me, I will not settle, they'll have to take me to court. I would risk the maximum possible fines because A) I have no visible means of income; B) I have nothing of value registered in my name; C) I have no wife or children; D) I have no bank accounts, and E) I have no money that anyone knows about. Trying to collect even one dollar from me would be quite futile. They can't garnish my wages, take any property from me, repossess a vehicle, nothing, nada.

Of course, I am not going to ASK for them to sue me either; I have better things to do with my time than spend it in court, and I take enough measures that I don't expect to be sued. But if they do, they will have to fight me in court or drop the suit, and either way, they will get nothing. Worst case is I would declare bankruptcy. But since I don't use banks or credit cards, ever, anyway, it's not like that would be a major inconvenience to me.

[RIAA_MUST_DIE]

I don't understand what the orginal poster was trying to say. The RIAA did indeed try to outlaw the mp3 format back in 98. They took Diamond to court, but lost and than lost again on appeals.

However the RIAA never did state that converting to an mp3 format was copyright violation, *however*, as you might notice, they do not endorse it either.

It is much harder to control any file format, esp mp3's, that is why they would rather stick to a physical medium, such as the CD.

The RIAA has also gone after Gateway and Apple for their commercial slogans of "Rip, Mix, Burn"...Imagine that!

[FutureIverson]

that's a good article but there's so many uncertainies. I'm yet to see someone fight a lawsuit. So many people settle. If anyone ever does find themselves going to court, post your situation all over the net, it'll be top breaking news.

[dock0184]

EFF.com said:

Remove all potentially misleading file names that might be confused with the name of an RIAA artist or song (e.g., "Usher" or "Madonna") from your shared folder.

But seriously, just because you have a binary file called ashanti - look at my ass.mp3 isnt firm evidence of infringement of a copyrighted song. it may sound good enough to RIAA, but isn't really a legal proof of any act.