RIAA Eyes Next Possible Targets: CD Burners, Radio Listeners

[Bellamy]

RIAA Eyes Next Possible Targets: CD Burners, Radio Listeners

 

The RIAA's recent case and a pending case in the UK provide some insight into whom it might prosecute next

 

The Recording Industry Association of America is the oft villainized copyright-infringement watchdog for the music industry in the U.S. Its letters to music sharers have led to thousands of settlement over the last few years. Now, following its recent success in the jury civil trial Capitol Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas, which resulted in a jury verdict of $222,000 in damages, many wonder who the RIAA might target next.

 

The RIAA might have given a clue during testimony by music industry lawyers in the Thomas case. During the case Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG, was called to testify. Pariser noted that music labels make no money on bands touring, radio, or merchandise, so they are particularly vulnerable to file sharing. She went on to say that when people steal music the label is harmed.

 

Pariser believes in a very broad definition of stealing that is echoed by many supporters in the RIAA. She believes that users who buy songs are entitled to one, and only one copy. Burning CDs is just another name for stealing, in her mind. "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'."

 

Such logic has been a driving force behind efforts to "rights manage" music including the current DRM found on Apple's iTunes files and Microsoft's DRM, which is also widespread.

 

While it seems unlikely that the RIAA would be able to effectively identify "burners", such litigation remains a legal possibility for the RIAA and major music labels, in the minds of their lawyers.

 

Another possible avenue of legal action for the RIAA is the pursuit of businesses that play unauthorized music in stores. The Performing Rights Society (PRS), Britain's version of the RIAA, may give the RIAA some possible ideas with its pending litigation. The PRS is suing the Kwik Fit Group, a car repair shop in Edinburgh, for £200,000 in damages. The case revolves around the complaint that Kwik Fit employees brought in personal radios which they played while working on cars, which could be heard by colleagues and customers. The PRS says this amounts to a public "performance" and should have entailed royalties.

 

The possible implications if this litigation succeeds are numerous. The RIAA could pursue retailers like Borders Books who play music in their restrooms or on their store floors. They could also seek action against small businesses that have radios in their stores.

 

These possible future targets may seem outlandish or farfetched, but the RIAA and its foreign equivalents have some heavy legal firepower. It hires many of the country's top lawyers and have gained millions in settlements and recently have added the $222,000 Thomas verdict to its coffers.

 

Some fear the RIAA is overstepping its bounds, including in the Thomas case. Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, and strong advocate of fair use, recently went on record stating that the trial verdict was excessive and "way out of line" with other cases of this nature.

 

The Bush Administration feels that the case was very fair and was a positive example of our nation's laws at work.

 

"Cases such as this remind us strong enforcement is a significant part of the effort to eliminate piracy, and that we have an effective legal system in the U.S. that enables rights holders to protect their intellectual property."

 

With the RIAA's powerful legal, financial, and political backers nobody can truly say what it impossible for it to accomplish. Now as it is in the midst of delivering its eighth wave of infringement letters to colleges, it may soon be turning its attention to CD burners or businesses that play music in front of customers.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9218

 

:sick: :sick: :sick:

[Krys]

they're nuts

[dj4celine]

Have they gone crazy?? If it is so, then I think we'll not hear anymore music in malls, stores etc

[firebird]

Today on RIAA's agenda: Ten-step program to refurbish the recording industry

 

#1 sue P2P users

#2 sue CD burners

#3 sue radio listeners

#4 sue retailers

#5 sue iPod users

#6 sue car drivers

#7 sue concert venues

#8 sue the NASA

#9 sue Al-Quaida

#10 sue everybody else

[kathyc25]

Oh my god how stupid!

[dj4celine]

Today on RIAA's agenda: Ten-step program to refurbish the recording industry

 

#1 sue P2P users

#2 sue CD burners

#3 sue radio listeners

#4 sue retailers

#5 sue iPod users

#6 sue car drivers

#7 sue concert venues

#8 sue the NASA

#9 sue Al-Quaida

#10 sue everybody else

 

[vivezpouraimer]

This is completely RIDICULOUS!

[speedy]

Today on RIAA's agenda: Ten-step program to refurbish the recording industry

 

#1 sue P2P users

#2 sue CD burners

#3 sue radio listeners

#4 sue retailers

#5 sue iPod users

#6 sue car drivers

#7 sue concert venues

#8 sue the NASA

#9 sue Al-Quaida

#10 sue everybody else

 

 

That's right

[celinerific]

Today on RIAA's agenda: Ten-step program to refurbish the recording industry

 

#1 sue P2P users

#2 sue CD burners

#3 sue radio listeners

#4 sue retailers

#5 sue iPod users

#6 sue car drivers

#7 sue concert venues

#8 sue the NASA

#9 sue Al-Quaida

#10 sue everybody else

That looks about right.

But seriously, they have some issues. They should quit being so uptight.

[Bellamy]

RIAA Case Juror Speaks: 2 Jurors Wanted $3.6M Fine

 

It turns out that Jammie Thomas could have been worse off

 

The tech news industry has been buzzing with news of the $222,000 verdict in the precedent setting civil case Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, the first instance of an RIAA complaint going to a trial by jury.

 

Now a juror from the case has opened up and discussed their feelings about the case and what went on inside the courtroom.

 

While some may feel the $9,250 per song fine levied against Thomas was extreme and unreasonable, she could have been far worse off, if a couple of the jurors had their way.

 

In an interview with THREAT LEVEL on Tuesday, Michael Hegg, one of the jurors from the case, reported that two jurors had tried to sway the other jurors to adopt the maximum fine per violation, $150,000 per piece of copyrighted material.

 

As Thomas was found guilty of 24 such violations, this would have resulted in a $3.6 million fine.

 

Another juror, according to Hegg, was insistent on making the fine as low as possible. The minimum amount per violation, by law is $750. This would have led to a far lesser fine of $18,000, still a significant sum, but over $200,000 less than the $222,000 jury decision.

 

Hegg, a 38-year-old steelworker from Duluth, Minnesota who had just returned home from a 14 hour shift when the interview took place, was unsympathetic at Thomas's plight.

 

He elaborated, "She's a liar. She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. Spoofing? We're thinking, 'Oh my God, you got to be kidding.' [The verdict was] a compromise, yes, we wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned."

 

Hegg felt that the fact that Thomas turned a different hard drive over to investigators than the original was particularly damning. He repeated his feelings that she was being deceptive. "She lied. There was no defense. Her defense sucked," he elaborated.

 

Hegg is a married father of two and says his wife is an "Internet guru," but admits to not knowing much about technology issues.

 

Hegg said his opinion and that of the jury was swayed by a number of pieces of evidence presented by the RIAA. One exhibit, viewed multiple times showed that there were 2 million users on Kazaa, the network Thomas was accused of using, on the night RIAA investigators found Thomas's alleged folder. Also, Thomas's use of the name "Terreastarr" on other online accounts, the same as the name on the Kazaa account, helped convince them. Then there was the fact that the RIAA's technical experts matched the IP and MAC address to her computer. Expert testimony had revealed that Thomas had not used a wireless router, casting further doubt on her claims that she was hacked.

 

Hegg seemed almost enraged at Thomas as he concluded the interview by saying, "I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We're not that stupid up here. I don't know what the f**k she was thinking, to tell you the truth."

 

Hegg's statements echo the Bush administration's statement earlier this week, that the punishment fit the crime and serves as a good warning to potential violators.

 

The RIAA has a strong ally in the current U.S. administration, which has made major efforts to police copyright infringement and raise the fines for violators, including championing and signing into law the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. This law mandated that possession of even a single copy of a film unreleased on dvd could subject the owner to a stay in prison. The law included no provisions for currently unreleased or untranslated foreign films, but so far the motion picture industry has been slightly less zealous in prosecuting infringers than the RIAA. Recent reports put the RIAA settlements at nearly 36,000 individual settlements, by certain estimates.

 

Still there are many around the country who feel that she got off too lightly or was fined too heavily or unjustly. Even the jury seems to have mirrored this same split. One wanted to just fine her the minimum amount, others wanted to fine her the maximum amount $3.6 million dollars.

 

The end result is still the same though: Thomas is going to have to pay, unless her appeal somehow succeeds. Meanwhile the RIAA can rest content with their victory as they ponder their next plan of attack in their colorful battle against copyright infringement.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9231

 

$3.6M fine.