Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Interview Lawyers Who Defend Against RIAA Suits

Posted by Roblimo on Mon Sep 11, 2006 02:31 PM
from the when-you-want-an-expert-opinion-ask-an-expert dept.
Attorneys Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman maintain a blog called Recording Industry vs The People, subtitled, "A blog devoted to the RIAA's lawsuits of intimidation brought against ordinary working people," which was most recently linked from Slashdot on Sept. 10. They've agreed to answer your questions about RIAA suits -- and they obviously will not preface their answers with "IANAL," although we must note that they cannot give specific legal advice about specific cases. For that you need to engage an attorney yourself. (Luckily, their site contains a directory of lawyers willing to defend against RIAA suits.) In any case, these guys obviously know more than the average bear (or lawyer) about how the RIAA goes about suing music fans, how to keep from getting sued by the RIAA, and how to fight back if you do get sued, so we're glad they're willing to help us learn more about this apparently endless legal mess. Usual Slashdot interview rules apply.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Entertainment: ACLU, EFF, & Others Fight RIAA for Debbie Foster 298 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a landmark legal document, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, and the American Association of Law Libraries have submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the motion for attorneys fees that has been made by Deborah Foster in Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster, in federal court in Oklahoma. This brief is mandatory reading for every person who is interested in the RIAA litigation campaign against consumers."
[+] Entertainment: RIAA Says It Doesn't Have Enough Evidence 208 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Wilke, the Chicago RIAA case in which defendant Paul Wilke has moved for summary judgment, the RIAA has responded to the summary judgment motion by filing a motion for 'expedited discovery', alleging that it needs expedited pretrial discovery because it does not have sufficient evidence to withstand Mr. Wilke's motion. The RIAA's lawyer said: 'Plaintiffs cannot at this time, without an opportunity for full discovery present by affidavit facts essential to justify their opposition to Defendant's motion.' The motion and supporting affidavit are available online."
[+] Answers From Lawyers Who Defend Against RIAA Suits 740 comments
You had some excellent questions for attorneys Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman, who maintain the Recording Industry vs The People blog. Here are their answers, verbatim, as they were sent to us by Mr. Beckerman.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Guilty? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PrinceAshitaka (562972) * on Monday September 11 2006, @02:33PM (#16082976) Homepage
    If you are completely guilty and are sued, but do not have the money to pay, what are your options?
  • Biggest Mistake? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Monday September 11 2006, @02:33PM (#16082985) Homepage Journal
    What's the biggest mistake you've seen people make historically in cases where they're charged by the RIAA?
  • Cost (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2006, @02:34PM (#16082987)
    Out of curiosity, if I was sued by the RIAA (falsely or not), how much would it end up costing me to defend myself?
  • Good vs Bad? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PrinceAshitaka (562972) * on Monday September 11 2006, @02:35PM (#16082999) Homepage
    Do you have a high percentage of your clients that are guilty or do you specialize in the exceptions, the clients that have good legal ground to defend themselves?
  • by hawkeye_82 (845771) on Monday September 11 2006, @02:35PM (#16083002) Journal
    You guys are lawyers AND like to help people? What's it like on your home planet ;) ?
  • A lot of people settle out of court [com.com] when they are sued and it turns out to be between $12,000 & $17,000. Now, this looks like chump change compared to the $150,000 per violation and 1,000 songs shared means $150,000,000 lawsuit. Is this smart or stupid? I mean, don't you, the lawyers that these people consult, tell them to fold and pay the little amount of money?

    Follow up to that, do you believe the RIAA would actually win a $150,000,000 lawsuit if the out of court routes weren't taken? They seem to imply they wouldn't win if they offer these tiny settlements en masse.
    • by garcia (6573) on Monday September 11 2006, @02:51PM (#16083132) Homepage
      Now, this looks like chump change compared to the $150,000 per violation and 1,000 songs shared means $150,000,000 lawsuit. Is this smart or stupid? I mean, don't you, the lawyers that these people consult, tell them to fold and pay the little amount of money?

      I'm more interesting in knowing how they can justify calculating that they have lost $150,000 per song "shared" and why they don't have to show any proof that this amount damage actually occured per song.
  • by Software (179033) on Monday September 11 2006, @02:37PM (#16083025) Homepage Journal
    What should we do to prevent needing your services? Another way of putting this is, how do we avoid getting sued by the RIAA?
  • Suing You Remotely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Monday September 11 2006, @02:37PM (#16083029) Homepage Journal
    Ok, so the RIAA's modus operandi seems to be filing suit against someone living half way across the country. If someone in California is charged for file sharing in New York (like what happened here [p2pnet.net], what can they do to stop this? Doesn't our justice system prevent this we-know-you're-not-going-to-come-all-the-way-over- here-so-just-settle-out-of-court strategy?
  • Evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Monday September 11 2006, @02:40PM (#16083044) Homepage Journal
    I hear a lot that the RIAA has the weakest evidence ever in these cases. Such as screen shots of dynamic IP addresses [cdfreaks.com] taken from Kazaa. How the hell do judges across this country uphold these cases with such lack of concrete evidence? I mean, give me five minutes in photoshop and I'll make you a "screenshot" of Kazaa with www.whitehouse.gov's IP address listed over and over on it. Can't an expert witness cause this evidence to be thrown out quickly?
  • The Counter Suit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Monday September 11 2006, @02:42PM (#16083057) Homepage Journal
    Is there anyway to ask a judge to throw out cases when the RIAA's lawsuits become [theregister.co.uk] unbelievably [foxnews.com] ridiculous [arstechnica.com]?

    I mean, who is going to chase after these lawsuits and counter sue? What repurcussions can a counter suit have on the RIAA? And, if they do successfully counter sue, how much does that slow down the RIAA?

    When will this end? Could there be an epic counter suit that would make the RIAA stop with law suits?
  • Systemic Problem? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Monday September 11 2006, @02:42PM (#16083060)
    Do you see the current situation as a systemic problem in the current torts system? Specifically, do you think we need legislative intervention to correct the "money bias" in our legal system?

    I mean, there doesn't seem to be much of a way to fight an RIAA lawsuit money-wise. It always seems to end quickly: Either the defendant ist so obviously innocent they drop the case or he/she settles for "pennies on the dollar". When do you think we'll see a few definite trials to answer the hanging legal questions about investigative tactics and what an IP proves?
  • You provide a great list of lawyers willing to defend us ... But would you happen to be able to post the names, phone numbers and home mailing addresses of your colleagues that work for the RIAA?

    Don't be shy about telling us which one has won the most cases against low income citizens.
  • by BenEnglishAtHome (449670) * on Monday September 11 2006, @02:45PM (#16083083)
    When I heard that the RIAA wanted to physically take possession of the equipment belonging to people they sued for discovery purposes, I was less than happy with that prospect. I use a hardware-encrypted hard drive that requires a bootup password. Without my cooperation, no one will every see what's on my drive. Given that the revelation of other content on my drive would place me in far greater jeopardy than anything having to do with pirated music (Assume the worst if you wish; you wouldn't be correct), I would never cooperate with such discovery.

    Is there any mecahnism by which the court can compel my cooperation and are there any penalties for steadfastly refusing to provide it?

  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Monday September 11 2006, @02:56PM (#16083187) Homepage
    Everyone is asking about how to defend against the suits. I want to know the other side of things:

    What do you think that the RIAA should do to prevent piracy? Do you agree or disagree with the lawsuits as they are doing them now? Do you suggest a better way? How about your opinion on the current state of copyright law?
  • Wireless (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Space (13455) on Monday September 11 2006, @02:56PM (#16083191)
    I have an open wireless network. If the RIAA tracks music sharing to my IP address am I liable for traffic which is possibly produced by my neighbors?
  • allofmp3 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by giafly (926567) on Monday September 11 2006, @02:57PM (#16083197)
    What's the position of Americans who buy from legal offshore music sites, such as allofmp3 [allofmp3.com]?. Is this safer than downloading "free"?
  • Historic precedent? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:02PM (#16083241)

    Are there any precedents in history of any industry doing anything like this before? I know there have been examples of cartels forming and the cartel using their combined power against other businesses, but is there anything in history like a cartel using its massive legal leverage against their own customer base?

  • Theft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by trewornan (608722) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:10PM (#16083300)
    Could you finally settle that age old Slashdot bone of contention:

    Is copyright infringement, theft (or not).
  • Where is the line? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by paulevans (791844) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:12PM (#16083317) Homepage
    It seems to me that what the RIAA is doing is pure extortion using the courts. What line hasn't been crossed that has kept what they are doing legal?
  • by techmuse (160085) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:12PM (#16083326)
    RIAA presumably has a right to defend its copyrights in court, but its tactics seem to be designed to force people to avoid a fight that, while they might win, might also drain them financially. Does this count as racketeering? If so, could RIAA be subject to a class action suit under the RICO laws? If not, how can ordinary citizens who may have done nothing wrong defend themselves without burning through all of their cash in the process?
  • What about (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chefjoeardee (1001809) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:16PM (#16083356)
    I've always wondered this and I'm not sure entirely how it would work but if a household has a wireless connection setup and they maintain standard security (WEP, MAC filtering) and the such, which clearly shown to be vulnerable to attacks/intrusion, how can a court prove without doubt that it was in fact that person who was involved in piracy? Furthermore, would it be their fault? They implemented the security they could yet there are still ways around it. If it still holds up for the RIAA side, couldn't they just blindly point fingers at people (not that they already don't) and win?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2006, @03:27PM (#16083466)
    Which of the following are illegal and why? Which of the following are in a legal grey area?

    1) Trading CDs via US Mail
    2) Ripping CDs that I own to mp3, and playing them on my computer.
            2a) Backing up CDs to mp3 on my computer
    3) Ripping CDs that I own to mp3, and then putting them on my mp3 player for my own personal use.
            3a)Loaning the mp3 player to my friend with the ripped music from question 3
    4) Borrowing a CD from the library, ripping the CD to my computer and listening to the music on my mp3 player, and deleting the music when I return the CD to the library.
            4a) Never deleting the music from the computer/mp3 player
    5) Emailing an mp3 from question 2 to one friend to listen to, and requesting that he delete it once he is finished.
            5a) emailing an mp3 to 10 friends and asking them to delete it once its been listened to?
            5b) ...not asking them to delete it.
    6) Using a p2p service to trade mp3s from CDs they own with mp3s from CDs you own
    7) Using allofmp3 to download music
    8) Stripping copy protection from iTunes or PlaysForSure music files, to play them on your mp3 player.
    9) How does the RIAA show that the music you have on your computer are not backup mp3 files from CDs that were destroyed or lost by you?
          9a) Can I use a p2p service to acquire a song I legally owned from a CD I owned, but was destroyed or lost?
  • IP Addresses (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MECC (8478) * on Monday September 11 2006, @03:33PM (#16083537)
    I haven't looked at so-called screenshots that the RIAA produces in court, and haven't myself looked at a Kazaa screen (or limewire, etc) to see what kind of IP addresses are shown, but there are two possibilities: the public IP address or the Private IP address. More and more on the Internet, each public IP address has behind it some private IP addresses, that typically can't be connected reliably for a given time to a specific computer, let alone a specific hard drive.
    Questions:
    Does current 4th amendment legal precedent allow for the confiscation of anything capable of storing files from behind a public IP address?

    In otherwords, if I'm running a 'Internet cafe', and someone in my place allegedly downloads a music file, and the public IP shows up on an RIAA screenshot, is it legal for a judge to order everything in my cafe to be confiscated and searched? Does 4th amendment legal precedent allow for such mass grab-everything-and-go searches?

    Has anyone ever pointed out to a judge how easy it is to fake a screenshot? Are there any rules of discovery regarding such flimsy evidence? I mean, suppose I want to accuse the RIAA of threatening me with murder in a court, and produce a piece of paper with a death threat that has the RIAA's corporate headquarters letterhead on it, all on a very good looking piece of laser printed output. Wouldn't most courts throw out something so easily faked? What if I just handwrote in crayon "I'm the RIAA and I'm coming to kill you" on a piece of paper, and them sued them using that as evidence? How far would that get in a court of law?

    Are there such things as 'vexatious litigant' laws is some states? If so, how does someone get declared to be a 'vexatious litigant', and what are the consequences?