George Ziemann of AzOz Music Advises College Students: Don't be a "Chump"

Interesting opinion piece on AzOz:

Before You Pay the RIAA...

By George Ziemann -- March 24, 2007

There's a reason the RIAA is offering a "discount" on this year's series of extortion demands from college students. They want to get as many chumps as possible to roll over and fork up cash and they need for you to do it right away because their window of opportunity is closing. The jig is almost up.

A couple of days ago, there were two Slashdot articles which appeared, concerning two separate cases wherein the RIAA is about to be spanked -- Deborah Foster and Patti Santangelo. If you follow the links, pay particular attention to the comments by NewYorkCountryLawyer, which is Ray Beckerman.

Foster already "won" her case in the sense that the RIAA gave up. Foster wasn't going to roll over and she was close to having a trial. Since the RIAA really had no evidence in the first place, they dismissed the case to avoid trying to convince a jury their flimsy version of reality. It was dismissed with prejudice, which means the RIAA failed to prove its case and they can't come back and accuse her of the same offense later.

The judge also ruled that the RIAA had to pay Foster's attorney's fees. When the RIAA saw the bill, they said it was too high. The judge said something to the effect of, "Oh really? How much did you spend?" To this query, the RIAA has responded by a) ignoring it for a while, b) telling the judge he made a mistake in awarding attorney fees in the first place, and c) offered their billing records as long as the court agrees they're top secret and no one can look at them.

Complete article.

University of Maine Refuses To Forward RIAA Letters to Its Students - WE LOVE YOU!!!

Following the lead of the University of Wisconsin, now the University of Maine has similarly refused to forward the RIAA's collection letters. See this report from The Maine Campus:

UMS refuses to hand student info to RIAA
Tony Reaves
Issue date: 3/26/07 Section: News

The University of Maine System has refused a request from the Recording Industry Association of America to produce names of students who allegedly downloaded copyrighted materials.

The system has also opted not to forward the RIAA's pre-litigation letters offering settlements to those students, although the schools those students attend will inform their students of the letters and give them a chance to pick up the letters if they so choose.

At the University of Maine, students with pending RIAA lawsuits were told on Friday.

"It's not the university's role to, in effect, serve papers on our students for another party," John Diamond, spokesman for the university system, said of the decision.

Diamond said the RIAA's request for student information asks the system to violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which bars the UMS from divulging information not considered public.

Complete article

RIAA hates the kids!!

p2pnet.net reports that the RIAA has sent 405 more blackmail letters, adding to its hitlist an additional 23 universities, including Boston University (50 pre-litigation settlement letters), Columbia University (20), Dartmouth College (11), DePaul University (18), Drexel University (20), Ferris State University (17), Ithaca College(20), Purdue University (38), University of California - Berkeley (19), University of California - Los Angeles (21), University of California - Santa Cruz (17), University of Maine system (27), University of Nebraska - Lincoln (25), University of Wisconsin system (66, including the following individual campuses: Eau Claire, Madison, Milwaukee, Parkside, Platteville, Stevens Point, Stout, and Whitewater), Vanderbilt University (20), and Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (16). This follows on the heels of the offensive it launched last month targeting 400 students at 13 institutions.

Via: Recordingindustryvpeople

New Contested Case in Brooklyn, Arista v. Finkelstein; Defendant Counterclaims, RIAA Moves to Dismiss Counterclaims

In a new contested case in Brooklyn, Arista v. Finkelstein, the defendant has counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and for damages based on plaintiffs' copyright misuse. The RIAA has filed a request for premotion conference in contemplation of a motion to dismiss both counterclaims.

Answer and Counterclaims*
March 8, 2007, Letter of Richard Guida to Judge Trager*
March 15, 2007, Letter of Richard Altman to Judge Trager*

Mr. Finkelstein is represented by Richard Altman of Manhattan.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

EZ RIAA: ShareNGo

RIAA has unveiled P2PLawsuits.com, its new online payment web site for pre-lawsuit settlement. If you're sued for copyright infringement, just enter your case and pay by credit card or check. The settlement amount is discounted if paid online.

RIAA has renewed its consumer lawsuit push in recent communications with ISPs and colleges. There is no word whether RIAA has also talked with P2P software developers to embed the online payment option directly into their file sharing software.

The site's FAQ does a masterful job in obfuscating the weak evidence of such lawsuits. For example:

What evidence prompts a lawsuit?

If you've been sued, it is because you have been identified as uploading or downloading copyrighted music without authorization.

Not true. If you've been sued it's because an IP address belonging to you was reported by your ISP. That's a long way from identifying the recipient of the lawsuit as the actual user that uploaded or downloaded the music.

If I have Wi-Fi at home, how can you be sure it was me who did the downloading?

The fact that a wireless connection is involved does not mean that the individual engaging in copyright infringement cannot be identified. Cases are routinely pursued where a wireless connection is involved.

This is especially rich, RIAA indeed has pursued such cases. And lost.

Defendant Opposes RIAA Reconsideration Motion in Capitol v. Foster

In Capitol v. Foster, Ms. Foster has filed papers opposing the RIAA's motion for the Court to "reconsider" its decision granting Ms. Foster's motion for attorneys fees:

Defendant's Objections to RIAA's "Reconsideration" Motion*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Via: Reordingindustryvspeople

P2Pextortion.com sends up p2plawsuits.com

An anonymous BB reader has created "p2pextortion.com," a send-up of the RIAA's p2plawsuits.com. He writes, "If you compare it to p2plawsuits.com, you will see that it is almost a sentence for sentence reinterpretation, with decoding of legalese and making worst case scenario examples, along with links to supporting posts by yourself, TechDirt, Lessig, and others. The 'Pay Us' link goes to the EFF donation landing page. I am a little worried about them coming after me, even though parody is protected speech, but you do not need to give me credit, just say it is anonymous."

I am being sued? By who?#
In this case the plaintiffs are the record labels and their affiliates and subsidiaries, otherwise known as the "Big Four." We are just their paid henchmen. We do whatever we can within our legal (not moral) means that are in our interest, and then say that it is in their interest.#

Isn't it the RIIAHA that is suing me?#
No. The Big Four who are in "The Family" know as Recording Industry Idiotic Ass Holes of America (RIIAHA), and the RIIAHA lets the members of the family find the next "opportunity" to support their dying business model. #

I am a hard working college student, trying to get an education so I can contribute to the GDP, to help raise my standard of living, and increase the share of educated people in the US. Why are you going after me?#
As it turns out, going after families, kids and grandmothers is bad PR. If we can go after individual college students who are notorious for using p2p applications, we save ourselves a little heat. Besides, your parents are most likely in a high income bracket, and they can bail you out. Targeting college students makes business sense.#

RIAA Moves to Dismiss Counterclaims in Lava v. Amurao

In Lava v. Amurao in White Plains federal court, the RIAA has moved to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims for (a) a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and (b) copyright misuse:

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims*
Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims*
Exhibit B to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims*

Defendant is represented by Richard A. Altman of Manhattan.

Similar RIAA motions have been denied in Capitol v. Foster in Oklahoma and granted in Interscope v. Duty in Arizona.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

HELP EFF Support the FAIR USE ACT!!! NOW!!!

Reps. Rick Boucher and John Doolittle’s FAIR USE Act [PDF] would remove some of the entertainment industry’s most draconian anti-innovation weapons and chip away at the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) broad restrictions on fair use. Take action now and tell Congress to help restore balance in copyright now.(bottom of page)

The FAIR USE Act would limit the availability of statutory damages for secondary liability and allow innovators to make more reasonable business decisions about manageable levels of legal risk. Meanwhile, copyright owners could still get injunctions and actual damages for harm suffered, putting them in no worse a position than civil litigants in most other areas.

The bill would also codify the Supreme Court's "Betamax doctrine" as it pertains to hardware devices, making clear that manufacturers cannot be held liable based on the design of technologies with substantial non-infringing uses.

Finally, the bill would loosen the grip of the DMCA, which restricts circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions even for lawful uses. The FAIR Use Act adds 12 exemptions, including the ability to circumvent for classic fair use purposes like news reporting, research, commentary, and criticism.

Broader DMCA and copyright reform remains absolutely necessary, but, if passed, this bill would be a big first step in the right direction. Take action to support it now.

Steve Jobs: DRM Is Bad for Consumers, Innovators, *and* Artists

Apple’s Steve Jobs publicly threw down this gauntlet: “If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store… Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.”

Why should the labels listen?

* DRM is bad for consumers: “[A] world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats … is clearly the best alternative for consumers.”

* DRM is bad for innovation: “If [DRM] requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players.”

* DRM is bad for artists: “So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free [as audio CDs], what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none…. [More innovation in stores and players spurred by DRM-free downloads] can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.”

Jobs isn’t the only music service provider to invite an end to music download DRM — Yahoo!’s Dave Goldberg has long urged the labels to remove the restrictions, and Real’s Rob Glaser said last month that “DRM-free purchases is an idea in ascendance and whose time has come.”

We agree wholeheartedly with Jobs, since EFF has been making exactly the same points for several years now. As a first step in putting his music store where his mouth is, we urge him to take immediate steps to remove the DRM on the independent label content in the iTunes Store. Why wait for the major record labels? Many independent labels and artists already recognize that DRM is a dumb idea for digital music, as demonstrated by the availability of their music on eMusic. Apple should let them make that music available without DRM in the iTunes Store now.

There are also bigger lessons here for policymakers. The harm done by DRM could be reduced by reforming the DMCA to allow the evasion of DRM for lawful purposes. Moreover, Jobs’ remarks are another reason for policymakers to reject proposed government DRM mandates, which would only serve to further harm innovation, consumers, and artists. Clearly what’s needed in the digital music world is less, not more, DRM.

Steve Jobs: DRM Is Bad for Consumers, Innovators, *and* Artists

Apple’s Steve Jobs publicly threw down this gauntlet: “If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store… Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.”

Why should the labels listen?

* DRM is bad for consumers: “[A] world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats … is clearly the best alternative for consumers.”

* DRM is bad for innovation: “If [DRM] requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players.”

* DRM is bad for artists: “So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free [as audio CDs], what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none…. [More innovation in stores and players spurred by DRM-free downloads] can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.”

Jobs isn’t the only music service provider to invite an end to music download DRM — Yahoo!’s Dave Goldberg has long urged the labels to remove the restrictions, and Real’s Rob Glaser said last month that “DRM-free purchases is an idea in ascendance and whose time has come.”

We agree wholeheartedly with Jobs, since EFF has been making exactly the same points for several years now. As a first step in putting his music store where his mouth is, we urge him to take immediate steps to remove the DRM on the independent label content in the iTunes Store. Why wait for the major record labels? Many independent labels and artists already recognize that DRM is a dumb idea for digital music, as demonstrated by the availability of their music on eMusic. Apple should let them make that music available without DRM in the iTunes Store now.

There are also bigger lessons here for policymakers. The harm done by DRM could be reduced by reforming the DMCA to allow the evasion of DRM for lawful purposes. Moreover, Jobs’ remarks are another reason for policymakers to reject proposed government DRM mandates, which would only serve to further harm innovation, consumers, and artists. Clearly what’s needed in the digital music world is less, not more, DRM.

RIAA Student Extortion Letters Online at p2pnet

RIAA Student Extortion Letters Online at p2pnet

The RIAA's new "Student Extortion Letters" are now available online. This is part of the big 4 record labels' attempt to get colleges and universities to act as their enforcers and collection agents.

Thanks to "alter_fritz" for the news tip.

Via: RecordingIndustryvspeople

BIG NEWS (For me)

So a friend of mine was being sued by a few of these recording companies. I initially took the case knowing I would be in over my head.

Thanks to the help of my former boss and esteemed colleague Joseph D. Nohavicka (Bronx, NY) we were able to assist my friend and take the first step towards defending this case.

Well the answer is finally in and can be viewed here (Sitaras Answer)

This action was initiated against Mr. Sitaras in Brooklyn Federal Court. I will keep you updated as the case progreses.

My utmost gratitude also goes out to Mr. Ray Beckerman over at Recording Industry Vs. People

Mr. Beckerman has been a great resource to me throughout this process as well as a great supporter and friend of this site. Mr. Beckerman is an attorney here in New York and is a key figure in the defense against these P2P file sharing lawsuits. I would highly recommend that any reader of this site visit his as well if you haven't already.

Elektra v. Barker "Making Available" Oral Argument Now Available Online

A transcript of the January 26th oral argument of defendant's dismissal motion, before Judge Kenneth M. Karas, in Elektra v. Barker, which dealt, among other things, with the issue of whether or not "making available" is a copyright infringement, is now available online:

Transcript of January 26, 2007, Proceedings, Elektra v. Barker 1:05-cv-7340 KMK (USDC, SDNY)*

(Ed. note:The transcript was purchased and made available to us by "A Friend of the Fight". Thank you, "Friend".-R.B.)

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation