Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Defendant)   RIAA elevates TotalDouchebag status to UltraDouchebag status   (recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

31720 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2007 at 7:02 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



99 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-08-04 5:01:44 PM  
There will be no discussion of UltraDou++*&?#NO CARRIER#?&*++
 
2007-08-04 5:52:46 PM  
TheCharmerUnderMe: There will be no discussion of UltraDou++*&?#NO CARRIER#?&*++

You win. I'm leaving. Turn out the lights on the way out will ya?
 
2007-08-04 7:07:41 PM  
UltraDrewCurtis? I did not know such thing could exist. Is his capacity for beer a million times better?
 
2007-08-04 7:09:39 PM  
 
2007-08-04 7:10:36 PM  
TheCharmerUnderMe: There will be no discussion of UltraDou++*&?#NO CARRIER#?&*++

img172.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2007-08-04 7:11:01 PM  
Give the RIAA a break man, they are just doing their jobs, which is to extort money from the public for those hard working musicians who have been prohibited from making good music since the internet was invented. Just ask Elton John.
 
2007-08-04 7:11:20 PM  
Can someone explain the article for me? thanks
/dont understand
 
2007-08-04 7:12:36 PM  
Zhang746: Can someone explain the article for me? thanks
/dont understand


What he said
 
2007-08-04 7:14:28 PM  
And if you want proof that good music has been all but destroyed by the internet, just ask Tommy Emmanuel, his career has been completely ruined due to the fact that hundreds of his live performances have ended up on youtube. If you want to keep good music alive, ban the internet today! It's the only solution.
 
2007-08-04 7:14:56 PM  
Context. Lots of context.
 
2007-08-04 7:16:48 PM  
the big Shutovsky
 
2007-08-04 7:22:33 PM  
Zhang746

Can someone explain the article for me? thanks
/dont understand


When you file a law suit you generally go through levels of discovery where each side figures out what they themselves have and what the other guy has. Looks like the judge gave the average joe the finger and let the RIAA take a fine toothed comb to his life. The RIAA isn't required to do anything really extraordinary, while depoing the defendant's family (in some states) is sort of over the top, as is being forced to surrender all of his hard drives, and list everyone who has used his computer in the last three years.

Lots of lawyers use discovery as a way to bleed the other guys dry. It's a giant pain in the ass to amass all that paperwork and it can cost upwards of $250 an hour in lawyers fees. Sort of a nuts-in-the-vice type of thing to see who will flinch first. Since the RIAA has deeper pockets they can do this for as long as the judge will permit it, and if the judge is a douche, that might be a very, very long time.
 
2007-08-04 7:26:22 PM  
ever1261: , that might be a very, very long time.

Of course you can also ask the judge to have the RIAA verify they have any authority to persue the matter in the first place. Be fun to watch the RIAA try to prove they have any permission from any copyright holder to enforce copyright. Or how does a trade organization get authority to sue anyone on behalf of anyone else?
 
brx
2007-08-04 7:30:44 PM  
I would clap my hands with glee if some organization targeted those RIAA douchebags with 'maybe not so legal' tactics.
 
2007-08-04 7:30:49 PM  
Andrew Speaker works for them now?
 
2007-08-04 7:31:05 PM  
This is really just a little ordinary, run-of-the mill discovery that occurs in way too many cases to mention. It's a little ridiculous, really. Rather than complain about the RIAA, which is, to be fair, more than a little ridiculous, a better target would be the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows this sort of asshattery, the weakness of Rule 11, which makes sanctions against lawyers for using discovery to harass toothless. Finally, complain long and hard about the state of copyright law, and complain to your nearest federal elected representative. What the RIAA does is ridiculous, but the source of the idiocy is what the law allows them to do. Oh, and give time/money to the EFF. www.eff.org.

/end rant
 
2007-08-04 7:31:41 PM  
i106.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2007-08-04 7:32:09 PM  
epoc_tnac: And if you want proof that good music has been all but destroyed by the internet, just ask Tommy Emmanuel, his career has been completely ruined due to the fact that hundreds of his live performances have ended up on youtube.

I thought the fact that he WAS Tommy Emmanuel ruined his career.
 
2007-08-04 7:35:04 PM  
WhyteRaven74


Of course you can also ask the judge to have the RIAA verify they have any authority to persue the matter in the first place. Be fun to watch the RIAA try to prove they have any permission from any copyright holder to enforce copyright. Or how does a trade organization get authority to sue anyone on behalf of anyone else?


The RIAA probably has an assignment of the copyrights and thus is able to bring the suits on behalf of the record labels/artists - you could file the request as part of your discovery, but I'd imagine that would be a waste since all they would need to do is pull the file that shows the assignment of the right.

I dunno though - I have no experience with copyright law. I'm just a student, so I don't really know how this is going down.
 
2007-08-04 7:47:04 PM  
media.urbandictionary.comView Full Size


If their product sucks so bad, why do so many of you download so much of it?
 
2007-08-04 7:51:28 PM  
Move outside of the US. The RIAA can't touch you there.
 
2007-08-04 7:53:07 PM  
There can be only one... an UberDouchebag?
 
2007-08-04 7:54:41 PM  
DIAF RIAA
 
2007-08-04 7:54:58 PM  
ever1261: The RIAA probably has an assignment of the copyrights

Well, that's a bit of the issue. The RIAA is a trade organization representing only certain record labels for starters. Furthermore it would take a bunch of twisting on the member record labels part to even attempt to show they have any authority to assign the enforcement of song copyrights to anyone.
 
2007-08-04 7:55:52 PM  
GoldSpider: If their product sucks so bad, why do so many of you download so much of it?

you do realize that not all record labels belong to the RIAA right?
 
2007-08-04 7:57:27 PM  
WhyteRaven74: you do realize that not all record labels belong to the RIAA right?

And coincidentally, the people sharing/downloading independent music aren't the ones being sued. Funny how that works.
 
2007-08-04 7:59:38 PM  
galactus5000: epoc_tnac: And if you want proof that good music has been all but destroyed by the internet, just ask Tommy Emmanuel, his career has been completely ruined due to the fact that hundreds of his live performances have ended up on youtube.

I thought the fact that he WAS Tommy Emmanuel ruined his career.


Yeah, being the best guitarist in the world can be a bit of a drag. Nice troll, btw, but next time you should maybe target someone who isn't a million times more talented and charming than you or I could ever hope to be.
 
2007-08-04 8:00:35 PM  
GoldSpider: Funny how that works.

And the RIAA can't prove that a given person downloaded a given song. Makes things kinda problematic for them. Nevermind they never bother mentioning that the people whose names you see in the writer credits for songs have ever authorized them to do what they do. It's their copyrights on the songs after all.
 
2007-08-04 8:00:49 PM  
[image from riaaradar.com too old to be available]

It won't stop until you stop giving them money.

You know that, right?
 
2007-08-04 8:03:35 PM  
epoc_tnac: And if you want proof that good music has been all but destroyed by the internet, just ask Tommy Emmanuel, his career has been completely ruined due to the fact that hundreds of his live performances have ended up on youtube. If you want to keep good music alive, ban the internet today! It's the only solution.

Is that sarcasm or for real?
 
2007-08-04 8:12:19 PM  
Also for the copyright angle, consider this, there have been cases of songs showing up in commercials or other things with dubious if any permission. Who is it that's had to go to court to settle the issue? Whoever owned the copyright to the song, as in whoever wrote it. So the RIAA wouldn't handle that bit of enforcement, but is going after downloaders. You can get tons of money for licensing a song, and if you have the snafu of using it sans permission initially, you can really rack up some bucks. Going after a downloder, yeah, there's not that kind of money in it.
 
2007-08-04 8:13:09 PM  
Man On Pink Corner: It won't stop until you stop giving them money.

You know that, right?



Like it or not, the most famous and some of the best songs are copyrighted. There have been legal attacks against tab sites and regular joes performing cover songs, basically against songs which are part of the public consciousness. It is one thing not to support the RIAA financially, but when it becomes a crime simply to perform those songs, then we have a legal problem that cannot be solved by boycotting alone.

My preferred solution is to boycott the law entirely. It may not be desirable to break the law, but at some point the law tries to trump the will of the people, and at that point, the law becomes too ridiculous to follow and the people should work together to literally break it.
 
2007-08-04 8:16:56 PM  
SaladMonkey: epoc_tnac: And if you want proof that good music has been all but destroyed by the internet, just ask Tommy Emmanuel, his career has been completely ruined due to the fact that hundreds of his live performances have ended up on youtube. If you want to keep good music alive, ban the internet today! It's the only solution.

Is that sarcasm or for real?


Listen to the song on the link I provided and tell me if you think I am really advocating the removal of that music from free consumption.
 
2007-08-04 8:22:42 PM  
As one of RIAAs asshat lawyers I'm seriously getting a kick out of some of these replies.
 
2007-08-04 8:25:50 PM  
epoc_tnac: Listen to the song on the link I provided and tell me if you think I am really advocating the removal of that music from free consumption.

Great, I was hoping for sarcasm.
 
2007-08-04 8:32:00 PM  
I used the Plaintiff's computer once.
No, I really am not sure of the date.
No, I don't really remember whether I downloaded music or not.

Sorry.
 
2007-08-04 8:33:22 PM  
I'm not sure that downloading music should really be a crime fought as strongly as child rape. I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel. I should probably get receipts for all of my CDs now, huh?
 
2007-08-04 8:41:06 PM  
tanager2: I used the Plaintiff's computer once.
No, I really am not sure of the date.
No, I don't really remember whether I downloaded music or not.

Sorry.


Just tell them you used one of the university library computers, or everyone in your dorm building gets to use your computer for everything.
 
2007-08-04 8:42:15 PM  
AliasUndercover: I'm not sure that downloading music should really be a crime fought as strongly as child rape. I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel. I should probably get receipts for all of my CDs now, huh?

Money, love, and sex make some people do wierd things.
 
2007-08-04 8:42:33 PM  
matrixxx1: Support the MUSIC not the disease!

Sorry, but that is a riduculously bad logo. It almost makes me want to cheer for the RIAA when I see it.
 
2007-08-04 8:42:35 PM  
WhyteRaven74
Of course you can also ask the judge to have the RIAA verify they have any authority to persue the matter in the first place. Be fun to watch the RIAA try to prove they have any permission from any copyright holder to enforce copyright. Or how does a trade organization get authority to sue anyone on behalf of anyone else?

From the court documents I have seen, it's usual one or more record labels that are the plaintiffs.
For example, the "joint letter" linked in TFA states "Atlantic Recording Corp vs. .."

I think it only gets reported as "RIAA vs whoever" and not "SONY goes after PC-less grandma".
I wouldn't be surprised if the labels actively encourage that style of reporting for PR reasons:
don't let the label publish press releases about lawsuits etc but let the RIAA or some similar organization handle that stuff in the hope that it gets reported as "music industry vs.." and possible bad publicity doesn't get linked to company (or in case of SONY: brand) names.

And also from the court's ruling in TFA:
Plaintiffs were required to furnish copies of copyright registrations for every song they assert was unlawfully downloaded.
 
2007-08-04 8:45:25 PM  
Shut it down. Shut down the internet.
 
2007-08-04 8:45:40 PM  
I am going to have lunch tomorrow with a great singer who is (in my opinion) absolutely destined to be famous on a Tori Amos level someday. They both have fans in common. She is still independent at this point, and making a fairly decent living at present from her music. Her name is Vienna Teng.

I am definitely going to ask her how she is going to make it anywhere as big as Tori without getting herself and her finances slimed up via RIAA involvement. She sure has done well for herself without them. The Internet has done well for her career.

Whatever she says in reply should be pretty darned interesting.
 
2007-08-04 8:47:12 PM  
GoldSpider: If their product sucks so bad, why do so many of you download so much of it?

I ran a web radio station and I had NOT A SINGLE SONG playing that was protected by the RIAA, yet they still sent me cease and desists every goddamn six months to scare me into compliance.

So fark off with your naivety.
 
2007-08-04 8:48:16 PM  
 
2007-08-04 8:51:14 PM  
pureobscure: I ran a web radio station and I had NOT A SINGLE SONG playing that was protected by the RIAA, yet they still sent me cease and desists every goddamn six months to scare me into compliance. So fark off with your naivety.

So because you did things legit, that invalidates every case the RIAA ever pursued. Brilliant.
 
2007-08-04 8:55:02 PM  
I stopped a long time ago purchasing RIAA music. They can fark off and die.

And just for the record, video did indeed kill the radio star. People just don't want to listen to ugly sing pretty.
 
2007-08-04 9:09:04 PM  
I got a better idea. We break the RIAA. Grab your torches and pitchforks. If we have the will to say it on the internet, surely we have the will to say it outside the headquarters right guys?

/Guys?
 
2007-08-04 9:12:24 PM  
epoc_tnac: Yeah, being the best guitarist in the world can be a bit of a drag. Nice troll, btw, but next time you should maybe target someone who isn't a million times more talented and charming than you or I could ever hope to be.

Not trolling, I just happen to think he's lame. Talented, yes - but lame.

/better guitarist than me, but I bet I can kick his ass at Simpsons trivia.
 
2007-08-04 9:17:58 PM  
CDs with RIAA music may need a required Warning Label saying they could cause grave financial harm if anyone ever listens to them, or if they were to be lost or stolen, you could be liable is someone else listens to them.

//Much more dangerous than airbags.
//or cigarettes
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.