Two unrelated topics:

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Its only considered piracy when you share copyright items

I think that pretty much amounts to the same thing.

[The Jade Knight]

My husband answered it for me though.  If super-broadband became widely used, I could see Blockbuster or some other startup offering movie downloads for rental.  You know, pay $1, download this file and it will delete itself in 24 hours.  With internet that fast it would be faster than going to the store.

Actually, these kinds of services already exist, and have for some time (Movielink is one example).  They would certainly become more popular, however.  They tend to be more expensive than $1, however.


On topic, I would highly recommend (all Americans, at least) visit www.eff.org, and an excellent book on the topic is Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, available online here:  http://www.free-culture.org/

Stutory damages for filesharing in America are insane for individuals.  ("$150,000" per "willful infringement").  Over the past 5 years, just four of the students the RIAA has sued have been sued for a total of more than six times the TOTAL amount the RIAA makes in CD sales in a year.

[Legion]

There lawsuits do not go to court most times, the RIAA is looking for out of court settlements, but if need by the can drain a persons bank account so that they are forced to either plead guilty or settle out of court.

[The Jade Knight]

Naturally they don't go to court.  If the RIAA actually took these to court asking for those kinds of damages, the American public would get riled up pretty durn quickly.

However, the amounts they ask generally do cause the defendants to go broke (or borrow large sums of money).  They are trying to use scare tactics, however (in a sort of legal version of what the mafia did).

One of their targets was a 12 year-old living on welfare.

[Legion]

What do you mean legal mafia......I bet if you and an independent person, who understands the RICO act, looking at just the facts (with out names) they would consider what the RIAA is doing as illegal.

But I do not like what the RIAA is doing, or how they are going about it

[The Jade Knight]

The RICO Act, to my understanding, requires something to be found illegal before RICO protections can apply (at least since its scope has been limited in the past few decades).  So I don't see how RICO would show that the RIAA's actions are illegal.  They're certainly questionable, however.  And, it may be argued, monopolistic.

The RIAA and MPAA are, in my opinion, incredibly wrong in how they use their legal and political clout.  Even Hilary Rosen made a remark sharply complaining about tactics Apple was using that she herself worked hard to allow them to use (well, not specifically allow Apple to use them, but to allow those tactics).

[Spriggan]

Internet 2, as it's called, has been around for about a year now and ya it's fast, Entropy didn't believe me when I first told him about it.  I've been watching it for about 4-5 months at it's official site http://www.internet2.edu/

[Legion]

Sorry for all the quotes....


Section 1962, sets forth the following prohibited activities:

   (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity,..........

"Racketeering activity" generally means (1) any act or threat involving, among other things, gambling, which is a felony under state law

Taken from http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/rico.htm

The fenlony is excessive punishment

The Court announced that the standard under the Eighth Amendment was that punishments are barred when they are ''excessive'' in relation to the crime committed. A ''punishment is 'excessive' and unconstitutional if it ..... (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.''

taken from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/06.html

The RIAA is using threats of a lawsuit of $250,000 USD per song (or copyrighted item).  That is grossly out of proportinat to the crime if you ask me, hence why I think that the pushing around of an individual person with these threats of lawsuits could be seen as a RICO violation.

[The Jade Knight]

I see.  You make a good point.

Are you involved with the EFF?  You ought to be.

[The Lost One]

Threatening lawsuits is not a crime and therefore, is unlikely to be a RICO violation. To be a RICO violation, some criminal activity must be occurring, generally a felony. Filing false lawsuits or threatening harassing lawsuits, would not be a felony or even a misdemeanor.

Remember, that in the U.S. legal system, not everthing is criminal. Filing a frivolous claim, false prosecution, and false threats of prosecution are claims to be brought in civil court as a tort action. Thus, I would be skeptical of any RICO claim against RIAA.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Threatening a lawsuit isn't a crime. But neither is telling someoen they'll be protected if they give you some money: you could be selling services as a body or security guard.

However, if you're telling someone they'll be protected in that you will not have your hired goons come and trash the place.... well. that's racketeering, and it's illegal. i don't see why you can't make a case that threatening a lawsuit with the intent of destroying someone's life, esp when the amount is excessive and unreasonable, is the same thing.

[The Jade Knight]

Part of the problem is that "excessive and unreasonable" amount is legal.

[The Lost One]

Actually, if someone is selling services that are objectively unreasonable (either because the are worthless or excessively priced) then they can face potential civil and criminal lawsuits.

For example: many companies sell credit protection that will provide absolutely no service to the consumer. For those companies that really do nothing, they can be convicted for criminal fraud (or larceny by trick). However, these companies tend to disappear before a state attorney general gets around to prosecuting them. If the service is not entirely worthless but excessive then the company could face civil lawsuits for violation of consumer protection acts or lawsuits based on tort or contract law.

In addition, if the price is objectively excessive (to the point were no reasonable person would sign the contract), then the contract is voidable. However, convincing a judge that a contract is unreasonable or excessive is difficult as the judge probable makes over $120,000 a year and probably took a paycut to become a judge. Wealthy people (like judges, lawyers, and doctors) seem to be willing to pay just about anything for everything.

Anyways, enough on contract law.

[The Jade Knight]

So, the question is, could you get the RIAA in trouble for demanding $150k per song you're sharing?

[Spriggan]

No because it's their property (or at least the cooperations they represent) they have the right to demand what every they want for that, you on the other hand have the right to not buy that product.  I'm tired of the theifs trying to point the finger at someone else instead of takeing responceability for their actions.