Shuroki Online

Over the last week several different things have happened that put some crimps in the Recording Industry Association of America’s practice of suing consumers. At the very least it seems that it might now be much more expensive for them to continue suing people.

Here is a quick round-up of headlines/links of what’s happened. Below that I’ll add some commentary:

1. Google restores video after user DMCA counterclaims
2. RIAA Legal Complaint (suing a customer) is dismissed as “boilerplate”
3. Record Companies “Copyright-Pooling” is challenged
4. Canada’s RIAA equivelent (CRIA) admits P2P Downloading is legal in Canada
5. Internal e-mails of an RIAA attack dog are leaked

1. The first hit came when Viacom backed down on a DMCA claim to have content removed from YouTube. You see, last fall a guy named Christopher Knight (no, not Peter Brady) ran for a seat on his local school board. VH1 picked up the video and ran it on their show “Web Junk 2.0″. He thought it was cool and took that clip out of the show and posted it on YouTube so that he could link it from his blog.

Then a few weeks ago Viacom sent a take down notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to take the video down because it violates their copyright. Well, Google immediately took it down, because that’s what they usually do when they get a take down notice (especially since they are both in court right now). The thing is, most of the time the content really is infringing, and even if it isn’t almost nobody ever fights it- instead a hundred copies just go up under other peoples YouTube accounts.

Anyway, Mr. Knight did fight back (with help from the EFF) and filed a counterclaim. Google agreed and put the video back up. So far Viacom is silent, presumably because they know they did a no-no. You see, they were violating his copyright, because they never asked him if they could use his clip on their commercial television show!

At first this seemed like a blow against the very faulty DMCA. Sadly, many people feel that this just validates that it is working as intended. sigh..

2. In one of the many RIAA cases against consumers, a judge has dismissed their complaint for failure to actually state a specific claim. Funny how the judges actually want you to put a little thought into a lawsuit and actually prove something before demanding people hand over buttwads of cash. In fact, the judge said:

“Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant. However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on “information and belief” Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation.”

With this precedent, it seems that the RIAA might actually have to tailor each case to the individual and the facts, which should slow down their shotgun approach and cost them a lot more money.

3. In another RIAA copyright case (UMG v. Lindor): Marie Lindor called the record companies suing her a collusive cartel and that their agreement to pool their copyrights is a “copyright misuse” a year and a half ago. They finally came back with a motion to strike the allegations, but she held tight, arguing that their argument had no legal basis. Also that it’s brief showed no justification for their copyright-pooling agreement.

Oh, and she is the defendant who challenged that the $750 per song that the companies are claiming is unconstitutional (way to go!)

4. Canadian Recording Industry Association (their version of the RIAA) filed documents to kill the expansion of the levy on blank media. Blank media in Canada (blank CDRs) are taxed with the money going to CRIA because they might be used to pirate music.

CRIA’s President argues in his affidavit that a recent decision from the Copyright Board of Canada “broadens the scope of the private copying exception to avoid making illegal file sharers liable for infringement.” The broadened scope is to also charge a levy on iPods.

I mean, if I were paying a fee to the RIAA for all of my blank CDRs and my iPod then I’d assume that I am paying a compulsory license to copy any music that I want to.. Hmm, now where have I heard that before?

5. Finally, internal e-mails from the company MediaDefender, who works with the RIAA and the MPAA (same as the RIAA but for movies studios) have been leaked to the interwebs. What do they do for the **AA’s? Well, they set up fake download sites to entrap file traders and attempt to disrupt p2p traffic, that’s what.

About 700 megabytes of e-mails from the last 6 months have been leaked onto BitTorrent sites which detail their entire plan to entrap people. The messages describe the New York Attorney General’s office working on a big anti-piracy sting; how MediaDefender spys on their competition; sanitizes their own Wikipedia entry (a big cultural no-no); how they plan to distance themselves from the fake company they set up to entrap people; and information on many other internal operating topics.

Yes indeedy- its so great to see good people paying attention to what all of these sleezeballs and crooks are doing to erode our rights to share culture.