RIAA Goes After Ray Beckerman, Demands Monetary Sanctions

from the wow dept

If you follow the various RIAA lawsuits against music fans over unauthorized file sharing, you certainly know the name Ray Beckerman, a lawyer in New York who not only has defended clients against the RIAA, but runs a wonderful resource, called Recording Industry vs. The People, that keeps people informed on various issues and cases related to the RIAA's campaign. We don't always agree with Beckerman, though we do side with him in the vast majority of cases. He is fighting an important fight, standing up for people that the recording industry has often unfairly bullied through the use of questionable legal tactics and flimsy evidence. Before Beckerman came along and took a very public stand, exposing the RIAA's playbook, there was almost no one in the legal community standing up to cry foul at the RIAA's actions.

Apparently, the RIAA has had enough of him, however, and has filed motions against him directly, asking that he be declared a "vexatious litigant" and demanding monetary sanctions. Specifically, the RIAA is claiming that Beckerman made false statements, sending the RIAA off on tangential efforts, while trying to block every effort by the RIAA to obtain the evidence it needed in the case. Plus, the RIAA's lawyers are not at all happy that Beckerman posted all of the motions he filed to his blog, claiming:

Finally, as this Court is aware, Defendant's counsel has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass Plaintiffs. Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions.

While it's unclear how much truth there is to the false statements claims, complaining about the blog is simply ridiculous. From the beginning of the RIAA's legal campaign, its own executives have always insisted that the lawsuits were part of an educational and PR campaign to promote that downloading was illegal. On the whole, the entire filing has the feeling of sour grapes on the RIAA's lawyers' part. They don't like that they lost, and they hate the fact that Beckerman keeps exposing their tactics and flimsy evidence. Clearly, he's getting under their skin a bit. It was much easier suing music fans with questionable evidence when no one was standing up for them.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Ray Beckerman Picks Apart RIAA Lawsuits For Judges' Benefit

from the nice-work dept

Ray Beckerman, as you may already know, is a lawyer in New York who not only has defended numerous people against RIAA lawsuits, but also runs the Recording Industry vs. The People blog, where he chronicles what's going on in these cases. While I believe he sometimes pushes the envelope too far in his claims about what the RIAA is doing, there's no denying that he's been a tremendous force in shining some much needed light on some of the RIAA's more questionable activities, while also helping those who are severely outgunned in various lawsuits.

As numerous folks have sent in, Beckerman has now also written up something of a primer for judges in The Judge's Journal, a publication of the American Bar Association targeted at judges. It basically explains the many problems with the way the RIAA conducts its lawsuits, noting how it often uses questionable means, weak evidence and general bullying tactics in filing its cases. It also relies on the fact that it comes off as more credible than an individual (often defending themselves -- sometimes in jurisdictions far from home). Beckerman highlights all of the problems with the way the RIAA runs its cases, and makes a series of quite reasonable suggestions for judges in how to handle such cases should they show up in court. It's a good guide, that also highlights many of the underhanded tactics that the RIAA uses in filing its cases. It's well worth a read if you haven't seen it elsewhere.

If I have one complaint, it's the same one I leveled against John Duffy recently. While the article does mention Beckerman's website, it does not mention that he represents many clients against the RIAA (including in ongoing trials). That would appear to be something of a conflict of interest, in that he's making a bunch of suggestions for how judges should basically side with his arguments in those cases. I guess I'm learning that such "disclosures" are generally not considered necessary in the legal community.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA Flubs Chance To Actually Respond To Questions About CD Ripping

from the nice-work,-guys dept

For years, we've been a fairly persistent critic of the RIAA's tactics. It's not, as some incorrectly suggest, because we are "anti-RIAA" or that we somehow dislike the RIAA. Not at all. We simply believe their policies are incredibly damaging. First, they're damaging to fans of music who are suddenly treated like criminals just for wanting to listen to music. Second, they're damaging to musicians, who are being lied to about what business models make sense in a digital world. Most importantly, they're damaging to the very labels that the RIAA represents -- and the fact that the RIAA's continued strategy has resulted in increasing troubles for the major labels it represents as well as major acts defecting left and right at a time when the rest of the industry is thriving, seems to bear that out. In fact, I always find it amusing that providing the RIAA with accurate and useful advice about why its strategy is damaging and even providing alternative strategies could possibly be seen as being "anti-RIAA." It's not. It's anti-"dumb policies" -- policies that hurt everyone, including the record labels. For years, we've been ridiculously optimistic that one day, maybe (just maybe!) the powers that be at the RIAA would wake up, realize what a huge mistake they've been making, and start focusing not on treating fans like criminals, not on sneaking around Washington DC to mislead politicians into passing unnecessary and dangerous laws, but on new business models that actually make everyone better off.

That's why it shouldn't be surprising (or "ironic") that we pointed out where the Washington Post and others were wrong in describing a particular lawsuit filed by a record label against Jeffrey Howell. It does no one any good to fight that battle until it's actually necessary. In fact, by saying the RIAA is saying something they have not, it only gives the RIAA more ammo to suggest that those of us who are legitimately critiquing their policies are simply "making stuff up."

So, while I disagree with folks saying that it's impossible to unfairly malign the RIAA, it is rather telling (as pointed out at that same link) to look at how the RIAA has responded to this debate. If they were smart and had any strategic PR sense at all (I know, I know, stop laughing...), someone at the RIAA should have come out quickly and made a clear statement saying: "Ripping CDs for personal use is, and always has been, perfectly legal. We will not, and have not, sued anyone who does that." It's an easy, proactive statement that the RIAA could make. It wouldn't be conceding anything, as it's a factual statement based on the law. Instead, the RIAA has remained mostly quiet or made more careful statements, rather than just coming out and saying: "Yes, you can rip your CDs for personal use." And, for that, the RIAA should absolutely be maligned -- not because of any hatred or anti-RIAA sentiment -- but because it's just dumb and self-defeating.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA NOT Saying That Personal Copies Are Illegal (Yet)

from the no-need-to-exaggerate dept

I believe that lawyer Ray Beckerman has done some wonderful things in defending people being bullied by the RIAA and accused of infringing on copyrights with very little evidence. He also does a fantastic job keeping people informed on the issues with his Recording Industry vs. The People blog. However, his latest post about the RIAA changing their argument to say that making personal copies to one's own computer is infringement is misleading at best. And, worse, many big sites are repeating the claim. Unfortunately, it's not quite true and it seriously hurts the arguments of those who think the RIAA is going too far to mislead in this way. What the RIAA's lawyers clearly seem to be saying is that putting mp3 files that you legally ripped into a shared Kazaa folder makes them no longer authorized. In other words, this is simply an extension of their old standby, the argument that "making available" is infringement. The RIAA's argument here seems to be that putting content in a shared Kazaa folder is "making available," and if making available is infringement, then clearly these files infringe.

Now, it's quite fair to argue that point (and argue it we should, because there are troublesome implications if a shared folder is all you need to create infringing content). However, that is not, in any way, saying that simply ripping your CDs is infringement, and it weakens the arguments of Beckerman and other supporters to take the RIAA's argument out of context and present it as something it is not. The RIAA certainly takes others' arguments out of context and exaggerates statements to suggest that anyone questioning their strategy is just a "pirate." However, that's no reason to sink to the RIAA's level. Instead, why can't we be intellectually honest and focus on what the RIAA is actually saying and why that is problematic? There's no reason to exaggerate the RIAA's stance or take it out of context. It's troublesome enough in real life without having to twist it further.

86 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FSF Sets Up Fund To Pay For Experts Who Can Show How Flimsy RIAA Evidence Is

from the oh-so-flimsy dept

For years, people have been pointing out that the evidence the RIAA often uses in lawsuits against people for file sharing is often quite flimsy. While there's no doubt that many of the people the RIAA goes after are guilty of unauthorized file sharing, that doesn't rationalize the use of questionable evidence that can often suggest completely innocent people were engaged in file sharing. Of course, it's one thing to say the evidence is flimsy, and it's another thing altogether to bring experts into court who can convince a judge (or jury). The Free Software Foundation has now decided to create a fund (for which it's seeking donations) to help pay for expert witnesses to combat the RIAA's evidence in cases. Lawyer Ray Beckerman, who has been quite vocal in fighting the RIAA will help advise the fund and determine which lawsuits deserve money from the fund for an expert witness. It's really too bad that such a fund is even needed -- and it should (though won't) be a wakeup call to the recording industry to see that so many people are sick of these lawsuits that they would fund such a thing in the first place.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..