Folks,

I am the "De Facto" and "Ad Hoc" admin of Boycott-RIAA. (I won't call myself "webmaster" because I don't muck with any of the programing/code/backend stuff.)

I have noticed that our readership/viewers are DOWN lately.

I mostly blame MYSELF for the drop-off,

BUT

God Damnit, YOU folk are to "blame" too!

I/we need more ORIGINAL articles and stuff. %99 of the crap I post is nothing but links to articles on from [i]other sites.[/]

George Ziemann and maybe CodeWarrior (our previous admins) are who I "steal" all the "original" stuff from...

-----

Damnit folks!

WRITE!

I know. I know.

I should be telling myself this more-so, first and foremost before bitching at the rest of you about it.

Still here as always.

You don't want the stuff I write.
I am lucky to be cohesive on a good
day.

I never thought this was a place for original articles. I always thought of it as a sort of "aggregator" for certain types of news related to indie music, the continuing slow apoptosis of the major music lables, copyright follies and fiascos, and new ways of promoting music on the net.

Seems like the big music companies are doing a good job of destroying themselves without much help from boycott-riaa. I don't know what impact the site has had in percentage terms. But 12% decline in the music biz so far this year -- of course, that's the biz that is measured and reported. I don't know how indie labels and projects are doing. Trent Reznor was pretty happy with a $1.6 million return on his new instrumental album, before was even released on CD. Did they count that? Probably not.

Anyway, maybe the lower traffic is due to perceived success of inflicting a mortal wound on the beast.

See ya later, aggregator.

Dreddsnik -- Did you mean "coherent"? Or are you just having a hard time keeping your shit together?



As we all know, I write a lot. But I've gotta tell you, there is just so damn little going on in music worth talking about lately.

The college kids are now apparently used to getting sued. They also appear to have stopped calling for pointless protests that the RIAA would just ignore anyway. The cool kids are learning how to quash a John Doe subpoena. The coolest schools have told the RIAA to piss off.

At any time during their long decline, the RIAA could have solved ALL the legal issues surrounding filesharing if they wanted to.

In Sony v. Betamax, there was a guy who admitted to copying movies and everything else they needed to argue about. He was given immunity from any monetary damages and the two sides debated fully on whether or not the activity was legal or not.

One case. Discussion is over. The issue is resolved.

According to a BusinessWeek article from yesterday, I think it was, the RIAA has now sued more than 40,000 people over the last 5 years without establishing any firm legal basis for the validity of the accusations.

Only about 100 have fought this in court.

For the general public, each case that we do hear about follows exactly the same pattern as every other case, arguing the same points, the same questionable gathering of the same vaporous "evidence," only to see the RIAA drop the case the day before it goes to trial.

I'm thinking that we lost a lot of people that are interested in the lawsuits to Ray Beckerman, who has more details than I can even go through. He does that better than us.

In reality, though, Beckerman's site is an extension of ours, where an actual lawyer talks about what the legal stuff means instead of a couple of dumb-ass musicians who are obviously biased.

But so is Ray.

Other than the lawsuits, there just isn't that much going on in the music business, period. There was a lot of talk last year, but nothing has happened of real significance.

Judging from sales figures, they have much less money to spend annoying us this year than they did last year. And I can't remember the last time ol' Mitch Bainwol or Cary Sherman was even quoted in the press.

We used to be an idea, one tiny voice in the crowd trying to warn people about the RIAA. Now that the RIAA has been ranked as the world's most evil corporate entity, I think that everyone got the message. Now it's spreading without us.

Then there are the painfully obvious but easily overlooked factors:

• Oddly enough, many college students seem to think this is a good time for spring break.

• It seems as if there's some sort of political activity going on this year. As near as I can tell, the Democrats are trying to decide whether the best way to beat the Republican opponent in November is with a candidate that makes McCain look like Boris Yeltsin or one that makes him look like a viable option.

And they're having a re-e-e-e-eal hard time deciding. If only they had a Decider...

Here what I am working on:





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, et. al.

Plaintiffs,

v. Case 2xxxxxxWY


xxxxxxx, …
defendant

MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
PURSUANT to Fed. R. Civ. Pro 12 (E)


To the Honorable William Yohn, U.S.D.J.:

1. Your Movant is xxxxxxxx an individual, 48 years old.

2. This is an action for Copyright Infringement filed on March 11, 2008, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 101 et. seq. for injunctive relief and statutory damages for alleged "downloading" of audio music from the internet. Movant, who has been accused of “willful” infringement with serious consequences, cannot prepare a defense unless she knows what copyrights are at issue, their dates of registration, their owners, the alleged dates and manner of infringement claimed, which of the exclusive rights of the owners were allegedly infringed, and the facts supporting such claims.

3. Plaintiffs are not publishing Companies, but recording companies, and accordingly do not claim copyright in musical works or compositions, but in sound recordings, a species of copyrightable work which does not share all the exclusive rights of other types of copyrights, such as musical composition, dramatic work, etc, under 17 U.S.C. 106.

4. In paragraph 10 of the complaint, Plaintiffs describe themselves as the "copyright owners or licensees of exclusive rights "of "certain copyrighted sound recordings including but not limited to all of the copyrighted sound recordings on Exhibit A to the complaint", which is identified throughout the compliant as "the copyrighted recordings". Exhibit A (which is also attached here as Ex. A) states "Total audio files 337".

5. However, only eight ( compositions are listed on Exhibit A, and their copyright registration numbers are not identified. No copyright registration certificates nor assignments of registrations are attached to the complaint. There is no other reference to the remainder of the 337 audio files that plaintiffs claim are downloaded.

6. In the prayer for relief, Plaintiffs collectively ask for statutory damages (which range from $250 to $150,000 per infringement), but do not specify which plaintiff is seeking which damages, and for what copyrights. Under the 17 U.S.C. 504, no statutory damages may be sought for any infringement which took place prior to the date of filing of the certificate.

8. Possession of an official registration certificate issued by the United States Register of Copyrights is a jurisdictional requirement for copyright infringement litigation in the Federal Courts and entitlement to statutory damages, pursuant to the Copyright Act.
( See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr )

9. Exhibit A lists certain "artists" and lists Plaintiffs as copyright owners, but does not list the manner in which in which Plaintiff acquired the copyright - work for hire agreement, purchase, assignment, etc.

9. It is not clear from plaintiffs' complaint which exclusive rights they claim are infringed. Plaintiffs only seek to recover for certain unspecfied "uploading" and "downloading" on "P2P" networks, and not for record, tape or compact disk piracy. In paragraph 11 of the complaint , plaintiffs merely claim that they have been granted the exclusive rights to "reproduce" and "distribute" the "Copyrighted Recordings" to the public. Additionally, in the prayer for relief, they ask also that defendant be restrained from "making Plaintiff's recordings available for distribution".
However, 17 U.S.C. 106 specifies that owner of rights in a sound recording have only the following exclusive rights: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords (emphasis supplied; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords (emphasis supplied) of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. (Sections 106 (3) and (4) are not applicable to sound recordings, and are therefore not reprinted)

10. Since copies and phonorecords are defined in the copyright act as "material objects" 17 U.S.C. 101., they do not apply to a case of alleged "uploading" and "downloading" on "P2P" networks. The only exclusive right possibly implicated would be 17 U.S.C. 106 (6) (perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission) , and it is not clear from the complaint whether plaintiff claims infringement under that section. Also, there is no general "making available for distributing" right in 17 U.S.C. 106.

11. The complaint, paragraph 17, accuses movant of conduct "willful and intentional, in disregard of and indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs". However, it is never clear in the complaint whether defendant is accused of actual copying or mere ownership or lease of an IP address on which someone else is alleged to be infringing. In paragraph 14, the complaint states
"Plaintiffs identified an individual using Limewire on the P2P network Gnutella at a IP address 71.185.73.209 on June 13, 2007 at 09:39 :07 EDT distributing 337 audio files audio files over the Internet. Defendant was identified as the individual responsible for that IP address at that date and time".

It is not clear from the complaint what plaintiff means by "responsible" (directly, indirectly, by operation of law, vicariously or otherwise) or how defendant was supposedly "identified" as being the "person responsible". This is important to defendant's defense because she is being accused of direct, willful copyright violation rather than innocent, contributory or vicarious infringement, and the differences are drastic in the application of statutory damages, and possible criminal ramifications. Additionally, defendant cannot determine if additional parties are necessary for complete relief under Fed. Rule Civ. Pro 19, or if plaintiff’s privacy rights or constitutional rights were violated by Plaintiffs.

12. The plaintiffs are four corporations some of which, according to the disclosure statement filed with the complaint, are related entities and others that are not related entities. All plaintiffs are well known non - U.S. owned record companies (known as Sony/BMG, Arista, UMG, BMG Music, respectively), and, on information and belief, are members of a foreign controlled organization known as the The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), headquartered in London. There own website http://ifpi.org , states that “IFPI is affiliated with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), who carries out IFPI policy. IFPI Secretariat in London is responsible for co-ordinating international strategies in the key areas of the organisation's work - anti-piracy enforcement, technology, lobbying of governments and representation in international organisations, legal strategies, litigation and public relations.” The IFPI or RIAA are not parties to the complaint, but this case has all the earmarks of a mechanized extortionate fishing expedition which has plaguing the federal courts of late.

11. Wherefore, movant prays for an order that plaintiff's complaint be ordered to file a more definite statement with the following information included, or suffer dismissal with prejudice:



a) List of all 337 copyrights referenced on Schedule A to the complaint.
b) Registration Certificates for any copyright for which statutory damages is sought, and supporting ownership documents, if creator listed on registration is not a plaintiff herein, or is assignee, work for hire, etc.
c) Statement of which exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. 106 are allegedly infringed for each copyrighted work;
d) Statement whether or not 17 U.S.C. 106 (6) is implicated, and facts upon which claim is based;
e) Statement whether defendant is alleged to be a direct infringer, or vicariously liable for alleged infringements of third parties by virtue of her association with a specific IP address;
f). Statement of the facts upon which the above knowledge is based, including information received by Plaintiffs from third parties ISP's or others who allegedly disclosed defendant's identity to Plaintiffs as a person who downloaded 337 copyrighted sound recordings.
g) Statement of facts supporting Paragraph 17 of the complaint's allegation that defendant has acted willfully

Respectfully Submitted,

Thomas F. Margiotti, Esq.

__________________________
Counsel for defendant


__________________________
Lawrence E. Feldman, Esq
(of counsel)

Date 4/23/2008

Good grief Schmoo, you just HAD to ask, didn't you

Can I go off topic for just one teeny tiny second? Now that your "house" is pretty much Democrats running the country...is everyone still ticked off with George and the Republicans? Just curious here...

Now, back to Boycott....

" Dreddsnik -- Did you mean "coherent"? Or are you just having a hard time keeping your shit together?

"


See.
Point Proven. I are a dumass

and .. yes.

Leflaw - an impressive amount of good work and thought going into that case from you and Mr. Margiotti!

I have three suggestions for you or your colleague:

1) Near the end of item 12, it reads: "... which has plaguing the federal courts of late."
Insert the word "been" between "has" and "plaguing".

2) At the end of item 11, it reads: "... or if plaintiff’s privacy rights or constitutional rights were violated by Plaintiffs."
Is this the intended meaning to be conveyed? Or do you mean it to be DEFENDANT'S privacy rights or constitutional rights?

3) Following item 12, the next item ostensibly should be 13, not 11.

As I say, superb case being developed. Hopefully, it will result in having the Plaintiffs' charges be dismissed without prejudice.

As awesome as Larry's case filing is (it goes to 11. Twice!), he's still asking the "material object" question that he asked Mitch Glazier five years ago.

After 40,000 cases, we still have to ask the basics. Every freakin' time.

--------

Now that your "house" is pretty much Democrats running the country...is everyone still ticked off with George and the Republicans?

Even the Republicans stopped being Bush fans.

The Democrats could be running the country if they had impeached Bush and Cheney. This would have involved taking Nancy Pelosi, our first female Speaker of the House, and giving her a promotion to first female president -- before Hillary got a shot at it.

So they decided to cross their fingers and hope Bush doesn't trigger the apocalypse in the meantime.

"So they decided to cross their fingers and hope Bush doesn't trigger the apocalypse in the meantime."

Hmm....apocalypse?.....Pres Obama?.....
wait......I think my head is about to explode.

Pres. Bush only started to loose republican support when he started to spend like a democrate.

America can't afford the policies of the democratic candidates..

Kind of like solving high gas prices with a carbon tax on gas.

" Pres. Bush only started to loose republican support when he started to spend like a democrate.

America can't afford the policies of the democratic candidates.. "

riiiight.

He lost my support when he started
breaking the law, and saying it was
he executive priveledge to do so.

Well, actually, he never HAD my
support. Though neither did Kerry.
I've always voted 3rd party ...

Until now.

This election it's the votes that didn't
count ... the ones the media doesn't
acknowledge .. that will count the most.

That's why Obama will win if Hillary
doesn't steal the nom.

America can't afford to continue to
allow a president that picks and
chooses which laws apply to him
and his pals.

" Pres. Bush only started to loose republican support when he started to spend like a democrate."

What does that mean?

Bush doesn't spend like a Democrat. Not even close. There are so many reasons to dislike Bush and you picked the only one I can even imagine myself defending him on.

It was okay to rain billions in ballistic missiles on Baghdad based on a completely fabricated fantasy, then spend trillions more trying to fix what we broke, but trying to improve our own infrastructure is a waste of money?

We had a balanced budget when Bush took office, a result of the Democratic party's fiscal policies. Now we're trillions of dollars in debt. The price of oil is rising because of the dollar's decreased stability in the world market.

Americans can't afford the war in Iraq. It is the cause of our current economic position and was based on bullshit. It is definitely a Republican policy which John McCain promises will be continued for some time to come.

"Kind of like solving high gas prices with a carbon tax on gas."

Well, Plan A was "take over the country with the oil."

This is Plan B -- Make gas so expensive that people figure out how to use less of it. The exorbitant and pointless taxes on cigarettes apply the same principle to make people stop smoking.

Sometimes, Plan B works. Plan A never turns out well.

I won't get into American politics just yet, It's a long way to November, and we'll all be tired of it by then, however,

"This is Plan B -- Make gas so expensive that people figure out how to use less of it."

I would have thought so, but a recent survey of North American motorists, when asked what price gas price would make them park and not use their cars said "there ain't one".

In other words they'd rather live in their car than not buy gas and drive.

Hmm... Big SUV with coffee maker, microwave and my i deck internet thingy and I'm good till the next century. Now how do we bring down the price of parking meters...

" I would have thought so, but a recent survey of North American motorists, when asked what price gas price would make them park and not use their cars said "there ain't one". "

There is a big difference between
' Park and not use ' and .. figure
out how to use less '.

Big difference.

We have to eat, that means work, that
means going to work, which means
driveing, which means ... gas.

The prices can go up up up, and we will
STILL have to work. We HAVE however,
been pretty imaginative in using less.

More americans will eventually do so.

Whether or not diminished use will cause
them to lower prices is debatable.
No matter how expensive it gets, the
'people that count' will always be able
to afford it.


" In other words they'd rather live in their car than not buy gas and drive. "

No, perhaps they have no choice, as
I have outlined above.

So, in The US, you have a failing dollar, and high gas prices.

Up here in Canada, we have a strong dolllar and high gas prices (over $5.00 a gallon....gulp!)

It used to be if the middle east, when threatened with our facination/determination for synthetic oil, the oil price dropped like a hot rock...I think they're laughing at the idea of turning our food supply into fuel....we'll not only have to quit driving, but quit eating as well!

Bio-Fuels, not synthetic fuel....Sorry, never mind...

pepe -- Aren't Canadian (imperial?) gallons bigger than US gallons?

gdZiemann..

1 US gal =3.8 Canadian liters. Your gallon is a tad smaller.

Our gas prices range (average) regular gas $1.25 per liter x's 4=$5.00 per CDN gallon or
(average) premium $1.41 per liter x's 4=$5.64 per CDN gallon.

Where I live we're at $1.27 per liter, or $5.08 a CDN gallon..with no end in sight...

Also remember, we don't live in nice warm climate year round here....We still had snow up until three days ago!

Enjoy your cheap gas!

If the sign said $1.27, I'd be overwhelmed with nostalgia.

$1.27 was your gas cost the last time we drove South, almost two years ago????....not so much now. Good times are gone....

(more than two years ago, pepe)

we live in expensive times
and in perilous times

If we thought Bush was bad enough, we ain't seen nothin' yet. Just wait until our new President (Hillary Clinton) gets going good next year or so.
Most people don't know some of the stuff she's really made of.