File sharers aren't the only people the RIAA wants to nail. It's now trying to sue a New Jersey farmer's market because, it says, counterfeit CDs with music from the RIAA's owners, the Big Five record labels, are being sold there.

Four months ago, the RIAA filed a suit in Camden County claiming the Springfield market hasn't done enough to eliminate counterfeit video and music retailers there, says a report in the Register-News here.

The RIAA wants $150,000 per violation.

But now Matt McCrink, the attorney representing the Columbus Farmers Market, said he'll probably file a countersuit within the next two weeks unless the RIAA withdraws what he says are frivolous charges.

"The lawsuit alleges that it is our duty to police for ... pirated CDs," the Register quotes McCrink as saying. "They want us to be their policemen."

For the RIAA, "This is about deterrence," said Frank Creighton.

- p2pnet.net

totally unbelievable. the RIAA nazi regeme is trying to spread it's tenticales everywhere.

they already started to go to flea markets with detectives and arresting all the vendors that are selling CD's on the spot in NYC, and nassau county. it is getting widespread. they want to show good examples of why there should be a HR2517 law for their copywright music. they believe that the longer the paper trail, the better it is for them to get the above law in place.

Good. Bust all the vendors selling pirate ripoff crap. Pirates making a profit are bad, right? Bootleggers on the other hand, are good.

I wonder what legal theory the RIAA is using to go after the market.

Now that I think about it - Is a mall responsible if their stores are selling illegal goods? I would guess not, don't know for sure though.

busting the pirates making a buck is good. going after the flea market isn't. they're trying to enlist everyone to be their eyes and ears just like a totalitarian regime. Instead of threats of beatings and murder to force compliance, they threaten lawsuits. I see absolutly no difference between this tactic and the gestapo, KGB or any other police state. Law or no law. after all is was against the law to help slaves escape. it's a good thing we had all those ruthless criminals who vagrantly broke the law and threatened economic chaos of the south to help the slaves.

Blah. It depends on the market's responsibility. They are making money renting stalls. If their vendors are making money selling illegal goods then the market is indirectly making money from the sale of illegal goods. If the law puts a burden of responsibility on the market then so be it.

Enough with the silly slave analogy. You can make that analogy with any illegal activity - so what if it against the law to rob stores, slavery was illegal to - blah.

Sounds more like a chapter out of The Godfather to me.

gdZiemann yes that's a good anology. The point of the slave anology is simple. the law, If morally wrong, is wrong and needs to be changed through legislation or peaceful civil disobedience. Those who want to blindly follow the law and argue the merits just because it's written down in the books and say, "oh well it's the law gotta follow it" caters to the exact mentality the industry wants us to. If your peaceful law biding citizens the law must be respected reguardless. doesn't matter that they bribe, intimidate, payoff lawmakers to get these laws passed. doesn't matter if the law tramples our rights, by golly it's the law and we as good american citizens must follow it even though its wrong. BULL. That's the mentality that keeps us in this mess and is self defeating. They don't care if you hate them or not, just follow the damn law so they can make their fortunes. Some may want to follow that path but I don't. The slave anology works as well as the law as the law in Nazi germany prohibiting Jews from marrying arians. If it isn't for those who stand up and say, the law is wrong. We'd be goosestepping in this county and that's not an exageration. I'll keep making these anology's casue they show the point and I don't care if you like it or not. End of discussion so you can have your famous last word again

OK, I will. The slave analogy works when appropriate, but not always. That is my point.

Are you familiar with the concept of vicarious liability? It applies when one party is responsible for the actions of another party due to a relationship between the parties.

There is a relationship between a vendor and the market where he rents his stall. If the law should hold that a market is responsible for one of their vendors selling illegal goods, then that would bear zero relationship to your silly slavery analogy.

As I told you before I'm not a lawyer and I only care about what's right. That's more important than a misused law. so stop putting down everyones opinions, you just keep pissing people off.It's people like you that make the average person sick of lawyers

If you think the market should not be responsible then fine. You are entitled to your opinion and I might even agree with you. I just pointed out that your use of the slavery analogy was tired, old and silly.

I dunno, see I have a pob with people making money off of selling pirated stuff. I may downlaod lots of music, but I don't even consider selling it. Because now thats no longer any love for music, its jsut trying to make a quick buck. I can't be too mad at the RIAA on this one. If idiots are gonna be dumb enough to sell copywritten material, they should be sued for being stupid and getting caught.

Hazard. you're right. we all can agree on that

I am so sorry but I couldn't resist this, RE: mroop's comments above:

"Are you familiar with the concept of vicarious liability? It applies when one party is responsible for the actions of another party due to a relationship between the parties.

There is a relationship between a "lawyer" and the "guilty client" where he "accepts money at the cost of victims" ....

Not to put lawyers down -- some of my best personal friends are lawyers including three past state attorney generals in this state -- but "vicarious relationship" has a long arm.....

The "fines" being imposed here are excessive -- far more than most restitution for victims rights judgements --- There becomes a fine line between who must report whom... Lets get real -- this is all a smokescreen cover for mismanagement by the major recording companies.

I haven't sued any 12-year-old girls for $150,000 a song lately -- have you? I am not going to turn in my neighbor either for the bax of used cds that he purchased at a charity auction either.

How is your post relevant to the issue of the potential liability of the market for the acts of the vendors?

If you rent an apartment and start selling drugs, whose responsibility is it to arrest you? The landlord's? Or the police?

Has the landlord, who is merely renting space, probably with a lease forbidding illegal activity, done anything wrong?

I am not condoning the actual pirates, btw, who certainly should get nailed. I just do not believe that the market owner necessarily bears any liability unless it is proven that he was aware of the activity and did nothing to stop it.

I think an apartment is is bad analogy because it is rented for the purpose of residence, not business. I think a mall is a better comparison.

"I just do not believe that the market owner necessarily bears any liability unless it is proven that he was aware of the activity and did nothing to stop it."

Good point, but maybe he is not responsible even if he is aware. Maybe it's not his responsibility to police the vendors.

On the other hand, maybe he has some sort of affirmative duty to take reasonable precautions - for example checking out what the stalls are selling by walking around the market once a day.

What if he purposely made sure he was unaware? Like the cop who turns a blind eye to drugs being sold on the corner because he doesn't want the hassle.

As I noted above, I don't know what the laws are in regard to this type of thing. But if there is some sort of responsibility or liability of the market under certain circumstances then I might not think it is totally out of line.

George is right. The flea market owner should have affirmative knowledge before any claim of vicarious liability would attach

That sounds reasonable to me. Should the flea market owner have any responsbility to take reasonable precautions like checking the stalls once a day? If not, then an affirmative knowledged requirement is an invitation to stay purposefully ignorant.

People it is simple. I am a software engineer. I have been involved since the early days of the pc. Everybody pirated software from the get go. Then when mp3's came along everyone pirated those. But I have learned my lesson from this rude awakening. In the future I will pay the legal price for anything I use, software or music. Not doing so is stealing. It is not our property, it is their property. I know how I feel if somebody steals from me. What the public has been doing is no different than a looter grabbing a TV during a riot. They figure they can get away with it, we have figured we can get away with it.

Now I think the RIAA should do this. Say they will drop the law suits now. But from this day forward no mercy. Even for one download. From this day forward they will prosecute just as stores prosecute all shoplifters. I think they should do this because not everyone got the message up to now. And the people cought were actually the good guys. The ones who felt they had taken and should return. All the jerks who just took and took and never gave back (or gave back little) got clear. So there should be one more warning. This would be good for the industry I think. But then they would have the moral high ground to come down on any further lawbreakers without mercy.

Don't kid yourself of try to justify this. This is stealing, you have no right to steal. And you sure don't like it when anybody takes your property.

..again and again.. who is ultimately responsible for the policing? And where are the cops? and arrest warrants? and the grand juries? and judges? if it a crime.. why not arrest the perps instead of civil-suing the market? Flea market folks and street folks get busted regular, but not sued in civil court.. What law is the RIAA invoking to do this.. talk about old and tired and wrong.

You have no right to steal.. true, but then this whole capitalist systems steals from someone somewhere.. mroop, Astrodog, are those NIKE'S you're wearing? So Riaa labels can steal with the help of fancy lawyers, right? And they get to charge too much for their product and continue despite being busted NUMEROUS times for anti-trust violations.. money.. money.. money.. money.. money.. money.. I think that the definition of theft depends on how much bank you got.

And, to be old and tired and redundant. Slavery was the SUPREME THEFT in this country.. own up to it guys, it happened and it was WRONG.. and it still is the foundation of this capitalist system.. it is just overseas now where you can't see it.

--------------------------
-Check -
- To:AstroDog -
-Amt: $10000 Ten Tho-
-Reasonropaganda -
-Signed: RIAA -
-------------------------

when an MP3 is the same high quality as a regular CD I might agree but then again the supreme court (I wish I could remember the case I read it here on this site) ruled that copyright infringment is NOT stealing. Stealing implies depriving the owner of the use of that item and this is not the case here.

Selling Songs that have been recorded from another source is wrong but giving is not.. and when a user on a p2p downloads a song from another person they are giving it to them. RIAA guess what if you are so addiment then when someone wants to buy a cd for someone for christmas you going to go after them too? Hopefully most of the people out here will wise up and kick your butts to the curb!

In case the owners of the market are worried, someone pass along that they can settle for 2,000 dollars.

By the way, I think this is for all the non-believers who thought they wouldn't dare sue any kind of business. Well.. we were wrong weren't we? They've got the farmers markets!

anyone with money to pay for lawyers is able to bully, or blackmail his target of choice. the legal system and judges facilitate this atmosphere of litigation. it doesn't matter if the suit has merit, you have to spend $$$. that keeps them in business. the riaa is trying to bully and extort these victoms in order to cling to a failed business model. they have smothered creativity and deprived us long enough. for years they fought technolgy, now it is time for them to adapt or die!

If CD's were of good artistic quality and reasonably priced, the average consumer would buy them at a legit retail outlet.
The sense in the land is that the average CD is neither.
Stopping the sharing of music is the new Prohibition. It is making a nation of scofflaws and promoting the rise of crime, just as bootleg liquor did.
The 55 M.P.H. speed limit did the same thing. People felt it was unfair and unjustified, and ignored it.

In fairness to AstroDog, he is entitled to his opinion. We need to keep the dialogue open here. Name calling will prevent the free exchange of ideas, and stop the progress toward the eventual resolution of this important issue.

The riaa labels want ownership and complete control of their music in perpetuity. It would not be so bad if every song was available for a reasonable price, but neither is the case.

The Kid

That should have said "the artists' music".

The Kid

mroop- plausible deniability , or avoiding affirmative knowledge has now become a high art form in our government, so why can't it trickle down
PS..mroop, am starting to appreciate your posts more
-bulkeraser

ASTRODOG it's OK to record songs off the radio Legal and yet not OK to download off the internet????? The only difference is the quality!! I can live with lo fi but if I have too they should take the TAX off of CD R's and FORCE the RIAA to PAY the monies collected from ALL the years that folks were TAXED on TAPES and CD R's to the artist's. 45% is their cut which none of them have ever seen a penny of!!! and you say filesharers are STEALING!!!! who you kidding

AstroDog - please site with title and section, one federal law that defines the word stealing...not "theft" , but stealing. Since we are talking about a legal issue, we should refer to legal terms. even the no electronic theft act, ONLY uses the term "theft" in the title of the act, and does not define theft in the act itself.

Mroop -- heh heh, didn't mean to offend you but to squiggle around your question:

"How is your post relevant to the issue of the potential liability of the market for the acts of the vendors?"

My point was that with your definiton of "vicarious liability" that it could be interpreted that the relationship between lawyers and their clients could be similar in that there is a relationship between the attorney and his/her client -- but you don't seem many attorneys being arrested becauses of the actions of their clients (even though in some cases the client acts upon the advices of counsel) -- this was purely tongue and cheek.

Regarding the liability of the market for acts of its venders? Well they didn't shut down the NYSE for Enron despite the fact that NYSE sold Enron stock. Obviously once the NYSE became aware of the situation they took action -- this is part of the issue with the Farmer's Market. Does the Farmer's Market have a business need to know exactly what each of it's independent vender's do and how they conduct themselves? I think that is a difficult call. My point extends far beyond this one particular Farmer's Market. It extends wherever used records, tapes disks and even sheet music are sold. This includes estate sales, charity auctions, yard sales, garage sales, flea markets, trade shows, thrift stores, charity thrift stores, etc.

I have a friend who works at VA who has a personal record colection that is appraised at close to $100,000 including early mint condition Sinatra, Elvis, Beatles, Brenda Lee, etc. music.

When this friend dies (as we all do) what happens to his estate? Does the estate now have to pay fees back to RIAA if it has to liquidate all of this music? What if the estate is given to the Salvation Army's Thrift Store. If the SA sells the records, etc. in the store are they going to be arrested and charged with a $150,000 fine for each song they have for sale or sold? Where does it end?

Astro, 60 million people have decided the outcome of this: p2p song copying is here to stay. Everyone wants the artists to get paid, not the recording industry execs, it's time to find ways to do this and keep p2p intact, otherwise we'll always be in this place.

Calling it stealing is polarizing and does nothing to convince anyone here you're right, you simply must discuss this in a progressive manner, work with us on solutions, otherwise you're just blowing smoke. We'd like your input, but we need to deal with the realities here: p2p is not going anywhere, artists need to be paid, 60 million people don't want to use the old business model anymore of purchasing per song and per album. They want to keep what they download, and enlighten others by making it available to them, it's helping new artists and keeping a wealth of currently unavailable recordings out there for music lovers to find, it is people keeping our rich musical history and culture alive, something the music industry has no interest in doing. We must now figure out a way to turn it into a profitable endeavor.

Debating morality is pointless at this time in the game, it simply will alter nothing.

But thanks for joining the discussion!

Paul

and, if you're talking about LEGAL issues, use terms as defined in law...
not some kindergarten word like "stealing" which has no definition in legal statutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wonder what astrodog thinks is proper punishment for stealing ???flbgbt