THIS COULD BE ENDGAME. A federal appeals court has just ruled that the RIAA can't force internet service providers to turn over the names of suspected filesharers (p2pnet article). And if the RIAA can't get the names, they can't file suits.

Unfortunately, there are hundreds of people who have already fallen victim to these illegal subpoenas. They've had to pay thousands of dollars each to settle suits or to avoid having a suit filed against them.

Leading Music Activists Demand that the RIAA Return Filesharing Settlement Money

WORCESTER,MA (December 19,2003)- Downhill Battle, a music activism website,is calling for the RIAA to return all the money it has collected from individuals and
families suspected of filesharing.

"The RIAA obtained these names illegally,and it's time for them to return the money that they've extorted from hundreds of families." said Holmes Wilson,,co-founder of Downhill Battle.

The call comes in response to a federal appeals court ruling,issued today,which states that the RIAA may not force ISPs to reveal the names of individuals that the major record labels suspect of filesharing.

"These lawsuits have literally pushed families into bankruptcy,and now the basis of the suits has been invalidated. For the major labels to keep this money is unconscionable." said Nicholas Reville,co-founder of Downhill Battle."The RIAA should immediately return every cent that they've taken from families."

Perhaps returned along with damages? That could definitely light the fuse for the RIAA's demise. They have tortured and scared these people, they should now pay back not only what they have taken in money but in what they have given in cruelty. The RIAA shall crash and burn, it is our mission.

Until they actually win a suit in court, they have no right to "extort" from the people that can't afford proper representation or even just regular court fees. As it stands, not a single cent of the money they "collected" was from a legal and legitimate process of law. So yes, they should give it back, not just because it's the right thing to do or that they can be sued for it, but if they want to save face at all, they better do something good.

considering RIAA will never do it, I guess the "downhill battle" name is very accurate.

Save face? You must be kidding. This would require a conscience.

Unless you get suicide bombers to follow RIAA bosses to their homes those people will NEVER see their money again.

LOL at gdZiemann!!!

Yeah GOOD POINT!!! The RIAA will NEVER give any of that money back unless they are ordered by the highest court in the land to do so. And they can afford to keep appealing until it gets to that court, if they were so inclined.

Why would we expect the RIAA to ever be HONEST? Look at the contracts they get hard working musicians to sign, and you can see what a lying business they conduct. Nope, they will never return the money unless FORCED to do so.

the pain and suffering the RIAA has caused to these families is without a doubt a big gap to fill because to put a family into a financial hardship the way they did will take years of getting back what they lost. they set back a lot of families and really don't care who they hurt in the process. all the families that have been hurt in the process should get their money back and they should get additional monies for the slandering pitbull tactics they caused by putting these innocent people into the courts. they should be sued away into oblivion.

HEY we won a Battle NOW to WIN the WAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sure the RIAA will appeal but if they keep LOSING then we've won the war Does this mean that only those who settle are screwed??? Can they still file against those who are waiting to go to court?????? or are those subpoenas invalid now??????

Illegal subpoenas..hmmm..interesting concept. So, by obtaining the information through illegal means, that makes the RIAA guilty of doing illegal things...right?

"So, by obtaining the information through illegal means, that makes the RIAA guilty of doing illegal things...right?"

Nope, it was not illegal until the ruling came down. Article 1 of the Constitution -"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." I would guess that this applies to judicial rulings as well. Ex post facto law - A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed.

Does mere interpretation of a law, that still contains the same verbage,
make acts change their legality or not? In other words, the legality or illegality of acts referenced, should be inherent in the law, and the actual provisions of the Law are not physically changed by the interpretation is it?

Sorry for the rambling and poor thinking tonight...really long day and a troubling one, and I should never post when I am in this mood...

Merry Christmas one and all

"In other words, the legality or illegality of acts referenced, should be inherent in the law, and the actual provisions of the Law are not physically changed by the interpretation is it?"

The thing is, the meaning of a law passed by a Legislature is often not fully understood until the law is applied to a particular set of facts in a lawsuit.

A quick example that is all I can think of off the top of my head. Let's say a legislature passes a law that says "dogs" must be registered with the town. Now I breed my dog with a cat. : ) Is the offspring of a dog and a cat considered a a "dog" or a "cat" under this law? We don't know until I refuse to pay the license fee and the town sues me and a court interprets the meaning of "dog". Laws passed by legislatures are often unclear and we don't know what they really mean until they are tested in a court. The court interprets the meaning of the statute and that is how we know what the law means. When you read a statute, you also have to read the caselaw interpreting that statute to understand what the law means.

mroop et all,

Even if it were possible to extract money back from these people, the alleged infringers already signed a settlement that basically said, "yep, I did it and here's a sum of money to put this matter to rest." It's this statement that would cause the recouperation of money back from the RIAA to be frought with peril.

mroop, It's funny you should bring up ex post facto...I'm wondering if/why this should/could be applied to the "retroactive" provision of the Copyright Term Extension Act that the troll Sonny Bono put through Congress (and they and Pres. Clinton signed) right before he met his maker by way of a Douglas Fir!

"It's this statement that would cause the recouperation of money back from the RIAA to be frought with peril."

Yes that would be in the favor of the RIAA. But just because you sign something does not necessarily mean it is legally binding. In fact, it seems that nothing people sign is legally binding anymore. : )

Agreed - a contract (including a settlement) entered into because of coercion will not be given effect by the courts.

bottom line is these people are hosed. they will not be given back the money. Which is the risk you take when you settle out of court. that's why it's called "settlement". the issue is now dead.

what's more interesting to me is the people who voluntarily submitted their personal info into the riaa's amnesty plan. how bad do you suppose they're fucked?

Just a theory, but cant individuals file a suit against the ISP that gave their information out illegally??? Maybe if enough people go after the ISPs the ISPs will file a suit against the RIAA. The ISPs certainly have the resources to take them to court for however long is needed

Just a random brain fart.

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but....

As I understand it, current plans for a so-called "Trusted Computing" platform would require that all users somehow identify themselves to the computer. The concept of just using a computer anonymously, or with whatever anonimity that we have today, will just be non-existent.

...Sorry, I accidently pressed Post...

So, without any need to obtain information from an ISP, a user's computer might just divulge his or her identity to any "legitimate" person who wants to get it. So, the laws might even just allow the RIAA to get a user's identity without any cooperation from the ISP.

**I sure hope that I am wrong on that one....

-A Nice Canadian Guy

here ya go leflaw!!
Somebody named Tim Davis in thia article wants to be in a class action suit. see link below.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=738&e=7&u=/washpost/20031220/tc_washpost/a16598_2003dec19

I applaud this brave man. Hopefully others will follow. Class action is needed. As to the John Doe's I am thinking. If they do not know who they are sueing. If they file a John Doe and then get the details that way. Can they still back out of sueing them and does the John Doe accused become aware even if they (The RIAA) back out? I was wondering if they could still get away with backing out if they realised they were sueing a senators daughter etc.

I love you guys over at downhill, but it ain't gonna happen. The RIAA would be admitting their wrongs if they returned the money. I feel sorry for, and we should support all we can those who were forced to settle, but we can not turn back the hands of time.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

"Just a theory, but cant individuals file a suit against the ISP that gave their information out illegally???"

Maybe, but that's not a good plan. It's because of the ISPs that the subpoenas have been made illegal. They are on our side.

surfside-great article, you outta submit it for news...
~Code

From the Washington Post article...

But legal experts said that those who had already settled were unlikely to be able to recoup any payments to the RIAA. And Sherman warned against anyone trying.

"If anybody tried to claim that somehow a settlement or pending litigation is somehow tainted by the process by which their name was provided, it would simply encourage us to file a new lawsuit and get exactly the same information in another way," Sherman said. "At that point, the settlement figure would be that much higher because of additional legal expenses."

Still, Tim Davis, a New York artist and a lecturer at Yale University, said he intends to try.

Davis was one of the first song swappers targeted by the RIAA, and settled for $7,000 on the advice of his lawyers.

"I would do anything it takes to get the money back," said Davis, who said he downloaded only 300 songs. "My hope is there could be a class-action suit of the people who did settle."

I think a class action suit against the RIAA is in order. Give em a taste of their own medicine and show em that "we the people" will not put up with their abuse of the American public. It should be a statement to all corporations that think they can control this country.

merry cristams? even me? but but-im a republican! i voted against the 'president' who signed the dmca into law!
think about that when you speak of changing congress. i did. it worked.

and yes-a merry xmas to you all, we accomplished something. big blow for the little guy!

~time flies~

Perhaps a Boycott the RIAA fund raiser to help those who have paid?

Maybe a fund to aid those who are yet to be sued?

Perhaps a CD burning rally to draw attention to the cause?

Just thinking out loud, but where is the PHYSICAL presence of this board?