Judge in RIAA case chides unethical record company tactics

By Justin Mann on October 29, 2008, 10:00 AM
It seems that not even Judges overseeing cases involving the RIAA agree with the tactics they employ, with at least one Judge scoffing at their tactics and outright telling them they are being unethical. A Judge in Boston has stated that there are huge imbalances in these cases, with the law overwhelmingly siding with the record companies for numerous reasons, including financial. The Judge cited that it doesn't make financial sense for most individuals to fight, innocent or not, because of the vast resources groups like the RIAA have.

The Judge claims the record companies have an “ethical obligation” to understand they are bankrupting people, and is telling them to stop it. His words may fall on deaf ears, but at the very least someone other than the little guy is taking time to speak their mind about this, and it is someone with some authority. Perhaps this will encourage other Judges to speak their mind as well.

This certainly won't have an impact on anything on-going right now, but it is nonetheless interesting to read.




User Comments: 1

Got something to say? Post a comment
syber said:
What this new law fails to consider is that many people who were sued by both Directv and the RIAA were in fact innocent and forced to pay to settle the matter because of the exaggerated cost of litigation. I was one such person. Because someone owns a smart card reader or owns an ip address does not mean they did anything wrong. I was sued and directv said I never paid for service when I have the canceled checks proving I paid. They said I had no authorization to view there programming when I paid them in full for programming. They even threw in names of people I never heard of. Because to say these things when they knew it was not true was a crime. I am the victim of these crimes but the victim witness program will not investigate these crimes. Justice will not investigate the crimes. A crime victim which has been ignored. My alternative now is to engage in Jury Nullification as a method of passive resistance. There is just nothing else I can do. I am under an agreement so my mouth stays closed but I think that agreement took away my rights as a victim of crime. While jury nullification is repulsive, it is far worse when justice ignores a crime victim. Now comes a new law where by not only will the innocent person be ignored as a crime victim, they intend to take there home in the assist forfeiture law. The problem with the Directv suits and the RIAA suits is that they are a large jump to conclusions. "You own an IP address, you must have sat behind the computer." The guy next door could have accessed your wireless network. You own a perfectly legal smart card programmer so you must have used it illegally to make an access card to steal Directv programming. "You own a corvette so you must be speeding."
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.