This type of strategy is very similar to what goes on in the domain name arena. Threaten unsophisticated people into paying money, whether they are "guilty" or not. If they don't pay, the litigation costs would likely be far more than the settlement. Then the RIAA can parade the number of settlements as proof of "guilt."
Will they ever learn that suing one's customers is not a good means of doing business?
The recording industry group says from now on it will send out warning letters to suspected music-file traders before taking them to court, allowing them to negotiate a settlement. Those who do not respond within 10 days will be sued. [Wired News]
Seems that SunnComm got some common sense and will not sue
In an abrupt reversal, the antipiracy company decides not to sue the Princeton University grad student who published a paper that describes how to bypass CD copy protection technology. [CNET News.com]
Use of the shift key is now going to be actionable under the fatally flawed DMCA. Will the stupidity ever stop?
A US student is being sued for showing how to get around anti-piracy technology on a new music CD. [BBC News | TECHNOLOGY]
In a letter to the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, CDT expressed support for the goals of a pending copyright enforcement bill (HR 2517) but highlighted privacy concerns raised by a provision that would facilitate sharing of information between law enforcement agencies and private copyright holders. CDT also wrote that a provision designed to reduce the spread of spyware is overly broad. The Subcommittee was scheduled to complete its markup of the bill on October 2nd, but debate over controversial provisions delayed final consideration until the following week. October 3, 2003 [Center for Democracy and Technology]
As the U.S. Senate explores the privacy problems with the DMCA's subpoena process, one senator introduces a bill to repeal that section of the law. [CNET News.com]
A California man has filed a legal challenge to the music industry's amnesty program. The complaint says the plan will not protect file traders from lawsuits, contrary to what the RIAA promises. By Katie Dean. [Wired News]
In a very scary move, Google has complied with the demands made by Kazaa's parent company and pulled links to sites that it has deemed "infringing."
Declan McCullagh reports further in this CNet Article.
The following call to action from Larry Lessig's Blog is WELL worth your consideration. While many may think that this is not directly within the mission of the Domain Name Rights Coalition, strongarming of user, author, and intellectual property holders' rights by monied corporate interests is precisely one of the things that the DNRC wishes to fight. In this case, open source software is software governed by copyright laws, in which the intellectual property holder has made a decision of how to use his or her rights in order to benefit the industry and users as a whole. It recalls the original constitutional reason for the grant of intellectual property rights; in order to provide incentive for creation of works that will eventually be brought into the public domain. Only in certain cases is that incentive solely monetary.
The pattern followed by corporate interests who feel threatened by non monetary incentives for creation of useful works is precisely the same as has occurred with regard to domain name holders offering information that may harm the current status quo. In many cases, it is easier to stifle the easy accessability to that information by taking access to intuitive domain names, than to do what they truly desire - silencing the speaker.
Those concerned with domain name rights must also be concerned with any other practices in which corporate power is used to strongarm individuals and organizations into limiting discourse. Please consider writing to Ms. Boland, a government employee paid with your tax dollars, and helping to educate her as to the real issues in these cases.
From Larry Lessig's Blog:
Ed Black of the Open Source and Industry Alliance has written Ms. Lois Boland a very nice and good letter about the recent statements about “open source.”
Meanwhile, there’s much reporting that Microsoft is behind the lobbying to kill the WIPO meeting. I don’t know anything about that (for some reason, I’ve been removed from Mr. Gates’ lobbying-strategy list). But it is useful to contrast the sophisticated, moderate, and well-informed work of Microsoft’s GC, Brad Smith, about “open source” software, recently published in a Joint AEI/Brookings book.
In addition to Ed Black’s letter, and perhaps letters from you, she might find Brad Smith’s essay useful.
[Lessig Blog]Sets High Standard for Publishing DVD Decoding Information [EFF: Press]
San Francisco - The California Supreme Court ruled today that publication of information regarding the decoding of DVDs merits a strong level of protection as free speech and sent a key case back to a lower court for a decision on whether a court can prevent Andrew Bunner from publishing this information, whether on the Internet, on a T-shirt, or elsewhere.
In the case, DVD Copy Control Association (DVD-CCA) v. Bunner, California resident Andrew Bunner was one of thousands of people worldwide who republished DVD-decryption software called DeCSS. DVD-CCA, the company that licenses the use of the DVD encryption code, convinced a trial court to issue an order barring publication of DeCSS pending a final decision in the case, claiming that DeCSS contained its trade secrets. The Court of Appeal ruled that the ban on publication was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court today required the Court of Appeal to reexamine the evidence.