Comments on: UK record industry seeks to financially ruin leaders of the Pirate Party

By: Paul Renault

Paul Renault — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:57:00 +0000

Thanks for the heads up, Cory. Donation done!

By: That_Anonymous_Coward

That_Anonymous_Coward — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:15:00 +0000

Lets meet in the middle, boycott the cartels, expose all of their dirty secrets, then demand and get things changed.

By: teapot

teapot — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:46:00 +0000

It’s much cheaper to hire a hit man on the dark web than to deal with this shit the right way….. just sayin’

That’s a kickstarter I’d donate to.

By: Topperfalkon

Topperfalkon — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:49:00 +0000

They’re not asking PPUK to remove their proxy (although it would be a condition of their victory), they’re accusing the existing officers of infringing (or aiding infringment of) copyright. They can continue to pursue that case even if the officers resign, but obviously they couldn’t therefore compel them to shut down the proxy. However, the damages they would gain from a victory would easily allow them to take the next batch of officers to court if they continued to refuse.

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, don’t take any of the above as fact.

By: andygates

andygates — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:38:00 +0000

I sense a possible own goal here: if the officers of the PP resign, then they cannot tell the PP to remove their proxy any more, and the personal lawsuits become harassment?

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:29:00 +0000

From bpi.co.uk:

The BPI is the representative voice of the UK recorded music business. We are a trade organisation funded by our members – which include the UK’s four major record labels and hundreds of independent music companies. BPI members account for approximately 90% of all recorded music sold in the UK, and globally the UK’s recorded music market is the third biggest.

==========

Want to hurt the BPI? Hurt their members. Stop buying recorded music.

By: dave

dave — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:14:00 +0000

Mike Batt wrote the Wombles songs. Surely, with the message he spread to kids about finding and reusing the things the ordinary folks leave behind, he’d be the last person to join the BPI copyight cartels?

By: Topperfalkon

Topperfalkon — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:37:00 +0000

The BPI are targeting individual officers for copyright infringement, or at least aiding in the infringement of copyright as far as I know.

By: tw1515tw

tw1515tw — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:58:00 +0000

Flawed but generally fair? Yes

Corrupt to the core? No. There are problems – the system can be biased in favour of the rich, as it can take a lot of money and time.

Can you trust judges (perhaps after a few appeals) to make sound decisions? The judges have a reputation of being fair, trustworthy but old-fashioned. They tend to all come from the same class, as becoming a barrister is very expensive, be white and male. They have to work within the system and laws. Some laws, such as libel, badly need revising.

They still wear wigs costing $2000 a go. The argument is they gives them anonymity and gravitas. They can walk down the street after the trial without being noticed. Not sure why a £20 hat wouldn’t achieve the same effect, though.

By: tw1515tw

tw1515tw — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:52:00 +0000

Most freelancers have professional indemnity insurance to protect themselves if someone goes for the person rather than the company.

I suspect you’re more likely to win if you sue the company, and that you’ll get more compensation (companies tend to be richer than individuals).

So going for the man is more for its “chilling effect”.

Tesco threatened to sue the editor of the Guardian a couple of years back, rather than the newspaper company itself. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/a-chill-on-the-guardian/?pagination=false

By: Topperfalkon

Topperfalkon — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:03:00 +0000

I don’t believe the courts will look too kindly on this case simply because the BPI haven’t taken reasonable steps for resolution, but it’s hard to tell and IANAL. It would be interesting to see this angle of copyright legally tested though, because it hasn’t been so far.

By: Topperfalkon

Topperfalkon — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:53:00 +0000

They’re (probably) working off the assumption that the court will accept that TPB is infringing, and therefore make the case that the executives are wilfully aiding infringement by continuing to operate the proxy. This approach pains me given that one of the defendants hasn’t even been in the post for much over a week, and had little to do with the proxy.

By: robertjberger

robertjberger — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:01:00 +0000

Its time to get these Racketeers (the BPI, RIAA, MPAA, etc) declared as anti-trust. They are the ones that need to be sued out of existance. They are the real pirates stealing from the creatives (those few creatives that defend the Racketeers, are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome or are the .01% that actually get rich).

By: Selena60

Selena60 — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:08:00 +0000

Considering the crap the record industry comes out with, they should be suing themselves,

By: EH

EH — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:34:00 +0000

Look up the term “barratry.”

By: abstract_reg

abstract_reg — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:59:00 +0000

Quick question into the void: What is the average Brit’s opinion of the British legal system? Flawed but generally fair? Corrupt to the core? Can you trust judges (perhaps after a few appeals) to make sound decisions? Can they actually see around the wigs? Do they actually still wear those ridiculous things? I know the answers in my home country, but I’ve no idea about Britain.

By: Boundegar

Boundegar — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:24:00 +0000

Ask Harry Reid, I think he has an opinion on that.

By: sagodjur

sagodjur — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:06:00 +0000

It seems they’ve converted to the dominant American religion: Greed™.

By: That_Anonymous_Coward

That_Anonymous_Coward — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:33:00 +0000

BPI produces nothing but propaganda that pirates are stealing kajillions of dollars from the recording industry and try to get more laws giving them more powers.
If you boycott the labels, sales drop… they blame piracy, not the underhanded tactics used by BPI.

If you want to take them down, someone would need to get all of dirty secrets that BPI, the employees, and the cartels in the US funding them try to keep hidden. Not that I think it would help much, Dodd admitted to buying the laws he wanted and not even a ripple of concern.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:06:00 +0000

This woman is a sort of perverted celebrity in San Francisco. She sued school children for walking by her house, but it took hundreds of suits before the courts smooshed her. And it still didn't stop her.

By: Ishkandar Raskolnick

Ishkandar Raskolnick — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:51:00 +0000

Nothing but a “smart” strategy, taking full advantage of the law that should have been anticipated. See it as a unique opportunity to demonstrate our solidarity and to contribute in filling this legal gap against our freedom of expression…

By: ldobe

ldobe — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:45:00 +0000

Yep. Vexatious litigation means wasting so much court time that the vexatious litigant is considered a nuisance by the court itself.

I think this situation better fits with an abuse of the courts, or some kind of SLAPP.

Does the U.K. have any kind of anti-SLAPP legislation?

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:41:00 +0000

It’s almost impossible to get someone declared a vexatious litigant.

By: cegev

cegev — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:38:00 +0000

UK is English rule for fees, not American rule. All attorney’s fees are paid by the losing party. A multitude of hopeless cases usually won’t bankrupt the target, as they can in the US.

By: Boundegar

Boundegar — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:59:00 +0000

If a case is abusive enough, the courts will often award the defendant’s legal fees. If the RIAA has to pay for the defense against what is clearly frivolous litigation, it might back them off.

By: ldobe

ldobe — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:31:00 +0000

In the U.S. We have the principle of vexatious litigation. But that only really applies to one party continuously suing another repeatedly even when they’re dismissed every time. Sort of like getting a restraining order put on a stalker who refuses to leave you alone after multiple reprimands.

There might be a case to be made as to abuse of the justice system though.

By: spacedmonkey

spacedmonkey — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:27:00 +0000

I’m just wondering, does this mean that any out of work lawyer can just decide to sue corporate executive for something the company has done, too, or does limited liability in organizations only apply to corporations. (If so, it might make sense for organizations like the pirate arty to incorporate, so that a judgement against their executives would set a precedent limiting the limits of individual liability for the actions of an LLC.)

By: Rindan

Rindan — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:16:00 +0000

They have not taken them to court or, as far as I know, no one has even clarified what the threat was. My point is that you have one side (that I am generally sympathetic with) claiming that they are being threatened, yet failing to disclose even a little bit of information about the actual threat. It seems a wee bit fishy.

I might be inclined to agree with their politics, that doesn’t make them automatically honest.

By: gt bear

gt bear — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:21:00 +0000

Organizations typically buy insurance for their officers for these kinds of reasons. The british mafiaa is suing these guys probably for all they are worth. (Future officers will probably already be judgment proof.) Perhaps there is a some corresponding counterclaim to countersue for all the plaintiffs are worth- which is considerably more. I am not going to speculate about the details of such a claim, just mentioning a logical possibility. Also could be lucrative if defendants win and get awarded legal fees, and agree with their lawyers to a 50-50 split.

However, for pirates to respond to lawyer tactics (only) with more lawyer tactics is not the optimum strategy. Responding with pirate tactics may be more cost-effective and fun. Perhaps these folks should receive formal invitations to a keelhauling.

By: Mordicai

Mordicai — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:53:00 +0000

Frankly, whether or not you care about the Pirate Party– I don’t– this is a dangerous threat to democracy. We already let corporations buy elections; are we going to let them ruin the ones that they lose, too?