The Jews that run the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have taken the next step in protecting their monopoly.

They have now declared you a criminal if you buy a CD and copy it into your computer.

In a federal case against Jeffrey Howell of Scottsdale, AZ, the RIAA’s lawyer Ira Schwartz says it’s illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright, but recently the RIAA has been saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

YOU’RE NOT GIVING THE WHOLE STORY!

Most people think the media is misleading the public. They say the RIAA is justified in suing Jeffrey Howell because Howell translated a legally purchased CD into MP3 format and put it into his shared file.

The masses are naïve and incorrect.

The RIAA’s lawsuit says Jeffrey Howell is guilty of “unauthorized copying.” Therefore the RIAA is suing Howell for copying a CD, not sharing it.

The RIAA’s legal brief says on page 15: "Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and stored them in his shared folder, they were no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs."

So we’re back to “unauthorized copying.”

In October 2007, Jammie Thomas of Minnesota was ordered to pay $220,000 to the RIAA – i.e., $9,250 for each of 24 songs she allegedly shared online. At the trial, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, he stole a song. Copying a song you bought is a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy’.”

It is the RIAA that uses the media to mislead the public. For example, if a respondent to an RIAA lawsuit gives a statement in a deposition, the RIAA and the media treat this as testimony at a trial. This is blatant deception. In the U.S. system, a deposition is part of the “discovery” process. Both sides use "discovery" to get information -- not evidence for an upcoming trial.

The NY Times further misleads the public (on behalf of the RIAA) when it publishes RIAA legal briefs that never actually get to court, or when the Times echoes false RIAA claims that, “Record companies have sued tens of thousands of people for violating the copyright laws by sharing music on the Internet.”

Here are some more RIAA fun and games…

IF THE KID HAS NO MONEY, SUE THE PARENT

This is a standard RIAA practice.

Examples…

The RIAA sued a New York mother (who is crippled with multiple sclerosis) because her teenaged daughter downloaded songs.

The RIAA sued another New York mother, Patti Santangelo, because her children, Michelle and Robert, downloaded music. The RIAA even blackmailed young Robert’s best friend into making statements against him.

The RIAA sued a Michigan mother – Candy Chan – because her daughter Brittany (age 13) downloaded music files.

In another case, the RIAA sued Briana LaHara (aged 12) for $90,000. When the RIAA couldn’t get any money, it offered to “sell” the $90,000 lawsuit for $2,000.

This is another aspect of the nightmare. The RIAA files lawsuits for a gazillion dollars, and then “sells” the lawsuits to collection agencies, who know they will only get a tiny fraction of the settlement. A parasitic industry has grown up around RIAA abuses. Defense attorneys refer to this criminal network as “organized music.”

The music industry established a huge collection agency in Seattle – the Settlement Support Center LLC – designed to harass people. It calls victims up out of the blue, and falsely claims the victims have been sued by the RIAA. When victims question this, the Settlement Support Center trashes victims’ credit ratings, and smears their names in the media.

Boiler room law firms do the same thing for the music industry. They send letters to victims, claiming the victims have been “sued,” and demanding payment NOW, or the victims will be dragged into federal court. Naturally, enough victims respond to keep these evil outfits in business.

One women sued the Settlement Support Center, and the RIAA dropped its “case” against her.

THE RIAA EXPLOITS ORGANIZATIONS IT KNOWS WON’T FIGHT BACK

In September 2007, the RIAA subpoenaed the University of Oregon, asking the university to identify 17 students that allegedly traded songs on a file-sharing network. Oregon state attorney general Hardy Myers filed a motion to quash the subpoena, accusing the RIAA of misleading the judge, violating student privacy laws, and engaging in questionable investigative practices.

This was an interesting case, because organizations like the RIAA only have power if they can get other organizations (like the University of Oregon) to act as policemen.

Indeed, on 14 May 2007, WUFYS noted that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales introduced legislation calling on the Department of Homeland Security to police music for the RIAA, and to make “copyright infringement” punishable by life in prison, plus fines of over a million dollars.

The RIAA employs services like MediaSentry, which use data mining techniques to probe American citizens and obtain confidential information unrelated to copyright infringement, thereby violating laws that require investigators to be licensed.

And yet the RIAA calls YOU a criminal.

Often the RIAA often doesn’t even use its own attorneys. Instead, it gets attorneys from the “big four” (EMI, Vivendi Universal, Sony BMG and Warner Music) to go after victims.

IT’S NOT TERRORISM WHEN WE DO IT

When the University of Oregon declined to become an RIAA policeman, the RIAA said the university was following a “political agenda.”

So it’s not a political agenda when the RIAA does it. This is like warmongers and Zionists saying, “It’s not terrorism when we do it.”

As we all know, the only difference between “terrorism” and a “war of liberation” is the size of the budget. So it is with the RIAA. Tyranny always refers to resistance as “terrorism.”

THEY ONLY WANT TO HELP YOU

The RIAA claims it sent 4,000 letters to more than 150 colleges and universities, offering students “bargain settlements” of $3,000 if the students acted fast by punching in their credit card number at P-2P Lawsuits.com.

This is like those e-mails sent out by people claiming to have inherited billions, and offering to share the treasure with you, provided you give out your credit card number. The scammers know that the only one tenth of one percent of people will respond, but that’s enough to yield a tidy sum.

Likewise the RIAA sends out threatening letters knowing a certain percentage of the letters will pay off. “Just give us your credit card number, and all will be well. It’s fast, convenient, and easy with online service!”

Since it costs victims an average of $5,000 to hire a defense attorney for such cases, the RIAA sends out letters demanding $3,000. The RIAA calls this a “bargain settlement.”

The letters are sent to universities, which forward them to students. The universities are under no legal obligation to do this, but if the RIAA receives no extortion money from the students, the RIAA threatens the universities, whose bureaucrats quickly submit.

This is how power accrues to evil agents such as Zionism and the Jewish-controlled RIAA. The average person feels that if something doesn’t affect him personally right now, he might as well submit. “The lion is not about to eat me, so I don’t care if there are lions around. I’ll just go on grazing.”

Most universities submit. The NY Times says, “In 2004 a different university in Oregon – Portland State -- responded to an RIAA subpoena by providing the names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of two students. The university could not say which student’s computer was involved, so it provided the names of both students.” The RIAA didn’t know which student to go after either, so it demanded $4,500 from each of them.

This extortion racket allows the RIAA to avoid having to prove its case in court. Indeed, newspapers treat any legal brief by the RIAA as though it’s a court-entered document.

Also, notice how the RIAA – like Zionism -- only preys on the weak. The RIAA goes after universities, but not large corporations where employees download on high-speed connections. Reason: a corporation would fight back.

Nor does the RIAA go after huge companies like Nokia, which markets a cell phone that stores 3,000 songs – the equivalent of 250 albums – or Sony, whose Walkman cell phone can store 500 songs.

IT’S ALL ABOUT PROTECTING A MONOPOLY – AT YOUR EXPENSE

In the old days, people taped music from the radio and vinyl discs, replayed it, and passed it around to friends. Today people do the same thing with CDs legally bought in record stores. But now we have the RIAA.

Defense lawyers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs. Such programs allow citizens to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.

When files are shared, no money changes hands, and no one is deprived of something they once owned -- yet the RIAA accuses its victims of being “criminals” and “thieves.” They claim that files shared means sales lost – yet they have never come close to proving this false claim. On the contrary, CD sales are as hot as ever.

In any case, this is not about file sharing, or sales lost. It’s about their power to determine what you hear. When you share files, you listen to artists that may not be under the control of the RIAA and organized music. Your taste is expanded. You are exposed to alternatives.

Organized music cannot allow this. They want to control your mind.

They are gods.

You are a criminal.

Posted in

• copyrights
• intellectual property
• patents
• RIAA

Submitted by Abdul Alhazred on Thu, 2008-01-03 15:19.

• Abdul Alhazred's blog
• Login or register to post comments