RIAA: how low will they go?!?!

kamiam

Banned
Dec 12, 1999
2,638
0
0
seems that the RIAA has sunk to a new low...they are sueing a Flea Market owner for what they call running a "pirate bazaar"
Bazaar target of CD suit
By Tom Nadeau -- Bee Correspondent
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Thursday, October 3, 2002
The recording industry trade group sued the owner of the Marysville Flea Market in Sacramento federal court Wednesday, accusing it of running a "pirate bazaar" for counterfeit compact discs.

The suit alleges Richard Sinnott permits weekend vendors to peddle untold numbers of illegally copied compact discs and cassettes at his Sunday swap meet, thus cheating recording companies and superstar artists out of copyright royalties.
"I'm a landlord, not a seller. I wouldn't know a good CD from a bad CD," Sinnott said
In the lawsuit, the RIAA said Sinnott rebuffed its offers to train his staff in how to deal with illegal CD sales
The Marysville Flea Market meet is one of two swap meets the RIAA has targeted in coordinated lawsuits, according to court documents. The other is Cole Antique Village and Flea Market in Pearland, Texas, near Houston.
Sinnott bills his business as a flea market, the lawsuit said, but it would more accurately be described as a "pirate bazaar" since the owner knowingly allows many vendors to sell pirate and counterfeit CDs and cassettes.
what Gall...
RIAA investigators have been observing the operation since about 2000, Knowles said. Sinnott recalled speaking to investigators once last year.
Knowles said he didn't know how many similar flea markets sold CDs in the United States, or why the RIAA had targeted the Marysville Flea Market, but Sinnott believed he did
"Because I'm the cockiest," he said. "I threw (the RIAA investigators) out of my office and told them not to come back on my property without my permission."
good for him
link
 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
Duh. It's a flea market. Fake CDs. Fake DVDs. Fake Tommy. Fake Polo. Fake Coach.

The RIAA could sue so many people and organizations, the government would have to issue billions of dollars in bonds just to finance the construction of new courthouses to hear all the cases. Hillary Rosen would probably sue her own grandmother.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
i don't get it. telephone companies cannot be held responsible for what happens on their networks. but others can? oh, its a civil suit. :|
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
Sounds to me like the owner of this bazaar stepped over the line. The RIAA offered to teach his staff how to recognize pirated CD's. He refused the help, so he is getting sued.

I don't like the RIAA, but when you get backed into a corner like this "landlord" and you are offered help in getting your operation legal you should at least make a superficial attempt to cooperate with the big gun.

I, personally, hope this ignorant toad loses everything he owns.

Just my $0.02.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
It's unfortuate, here , they may actually have a case since he was told of the "illegal" activity occuring at an event he hosts but failed to do anything and impeeded efforts top combat it. He also benefits from not acting because more resellers are there making him more money. Too Bad.
 

kamiam

Banned
Dec 12, 1999
2,638
0
0
yep, it's your $.02, and IMHO, thats about what its worth
rolleye.gif
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't get it. telephone companies cannot be held responsible for what happens on their networks. but others can? oh, its a civil suit. :|


Try hosying a Warez site on your DSL or Cable modem and see how fast they shut you down.

IF this guy was KNOWINLY harboring the sale of illegal goods then he should face CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES. IF he faced to stop allowing the sellers of copied material to sell then he is GUILTY. Sorry folks but the RIAA is WELL within their rights here to protect their IP.
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
yep, it's your $.02, and IMHO, thats about what its worth

So, how do you justify, legally or morally, this person running a place of business where illegal activities are happening and then, when he is offered help to bring his establishment into compliance, he turns the offer down and throws the people out.

He deserves to be sued if for no other reason than his ignorance.
 

kamiam

Banned
Dec 12, 1999
2,638
0
0
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't get it. telephone companies cannot be held responsible for what happens on their networks. but others can? oh, its a civil suit. :|


Try hosying a Warez site on your DSL or Cable modem and see how fast they shut you down.

IF this guy was KNOWINLY harboring the sale of illegal goods then he should face CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES. IF he faced to stop allowing the sellers of copied material to sell then he is GUILTY. Sorry folks but the RIAA is WELL within their rights here to protect their IP.
so according to your theory, every landlord that owns property should be punished for their tenants illegal activities
rolleye.gif

whatever happened to punishing those who commit the crimes???I shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of others...liberal mentality @ its best:frown:
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
so according to your theory, every landlord that owns property should be punished for their tenants illegal activities

If the landlord is aware of the illegal activities, not withstanding the fact that someone has offered him free help to bring his business practices into civil and criminal compliance, he deserves to be punished both in civil court and criminal court.
 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
so according to your theory, every landlord that owns property should be punished for their tenants illegal activities

If the landlord is aware of the illegal activities, not withstanding the fact that someone has offered him free help to bring his business practices into civil and criminal compliance, he deserves to be punished both in civil court and criminal court.
Hmmm, I think somebody should sue the Federal Government for some of the activities made by those who work inside their Capitol Building.
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: kamiam
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't get it. telephone companies cannot be held responsible for what happens on their networks. but others can? oh, its a civil suit. :|


Try hosying a Warez site on your DSL or Cable modem and see how fast they shut you down.

IF this guy was KNOWINLY harboring the sale of illegal goods then he should face CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES. IF he faced to stop allowing the sellers of copied material to sell then he is GUILTY. Sorry folks but the RIAA is WELL within their rights here to protect their IP.
so according to your theory, every landlord that owns property should be punished for their tenants illegal activities
rolleye.gif

whatever happened to punishing those who commit the crimes???I shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of others...liberal mentality @ its best:frown:


LIBERAL? Don't make me laugh you obviously have ZERO IDEA what makes a liberal.

It's called inforcing the law ever heard facilitation? He KNOWINGLY was facilitating in the sale of ILLEGAL GOODS and was even givin the opportunity to correct the matter. I have little time for thoose who thumb there nose on others RIGHTS which he clearly did. I hope they also go after those that are selling the stuff. I used to go to Kobeys all the time and they shut down quite a few places for selling copied CD's so it's not like he was UNABLE to curtail this illegal activities. If you KNOWINGLY harbor criminal activity you can be held liable. There really isn't any grey area here.
 

kamiam

Banned
Dec 12, 1999
2,638
0
0
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: kamiam
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't get it. telephone companies cannot be held responsible for what happens on their networks. but others can? oh, its a civil suit. :|


Try hosying a Warez site on your DSL or Cable modem and see how fast they shut you down.

IF this guy was KNOWINLY harboring the sale of illegal goods then he should face CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES. IF he faced to stop allowing the sellers of copied material to sell then he is GUILTY. Sorry folks but the RIAA is WELL within their rights here to protect their IP.
so according to your theory, every landlord that owns property should be punished for their tenants illegal activities
rolleye.gif

whatever happened to punishing those who commit the crimes???I shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of others...liberal mentality @ its best:frown:


LIBERAL? Don't make me laugh you obviously have ZERO IDEA what makes a liberal.

It's called inforcing the law ever heard facilitation? He KNOWINGLY was facilitating in the sale of ILLEGAL GOODS and was even givin the opportunity to correct the matter. I have little time for thoose who thumb there nose on others RIGHTS which he clearly did. I hope they also go after those that are selling the stuff. I used to go to Kobeys all the time and they shut down quite a few places for selling copied CD's so it's not like he was UNABLE to curtail this illegal activities. If you KNOWINGLY harbor criminal activity you can be held liable. There really isn't any grey area here.
no, YOU don't get it...let the police handle it, and they don't seem too interested in who actually is selling the CD's, just trying to push around the Flea market owner into doing thier bidding...if the RIAA wants to do something about it, have them go to the police and go after the sellers...not the flea market owner
again,imho, its not the flea market owners responsibility to enforce the laws...its the police who should enforce them...the RIAA is just being a bully
It's called inforcing the law ever heard facilitation? He KNOWINGLY was facilitating in the sale of ILLEGAL GOODS
if that was true then why is it a CIVIL SUIT??? AS THE OWNER SAID...
"I'm a landlord, not a seller. I wouldn't know a good CD from a bad CD," Sinnott said
and he shouldn't be put into the position of making that determination...thats the job of the police
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Sounds to me like the owner of this bazaar stepped over the line. The RIAA offered to teach his staff how to recognize pirated CD's. He refused the help, so he is getting sued.

The owner stepped over the line? You're absolutely off your rocker!

The RIAA stepped over the line by even suggesting they have the jurisdiction to 'teach' people how to recognize pirated CDs. The RIAA has no place suing a flea market. Flea markets usually have many more legit cds than pirated ones and the pirated ones are usually concert bootlegs which can't be bought from the RIAA anyway.

The flea market owner was damn right telling them to get the fIck off his property! Should the University of Florida have to make its students attend a class by the RIAA on how not to pirate music? Should the RIAA be able to run around like they're law enforcement?

The RIAA is a cartel and it's our duty as consumers to phase them out. They're outdated, detrimental, and plain out evil. No company gets to dictate to its customers - not even Microsoft.

Screw the RIAA. I wish there was a way to actually cause them to lose more money by pirating their crap.. but I don't even take the time to pirate their crap since it's crap and I'm uninterested anyway.

The first time I bought a CD that purposely screwed up my ripping to mp3 was the last time I'll ever buy a CD.
 

Legendary

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2002
7,019
1
0
Of course the argument could be made that he didn't throw the RIAA out because he knew exactly what was going on in his flea market - it could be said that in protest of the RIAA's other actions he threw them out. It's not his job to monitor his the little stores is it? He owns the land, he doesn't maintain the stores.

I will say it wasn't a smart move to throw them out, but that doesn't automatically make him guilty. Even if I wasn't doing anything wrong and the RIAA came into my store (hypothetically) accusing me of breaking their copyright law I'd definitely throw them out without a second of hesitation. I don't agree with what they do.
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
kamiam-

I have just a few questions for you

1. Is he knowingly allowing the sale of illegal goods on his property? (and making a profit as well)
2. Was he given the opportunity to have his employees taught to be able to ID the fakes?
3. by providing an outlet for the sellers of illegal products does he profit?

The answer of course is yes. MANY swap meet are vigorous in stoping and kicking out those that sell illegal products or engage in illegal acts. Turning your head does not ease responsiblity to insure that he is not facilitating these theives.

He WAS given an opportunity to have his employees trained and turned them down. If I rent my house to drug dealer I can lose my house. IT is his responsibity to make a reasonable effort to ensure that illegal sales are not accuring and he refused to make any effort.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,589
10,288
136
Uhh, I think I support the RIAA on this one :confused::eek:

You see, this guy gets paid (as a business) by proceeds from illegal CD sales. Its one thing to go and borrow a friend's CD and make a copy, and something else to make a copy and sell it, and have dozens of people doing this paying a landlord for exhibit space. This is the kind of stuff we get mad at China for...
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
The RIAA is just looking to bully the public into paying their fixed prices on CD's.
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
Nobody in this thread has criticized the downloading or copying of CD's.

Some of us, however, do object to the outright pirating of copyrighted material for profit.

Can you see the difference? Both are probably illegal, but if you are just pirating something for your own use it is a whole lot different than pirating it for profit.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
RIAA practices decete in the way they compensate artists in the first place, and then they decry alledged decete by a flea market proprietor? What a crock of you know what!

I will not pay inflated prices by these asshats CD's ever, and will gladly use only that in my present library and from artists who do not embrace these vigilantee agressive steps these mofos are using to intimidate people and bring frivilous lawsuits inot the court system.

I salute you Enya, for doing it your way, and telling RIAA to stick it.

And, oh yes, if someone gives me some MP3's to listen to in my win media player, well thats the real world. I am not abliged to ask my friends who they obtained those mp3's. lets see RIAA getaround that in court.

Jebezuz H _____:|
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The RIAA is just looking to bully the public into paying their fixed prices on CD's.
For once ;), Red Dawn, I agree with you completely.
This case is extortion, pure and simple.
Agree to let the RIAA come in and police your store or they will sue you out of existence.

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I salute you Enya, for doing it your way, and telling RIAA to stick it.

Another band I like is String Cheese Incident. Also is thier own label, sells cd's at concerts and on thier web site. Like the dead they let you tap into thier sound boards at concerts for free and tape trade. Thier not quite as good though.