RIAA To Sue Hundreds Of File Swappers 2047
Shackleford writes "The Washington Post has an article saying that the RIAA is preparing hundreds of lawsuits against Internet users who illegally trade copyrighted music files. The lawsuits will target people who share 'substantial' amounts of copyrighted music, but anyone who shares illegal files is at risk, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a conference call today. The first round of lawsuits will be prepared during the next eight to 10 weeks. They will ask for injunctions and monetary damages against file swappers. It seems that after a federal judge ruled in April that file-sharing services have legal uses and thus should not be shut down, the RIAA has found that it must go after individual users rather than the services that they use." palmech13 points to a similar article on Yahoo News.
This just in... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Interesting)
If this succeeds to any degree perhaps people will actually start thinking about the consequences of their actions instead of thinking that while it is illegal, the chance of being caught is so small they might as well do whatever they feel like anyway.
War on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
And that war on drugs is going real well, isn't it? NEWSFLASH: As long as there is demand there will always be supply!
The cost (difficulty) of obtaining the good might rise, but you will always be able to get it (name one street drug that used to be available, and is no longer), FTP or messenger service trading comes to mind, if P2P is killed...
Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of this is OT, but I can't help myself:
"You don't target the users, you target the dealers"
That's the conventional wisdom certainly. It's also incredibly stupid. Level of drug use is unaffected; the demand is still there, but supply is down, so dealing becomes more profitable. Dealing is taken over by those with less to lose and/or greater desperation. Haven't had a lot of violent gang wars over alchohol selling turf since the end of prohibition have we? Nor did prohibition put any dent in alchoholism (expansion of treatment programs has).
Well, you touched a nerve justifying anything by analogy with US drug enforcement; you'd want to look to the drug war only if you want a model of how to spend millions of dollars every year, and imprison huge numbers of people, all while making the problem worse.
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Insightful)
P2P will happen pretty much the same way, but for different reasons. All they're going to do is drive the trade underground again. 5 years ago it was one guy who was technologically adept charging his buddies $2 a pop to burn CDs. Now he can do it again, charging say, $5 a pop. They'll start forming private IRC release groups, buying, ripping and sharing MP3s between private groups of people. The RIAA will have a hard time infiltrating these groups. And the RIAA still doesn't see a rise in profits.
What the RIAA needs to do is basically what business logic of the past 2000 years has told us: offer a better product, lower the price, or and *gasp* actually give consumers what they want (like legal, online music downloads.) If you keep selling us the same crap over and over again, guess what? We're not gonna buy it again. Stop clinging to an outdated business model and get with the 21st century. If you refuse to change your ways, you are doomed.
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't they outlaw Microsoft then?
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Informative)
That's probably because only sharers are breaking the law. Downloaders are not. Copyright law is about distribution rights.
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of us justifiably dislike the RIAA. But you will notice that the more principled in this dispute, such as Prof. Lessig or the EFF, don't defend piracy, either. The distribution or business models may be screwed up, but when you download music, you are not making a political statement; you are doing it for greed.
Do I download music illegally? No. Do I use p2p? Yes, but I always try to keep it within reason--a show that is no longer available on TV, a song on a CD I just ordered from Amazon, etc. Minor piracy may be a lot like speeding, and I'm not going to get all self-righteous towards those who do pirate. But I found that I wasn't downloading software or music, when I used to do so, because of some flaw in the distribution plans. It was because I was cheap and greedy. Knowing that is not a good feeling.
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really. As I understand it, copyright law says that you cannot distribute, not that you cannot receive. They are going after those who they are clearly allowed to go after. Before anyone decides to correct me and say that distributers are not profitting and so are not clear targets; the RIAA has already won/settled that lawsuit. They can now go after/sue those people with impunity. I'm not saying that they will win, just that they are not prohibited from sueing.
Downloaders are in a grey zone.
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not defending the RIAA and overpriced music, but I do think that refusing to buy is a more appropriate response to the problem than violating copyright law. It seems to me that the former would force a reduction in prices, whereas the latter would ensure widespread adoption of DRM, harsher laws, etc.
Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, yes, it is about money. It just so happens that someone sharing files contributes to infringement much more than someone who is merely downloading them - hence, a bigger payout for the RIAA. Also, it's much easier to locate people sharing files as opposed to those who occasionally connect, download, and disconnect. After all, they never said that they wouldn't prosecute downloaders, only that they're going after the biggest offenders first.
They're not going to kill P2P. What will happen is that the free ride will be over, and the control over the 'net will return to the geeks who created it - instead of a lot of "pop noize", we'll actually be able to find interesting bands on P2P - you know, the unsigned bands that haven't sold out to the RIAA and their minions.
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, you can search for something and look at the list of search results: people who have the file (are offering it). You can do this legally.
Once you get a person's IP address, you can contact their ISP, and try to force them to disclose user's names. This only happens rarely, e.g. Verizon, and it is THOSE users being sued by this - not anyone who's using p2p now.
Of course there is a way around all this: using a proxy. Search google for MultiProxy (but the legality of using open proxies is questionable).
Then, they can't go after you too easilly. One alternative is the anonymizer - search google for it - it's a proxy you pay for that claims not to keep logs.
If a proxy is used, the RIAA gets the IP of the proxy serving files - and they can't force the proxy to disclose the user's names with a given IP at a given time, because they (I think) don't keep track of that!
Of course proxies introduce another issue. Proxies know who you are (they know your real IP), _and_ they can spy on you legally, to tell what you do. What if the RIAA bought the anonymizer?
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly right, and if everyone comes to that conclusion then it's bye-bye P2P network because you'll have 10 million leechers and not a single sharer. It's a good strategy they've got.
Re:Open network != Distribution (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, the file they are stored in is "My Shared Files" or whatnot... but does shared there mean files I'm sharing or files that were shared with me? There are ambiguities here that definately prevent criminal charges (to say nothing of the fact that Copyright infringement is, in most (all?) cases a civil violation anyhow).
Point being that some of these people will have clever lawyers. Many of them will get off or have charges dropped. The final point is this.
There is no legal way to kill these networks
You can discourage people from using them through scare tatics (which is what the RIAA is trying to do), but nothing they can do within the United States is going to have much of an effect. As long as I can stick a server in Zimbabwe and serve files off of it there's jack shit the RIAA can do about it. They don't want to run the risk of sueing the actual downloaders because that exposes a lot of their policy to judicial scruteny. How well would the idea that you own the rights only to files ripped from your copy of the CD hold up in court (as opposed to my right to download rips of the content I own)? They don't know, and won't risk it.
Once again the RIAA proves itself little more than a collection of jack booted thugs engaging in terror tactics to frighten its market into compliance with its desires. Unfortuately, much like the undertow of a sinking ship, the death throws of a dieing regime can be dangerous to hapless bystanders.
Good thing (Score:5, Funny)
I only use file swapping services for new release movies, software and pr0n. I have nothing to fear from the RIAA.
Sharing porn (Score:5, Interesting)
I only use file swapping services for new release movies, software and pr0n. I have nothing to fear from the RIAA.
Funny that, isn't it? Even though the RIAA and MPAA are claming that p2p sharing is killing their business, you never hear the adult industry complaining about p2p. Perhaps they have modified their business model so that p2p sharing has only limited negative effect (or maybe even a positive effect). Boy, that would be something, wouldn't it? If all the fancy RIAA and MPAA business managers couldn't figure out something that Ron Jeremy did! Man, talk about humiliation!
GMD
Re:Sharing porn (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sharing porn (Score:5, Insightful)
-B
Re:Sharing porn (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sharing porn (Score:5, Funny)
Porn companies lean in close to Peer-to-Peer [216.239.53.100]
Porn companies pull closer to Peer-to-Peer [216.239.53.100]
Porn companies begin slowly caressing Peer-to-Peer's neck [216.239.53.100]
Porn companies whispers softly into Peer-to-Peer's ears [216.239.53.100]
Porn companies' hands glide effortlessly down Peer-to-Peer tight, young, body [216.239.53.100]
Porn companies gently brushes fingertips across Peer-to-Peer's naked chest [216.239.53.100]
Sure They Do (Score:5, Informative)
It's true that the adult industry can't haul out a soap-box and scream bloody murder the way the RIAA and MPAA can; the adult industry has enough trouble with the wrong sort of reputation already. If the adult industry publicized how easy it was for Little Johnny to download pirated copies of hardcore pornography, it could backfire and trigger a new round of anti-porn legislation, rather than a wave of protect-the-porn-biz sentiment.
In any case, I have read at least one interview with a top adult-industry photographer (Suze Randall, I believe) who has been battling on-line piracy of her material for years, and who claims that the situation is increasingly out-of-control. Adult magazine sales are down - heck, Penthouse very nearly went under about a year ago - in part because all the photos in them are readily available on the internet within a week of publication. SR said that the glory days of her business were over - the fancy sets and high production values of her best stuff were no longer economically viable, because the prices she can charge for her pictures is falling. It's arguable that piracy has had a more dramatic impact on the adult industry than on the record industry.
Of course, it's also true that the internet has made it possible for any yahoo with a camera to start a porn site, and the resulting flood of bad, cheap-or-free porn that results probably has a lot to do with the flagging fortunes of the big names, too.
Re:Sharing porn (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like to see that!
in other news.... (Score:5, Funny)
in other news every single mp3 dissapeared today from the internet. Hillary Rosen was heard to scream "Smells....like.....victory...."
Huh??? (Score:5, Funny)
So the Washington Post is suing music file traders??? Since when did they join the RIAA?
We keep losing customers! (Score:5, Funny)
-- Jack Valenti
Re:We keep losing customers! (Score:5, Funny)
Next, they'll start suing people because they don't buy their crappy products.
"Your honour, in spite of the fact that we've added 33% larger breasts to the cover art for Britney Spears' latest album, the named defendants still refuse to buy her albums. We're suing for monetary damages."
Re:We keep losing customers! (Score:4, Funny)
They will create material, promote it, advertise for it, never bother actually distributing it (aside for a few insider 'leaks') then sue the crap out of anyone who possess it.
seems legitimate to me (Score:5, Insightful)
What I have always objected to with the RIAA actions is that they have been trying to restrict what I can do even though I'm not trading in copyrighted content. It is the chilling effect on legitimate uses that have made past legal actions and laws like the DMCA so harmful.
Re:seems legitimate to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Say I rip my CD collection (I have). Every mp3 I have is legit as a backup (this is going under the assumption that fair use still exists -- the argument about THAT can go on later). I go on KaZAa and sit there, looking for those GPL'ed parod songs I've heard so much about. My legitimately created files are open for the taking. An RIAA drone comes along and copies one to his computer.
Who has done wrong? Who should be sued?
Re:seems legitimate to me (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm puzzled why you're even asking this. Why are you sharing your legitimately created -- but still illegitimate to share -- MP3s?
Re:seems legitimate to me (Score:5, Informative)
You're likely guilty of contributory infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the negative slant? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are doing the _right_ thing. Go after people breaking the law, not the entire service.
Newsbreak! You don't have the right to download free music!
Can you say boycott? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is room for a meeting of the minds. RIAA members basically charge $15.00 for something that costs them $.25 ($.01 for the plastic and $.24 to the artist). No industry that has to mark up raw materials 60 times to cover marketing and distribution can expect to survive.
At the very least a boycott of just a couple of months would defund the RIAA.
Re:Can you say boycott? (Score:4, Informative)
Record companies sell CDs into the channel for less than $10.00 each. The margin structure for the CD industry is similar to many, many other industries.
You have plenty of legitimate reasons to crucify the recording industry. This isn't one of the good ones.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
It's time for a militia (Score:5, Funny)
I can assemble a force of 1,000 drunk North Dakotans with hunting rifles in about a week!
Potential to end Reign of Terror (Score:5, Interesting)
Out of the hundreds of users targeted by these lawsuits, all it would take is one to stand his/her ground and fight. Once one rises to the challenge, a following will form. Once the following is formed, more and more attention will be levied on the case. The more attention the case recieves, the more people will become aware of the monopolistic and grossly unconstitutional actions of the RIAA. Once more people become aware, Congress will have to start paying attention to the people again.
Keep in mind, up to this point all the people (or students) the RIAA has sued have settled. What would happen if at least one stands up and goes to court?
The constitutionality of the DMCA and associated laws would undoubtedly be the first things reviewed, and again, given enough attention, could be soundly defeated.
Heres to crossing my fingers.
Re:Potential to end Reign of Terror (Score:4, Insightful)
If you take the criminals out of file trading, then the rest of us who do it for legitimate reasons can quit worrying about having our doors kicked in by the Feds.
Isn't the problem the other way? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nephilium
FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Enough cases and favorable precedent will be set somewhere. Some of these precedents will make their way up to district courts, and could eventually make their way all the way to the Supreme Court, a risk the **AA's just can't take. We've seen this before from the **AA's where they were afraid of a precedent going against them and dropped the case. They know about this, and don't dare make this as widespread as many people seem to believe they would.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)
You have no idea what you are talking about. I saw Directv do this to a bunch of people in federal court over access cards.
What they do is hire an el-cheapo lawyer with some federal court skills and they file a complaint against 50 or so people. Then they use the logs that they have generated to convince a judge that the case should be decided at summary judgment.
Half the plaintiffs ignore the pleadings and get hit with default judgments and the other half talk to a lawyer and find out that, yeah, they broke the law and there is no reasonable defense. Then they negotiate a deal on the order of several to ten thousand dollars (which is what Directv was doing in my area).
The lawyer gets a percentage of what he collects for the big company, and the consumers get slammed for stealing.
I'm sorry that the
That being said, I think copyright needs some revision, but I think you seriously underestimate the exposure that real people have here and how it can fuck up their lives. I have actually seen it happen to others and I know several attorneys (who are good attorneys) who could do nothing to stop it in the Directv cases. I expect that the RIAA stuff will be almost verbatim in how it works.
GF.
OK with me... but they need to be careful. (Score:5, Insightful)
(it's just an analogy, so save your breath... I'm not at all suggesting that copyright violators are equated with murderers and you know it)
My big concern is that I want to make sure the RIAA/MPAA/etc. are VERY careful about who the sue. They need to make VERY SURE that those they are suing are actually making the copyrighted works available for download or or downloading them. No blanket lawsuits that snag people who haven't done anything wrong (we all know the Professor with the with mp3 of his speach or the kid with the Harry Potter book report). And they also need to be very careful about snagging people who are sharing songs that the bands don't mind being shared. There are many bands out there that don't care at all if their live performances are shared amongst fans.
But I really have no problem with people being sued for sharing commercialy available copyrighted works. That's the law, it's how it should be, and it means that there's NO NEED for new laws to cover this.
-S
Re:OK with me... but they need to be careful. (Score:4, Insightful)
I own CDs of several artists... somewhere. I know they're under a pile of crap.
But when I want to listen to that one song from a Dave Matthews Band CD that I own, it's faster for me to fire up Kazaa, pull the MP3 down the T1, and play it, vs. rooting through all my crap to find the CD.
That's legal, fair use. (Isn't it?) However, the RIAA would only see "Dave Matthews Band - Crush.mp3" flying to my computer, and slap me with a lawsuit. That's a hassle I can't afford (in time or money) to deal with.
Now, yes, there are people who just download songs they haven't purchased a copy of. But, my point is that the RIAA can't just assert that because the music is theirs vs. being an MP3 of an indie band, it's illegal for me to download it.
Re:OK with me... but they need to be careful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I said, I'm OK with this as long as they tread carefully. When I go online looking for live concerts (mostly of bands who are OK with it), I'm stunned at the amount of copyrighted works out there. Many many people with hundreds upon hundreds of commercially available copyrighted albums just sitting there for the taking. Just now I fired up Soulseek and it took me all of 30 seconds to find about 50 people sharing the latest Metallica and Linkin Park albums. The very first person who's catalog I scanned had about 60 or so full CDs shared... and as far as I could tell, they're all commercially available. If they go after those folks, I have no problem with it.
-S
Re:OK with me... but they need to be careful. (Score:5, Funny)
So what are you saying? That all copyright violators are equated with muderers?!!??!? You liberal pinko commie feminazis and/or fat religious right rich boys are all the same!
(it's just an analogy, so save your breath... I'm not at all suggesting that copyright violators are equated with murderers and you know it)
Oh, so now you're flip-flopping?!?!? You're no better than that greedy Clinton and/or Bush, changing your position so that you can line your pockets with money from the unions and/or oil cartels!
Lots of angry parents in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we about to see the first "reverse class-action" lawsuit, where all the *defendants* band together to protect themselves against 1 plaintant? I call dibs on the patent
We're never happy (Score:5, Insightful)
So now RIAA are targeting people who are sharing the stuff out, now we're all going to say how evil that is too.
Isn't it great to be fickle! :)
But seriously, what happens if a user doesn't know their stuff is being shared? What if the next windows worm searches out for someone's legal mp3 collection and then connects to a p2p network and shares it out, all unknown to the user? A stretch? Hardly, certainly possible.
Didn't someone just get a case thrown out for having child porn on their computer because they maintained that their computer was hacked and the stuff planted there?
I assume RIAA is doing this in civil courts and hence won't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but I am still curious how they intend to make a case that each user actually knew they were sharing files.
(I also assume they don't expect anyone to fight it and to just roll over and settle...)
Still, if this kills illegal trading, I think it's a good thing. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe people should pay for this stuff and if it's a load of rubbish -- which most of it is -- don't buy it. At least then maybe they will stop blaming the net for declining sales and maybe, just maybe, produce some better and more diverse talent at a fair price. But I am still concerned about innocents being caught in the collateral damage and hence don't trust RIAA to execute this fairly.
This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and for those of you who got freaked out after reading that the RIAA's cracking down, there's always EMusic [emusic.com] and the Apple Store. I did notice that it is frequently cheaper to just buy the CD at Cheap CDs.com [cheap-cds.com] than it is to pay $9.99 for the AAC-encoded album. Check there first! Just a public service announcement so you don't get screwed like I did.
It is their right, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
I have nothing to worry about... (Score:5, Funny)
A really good user experience (Score:5, Funny)
On free P2P services, "You go for Britney Spears, you get porn. You go for Pokemon, you get porn," [Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) President Cary] Sherman said. "When people are presented with a really good user experience at a reasonable price, they're going to use that."
I agree. A really good user experience is one that replaces Britney Spears with anything.
In related news... (Score:4, Funny)
In related news, Adult Film Industry Association (AFIA) President Seymour Butts threatened a lawsuit against RIAA President Cary Sherman for suggesting that people utilize free P2P services to illegally download copywritten pr0n. "Hey, just 'cause your customers are unhappy with you doesn't mean you should attack our service. And speaking of service, you should see what I did to your mom last night."
Just what they should be doing (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are caught violating copyright law hundreds of times with a flagrant disregard for that law, you can and should pay for the crime.
The laws we have are adequate. We don't need new IP law (unless it be to roll back terms -- retroactive extension should never have been allowed).
I have tons of MP3 and Ogg files, all cut from CDs I purchased. I've never downloaded a song. Really and truly.
What the "content industry" needs to wake up and realize is that the digital technology has changed the marketplace. People no longer want to pay $20 for a CD that costs $0.35 to make (marginal cost). Peoplw want to download music. They want to use it, convert its format, burn it to disc themselves, store it in SD cards, whatever. The music industry should be doing market research and offering "Napster-like" subscription services ($5/Gig/month, for example). People want to be legal.
Meanwhile, I'm all for suing the actual people violating the law. My gripe has been attacking ISPs, P2P server operators, etc. who are not actually engaged in violation of the law. By the RIAA's logic, there should be no such thing as a copier or a fax machine. They can be used to infringe copyright, therefore they should not be allowed. Mind you, they tried to say that about copiers, and abaout VCRs, and about cassette recorders, and...
Too little, Too Late... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is bigger than they are, and they need to realize that. Maybe when the whole thing started with FTP (even before Napster), they could have put a significant dent in file swapping, but now it's too late. There is already a kind of critical mass that will surpass even the largest file swappers -- IF they are brought down. The system will quickly replace them, and worse yet (for the RIAA), more may even be encouraged by the significant news media this is sure to attract.
Anyone besides me notice a correlation between file sharing, P2P networks, and the metallica lawsuits? It took off. I personally know people who would never had touched a computer that are now online primarily because of the free music and file sharing.
Attempting to bring down the large few isn't going to do anything but perhaps scare a very few small fish off (primarily the consumers). The people who have multi hard disk RAIDS are most probably technically inclined and won't scare easily or find ways to anonomously distribute their files.
Even so, how can the RIAA blame their users? A lot of the pirated music today is full of lyrics about stealing and "playin'", that is, the same product they are trying to sell and the message they are sending is the same one they're fighting. I'm not saying all or even most music is like that, even for the RIAA's holders, I'm just saying teenage eminem fans aren't going to be scared off -- they'll do it anyway.
In a way, the golden age of profiting crazily from record labeling is at an end. What lies ahead is most probably better music, better distribution, and much better artists. Once again in the history of music -- talent and skill are going to be a deciding factor, not "product creation" by multi-billion dollar grossing labels selling over priced junk.
I can't wait!
Some thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus, if I share 10,000 txt files renamed to 'song-artist.mp3', will I get some papers? Sounds like a good way to countersue.
Or, place a disclaimer on all your shares - "This is for personal use only under the Fair Use Act. Unauthorized use or download is strictly prohibited. Do not download if you are not the owner of these files." - perhaps this could also be a challenge to EULAs...
Last I checked, it's not illegal to have a PC open to the net - if it was, many Windows users would be rubbing sholders with drug offenders in prison.
Is the RIAA downloading these songs to check if they are real, correctly labeled and such? If so, they are breaking the law (IANAL). Do two wrongs make a (copy)right? If not, wouldn't this be considered barratry/harrasment?
Head hurts? cut hand. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the biggest proof that people are willing to buy songs if they find it interesting is the success of iTunes. The same people who use their Internet connection to Download by paying could just as well use Limewire or whatever for free. But they don't. And i don't think it's because they don't know how to find free MP3' or they want rare music. It's because they (for some reason) find it interesting.
RIAA Should try an approach where they do not threaten the consumers but provide them with value for their money. They could do it by , lets say, providing Albums that have more the one song that is good. Or they could include extra material (maybe a DVD with video and whatever).
There is one thing sure. If i pay 20-25 Euros for a CD where i can get the exactly same satisfaction downloading from Gnutella, i won't buy it.
I'm going to risk losing Karma to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not right and rightfully illegal to acquire copyrighted material without paying for it. The direction that the RIAA is taking now is where they should have gone from the get-go. I cannot, and will not, support people who illegally trade copyrighted files.
Don't get me wrong. I am against DRM, the DMCA, and other such things that erode our fair-use rights, but we, the end users, need to show some responsibility and accountability. The whole reason the RIAA and MPAA (and whatever other *AA exists) want strict DRM controls is because of the rampant illegal transfering of files. And nobody can claim that it's not wide-spread.
Please, people, don't embark in sharing copyrighted files. Whenever you do, you only make the situation worse.
Nothing to see here (Score:4, Insightful)
a pondering (Score:5, Insightful)
At first thought, I was a bit worried about how much more out of control fiascos like this can get. And you know, the interesting thing is that my second thought wasn't "gee, I should rm -rf that collection and never trade music again", it was "hrm, I wonder how we are going to beat the bastards this time and trade music anonymously".
These underhanded scare tactics don't drive people back; they fuel innovation for the exact things they are trying to stop.
The right response to this... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are named in one of these lawsuits, and you didn't do it, call the EFF, now. A few expensive countersuits will keep the RIAA from using this as scare tactics. Extra funding for the EFF from the RIAA would be nice, too.
If you are named in one of these lawsuits, and you did it, but the damages against you are ridiculously high, call the EFF, now. Don't settle out-of-court for your life savings without getting some decent advice first.
If you aren't named in one of these lawsuits, but the idea of an industry group beating up indiscriminantly on thousands of individuals makes you mad, call the EFF, now, and make a donation!
That's the Electronic Freedom Foundation [eff.org], folks...
The real question... (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's one of the few strategies left," Radcliffe said.
The question I have then is, what's the RIAA going to do when this doesn't work? What do they have left? And how long before they realize that this strategy, like all their others, is a massive failure?
Anonymity is inevitable & will make p2p flouri (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm posting this after the big "primetime moderation" window, but I think it's worth saying...
The RIAA's most recent action will motivate p2p programmers to introduce anonymity into their trading system, either by creating a new protocol or (more likely) modifying existing protocols and clients.
It's inevitable.
The veil of anonymity will prompt more people to share their entire music library. This will increase the diversity and wide availability of files.
In a p2p app, diversity and wide availability of files means that users a) find what they want and b) can download it quickly.
P2P trading platforms that a) are easy-to-use, b) offer multi-source downloads (for speed) and c) basic anonymity will thrive like never before because many p2p users will open up those massive libraries that are currently unshared out of fear of lawsuit.
The threat of being tracked down will have been removed by the always-responsive p2p programmers, leading to wide-spread sharing by people currently to scared to share, people with something to lose: adults with incredible collections... and a former fear of the RIAA.
Unclean hands (Score:5, Insightful)
I WISH the RIAA Would Sue ME (Score:5, Interesting)
I would love to have someone accuse me illegally possessing those MP3s. I would produce the original CD from which I ripped the track, show that I OWN that source, assert my fair use rights, and promptly counterclaim for substantial damages of my own. Think about this: If I have paid for the content, and can legally rip an MP3 from whatever source for my own use, why can't I get a copy of an MP3 version of content I already paid for from another source? That sounds like a FAIR use of the content to me. In fact, I think that prohibiting such conversions to force consumers to repurchase the same content in a new format is an UNFAIR and deceptive business practice. In court, suing individual file traders has the potential to quickly become a bottomless pit of evdentiary and other legal issues for each file alleged to have been illegally downloaded.
There are no "natural rights" (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, consumers don't think this way. We tend to take a more utilitarian approach. The authors of the U.S. Constitution have a short sentence about this very issue, and that leans towards social compromise: limited exclusive rights for author, use by the general public.
I find it ironic that some take the position of "it's against the law so I won't do it." Problem with this reasoning is the fact that the content industries have been writing the laws for years, pushing them through with donations, and uniting to block any legislation remotely negative.
My last comment is about the punishments faced by those accused. I would hope one of the cases goes all the way to a jury trial and have some high school kid possible "fined" millions of dollars. How "fair and just" would that seem to the average American? Later.
The revolution won't be shared? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, people. I read you saying "They are right, sue the infringers", "Good for them", "I don't care about music pirates". Let me tell you something: you are full of it. The "infringers", the "pirates", the "criminals" are you brother, your son and your neighbour. And they are doing exactly what they should, nailing this industry's coffin byte by byte.
The cartels won't change. Like a dying dinossaur, they will try to survive by every possible way, be it buying laws, buying copyright extensions, using the money they steal from the public and the artists to sue everyone in their way, bribe a few and mindwash the rest.
We can,t expect any help from legislators, they are all already bought. We can't expect any help from the media, the media, the music industry and the movie industry are owned by the same corporations.
We can only expect help from ourselves, they can't sue everyone. Thay can' jail everyone and the Courts will eventually notice that an all-out forced money transfer from the consumers to an industry that refuses to advance is not a possibility.
So please, forget this righteous crap some of you keep regurgitating. Screw what the law RIAA bought says. This is war, RIAA is the enemy and it ends when they and their outdated business model are gone. It is as simple as that.
On the bright side.. (Score:5, Insightful)
wouldn't it be theoretically easier... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny how we got here (Score:5, Insightful)
Fast forward a couple of years. Now money is tight. People aren't spending as much on luxury items. Now, the record industry still has to promote the artists as they did a few years ago, but it's more costly. Not so much that the production costs more, but fewer artists are doing well.
Why are they not doing as well? The mp3. But before you mod me down as a troll think about why. It's not that everyone is downloading whole albums and not buying cds. Research shows the opposite. Instead, it's that people aren't buying bad cd's. Because they can hear more than one or two singles in an album, they know if it's a good buy and make a purchase accordingly.
Because of the mp3, record companies can't get buy by putting albums with 1 good track and 13 crappy ones. Before it was, get one good song, hype it, produce a good video, fill the cd with enough trash to be over an hour and watch the money come in. Now you have to put out at least three such tracks to have a prayer.
The industry is still selling records in record numbers. Albums are continually breaking sales records. The problem is, they aren't getting money from the one-hit wonders who's albums aren't being bought due to lack of quality material.
The mp3 is reducing the money of the Record Companies. It gave the consumer an out from a practice that had taken their money for years: the one track album.
we've already won half the battle... (Score:5, Insightful)
The other half of the battle is to thwart their effort to steal the life-savings from individuals who work damn hard to make their money. This means waging a publicity war, and doing whatever it takes to hurt the RIAA. That means not buying any of their songs. Likewise with the MPAA. If you must see or hear something, download it.
Never forget that current copyright laws are illegitimate. We, the people, did not vote for them. They were snuck into law behind closed doors, with no public notification taking place. They were illegitimately retroactively extended.
Also remember that file-sharing -- including the sharing of copyrighted files -- is more legitimate than the President. More people voted for Napster than voted for GW Bush and Al Gore combined. Furthermore, the politicians who make these draconian copyright laws are in no position to tell us what is right and wrong. In fact, it is most likely that doing exactly the opposite of what they say is the right thing. These, remember, are the same bastards who accept bribes from every party that wants to pay for certain laws. They are the same bastards who get together every now and then to vote on how much they want to raise their own fucking salary by, as if they deserve a payraise.
Advice to those individuals:
(1) Put as much money as possible in 401(k) or 403(b) plans, IRAs, and RothIRAs, and possibly annuities. These are sheltered from taxes, and are likely more sheltered from lawsuites. Indeed, colleges don't even consider them when determining how much aid you should get.
(2) Transfer money off-shore to countries that don't recognize the US' insane copyright laws.
(3) After discussing the credit implications with a lawyer, and loan implications, consider the possibility of declaring bankruptcy. They don't get shit if you declare bankruptcy.
Why is it that rich greedy execs are able to steal the life-savings away from individuals in a court of law, yet when those same execs (like Gary Wennig) fuck over millions of investors and tank their life-savings by insider trading, nothing can be done against them, and they don't even go to jail?
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:4, Interesting)
Help, we're not making money during this recession. We better start suing our customers. I can't wait for the recession to become a depression. Then maybe the RIAA can pay politicians to change the laws to put people into jail.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, there would be nothing _ILLEGAL_ to download. There is plenty of material that would still be legal to transfer over P2P networks.
If you want to change the situation, you'll have to convince industry that it's in the wrong. Until then, it's still illegal. "Fair Use" hardly extends to letting hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people on the Internet that you don't know download copyrighted material from your machine.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid of them? No, not stupid.
Duh! Think about it. Isn't that the point? To kill P2P networks? They're not looking for revenue from lawsuits, all they want is to stop the file sharing. Make it so no one shares, the problem is solved.
It isn't a revenue thing, and it never was. This is a power thing. Only the RIAA will determine what music gets to be popular and what does not. Not the listeners. HEIL, ROSEN! *salutes*
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid of them? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of the RIAA and it's nice to see them finally getting their head on straight about this. It's going to be tedious and expensive, but it's the only legitimate legal means for them to deal with this. In reality they are better served by the existence of P2P because people still end up buying albums and concert tickets, but regardless, the law is the law. Maybe after these lawsuits go through and their sales are still flagging they'll figure out that it wasn't P2P that was hurting them, it was the quality of their product.
Re:Stupid of them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, we've been complaining about them shutting down Napster and P2P networks--and rightly so. But if someone is making copyrighted material available and *if* that's not covered by fair use, then the RIAA is currently targetting the right party: the person guilty of the action.
Of course, one has to question the logic of "We're going to sue them so that they'll buy our CDs." Threatening people to become your customers is a shady business practice and one that I doubt will work.
I still think they're stupid trying to salvage a failed business model with lawsuits, but at lesat now they're going after the right people.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:5, Interesting)
Or maybe you mean unlimited-use shareware. Sure, that's less likely to bring in sales than normal shrink-wrapped software.
But publishers that release limited evaluation/shareware versions of programs and games are allowing everyone to kick the tires before plunking down $50 for a program.
I've bought probably 20-30 shareware programs over the last 4 years. And many of those I wouldn't've purchased if I hadn't been able to evaluate them first.
Same goes for music, except there's no good limited-use version of music.
However, I've purchased more CDs now that I can preview music than I ever did before.
Amazon has the right idea with their track previews, but I want to hear it in decent quality before I commit to it.
If I could somehow preview good-quality music legally from the content producer, then I'd have no use for downloading illegal rips from p2p sources.
'Course, I'm also the guy that bought Photoshop when I graduated from college instead of using the warez version I'd been using up until then... so maybe I'm not the norm.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
Price fixing is also illegal.
So are cartels.
Welcome to the real world where people break the law, and only the poor or unlucky deal with the consequences.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
Price fixing is also illegal. So are cartels.
Well, then support INDEPENDENT MUSIC. Musicians don't have to sign with a record label that is a member of RIAA. I agree that the RIAA is a cartel, but we've got to expect the musicians to shed the golden shackles and do what's right too.
Breaking copyright laws (see, I didn't call it stealing) isn't the solution, because the RIAA will have the ability to enforce copyright law. But if you spend your money elsewhere, they can't do anything about it.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
Is stealing from the mafia ok? It's a legitimate moral question.
Maybe it would be easier for you if the world was black-and-white, but that's not the case.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
One other thing to note is that copyright infringement of music is not a new phenomenon by any means. Ten or twenty years ago, you could infringe copyrights by copying and trading music on tape. CD burners, MP3's, and P2P are the same concept made better, cheaper, and faster. The fundament reason large-scale copyright infringement exists is because there is a significant difference in the amount of money people are willing to pay for music and the amount of money the RIAA currently charges for it, and large-scale copyright infringement will not go away until the supply and demand curves meet.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Interesting)
Keep in mind that there are two generally accepted sources of law, those generated by behavior that is inherently criminal, and those generated for other societal reasons (check here [state.pa.us] for the definitions of mala in se and mala prohibita) and that we're talking about the second kind when we are talking about copyright law. Clearly, a large chunk (I don't know if it's a majority or not) of society doesn't agree with the law on the books. So, by that reasoning, maybe it should not be a law, Congress just hasn't caught up with society yet.
But I think the reasoning of the person you were replying to is not so much that, but that many of the violators are violators only because they lack the resources to buy legislators. Given a level playing field in monetary terms, the RIAA would lose out in a heartbeat, which does offer a whiff of moral justification to the traders.
What morals here? (Score:5, Insightful)
What morals are those? That theft is perfectly acceptable? I don't like the RIAA any more than anyone else, mainly because they're a bunch of dinosaurs and because they go after people who do little more than establish search engines. This ain't one of those times however.
But calling theft moral simply because they're assholes? I don't think so. Getting even, maybe, and I can understand that. But don't have any illusions of moral high ground.
And this civil disobedience thing is tripe - if you want the moral high ground, go handcuff yourself to Hilary Rosen's car. Or download some Weird Al songs that you have no intention of actually listening to, if you want to screw them with P2P. And be sure to advertise your identity, as civil disobedience has no point without an audience.
However, mp3 d/l'ers don't do that. They mainly want something for nothing. Now, I know we all need a method of trying out songs, so I got nothing against people who buy the albums they like and delete the ones they don't. But calling this movement civil disobedience is a travesty to those, like Ghandi and MLK, who used it in the name of great causes.
Re:What morals here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this isnt a standard 'its not theft, its copyright' post, so please hear me out.
Its not theft to most people.
And here is why.
Ever sit around and come up with jokes to tell your friends?
Or have a friend that did that in your group of friends?
Ever retell that joke, or hear it told again?
Thats illegal. For the same reason not getting permission to retell a story is illegal. and the same reason sharing songs is illegal.
Humanity came about sharing information by passing it down from generation to generation. Some have even argued this is what seperates us from the monkeys and what not.
The point is, people dont think repeating a joke is illegal any more than telling a story they heard, nor any more than simply sharing a song they hear.
Copyright is trying to come at this from the other side of what thousands of years have taught us.
Right wrong moral or immoral, its that its not technically possible to put limits on information, and before 50 years ago, no body ever did or had it expected. Now it is expected, and people dont want to change.
Right or wrong wont come into this post. Its that people are USED to sharing storys jokes songs and experences with eachother. Its how we define our relationships, with what experences we share with others. Music is no different than a story or a joke or a tale of what you did over sumer vacation.
That is just how most people feel.
So to come back to answering your post.. Its not so much claiming theft is moral that is happening. Its people dont think of it as theft in the first place.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, this is the way it's always been; if someone found someone else violating their copyright, they'd sue them. All this DMCA crap has only served to annoy legitimate users. I'm glad to finally see them suing the real offenders instead of squashing fair use.
Way to go RIAA. Your products still suck and you still use strongarm tactics but you're finally starting to do the right thing.
And furthermore... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
Like hell it is.
Distributing copyrighted content is illegal, you are guilty of copyright infringement in this case (note, not theft). If you *knowingly* obtain copyrighted content from an unauthorized source, you may be guilty of contributory copyright infringement.
But as far as I know obtaining copyrighted material without knowing that the source is illegal is perfectly OK. If you think otherwise, quote some law.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Informative)
U.S. Code, Title 17, Chapter 11, Sec 1101, (a)(1), Distilled:
Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.
Because downloading entails making a copy to your local machine, I expect this is the basis of the argument that downloaders may be treated as infringers.
Disclaimers: IANAL, RIAA Sucks, Linux Rocks, etc...
Re:Pace yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Theft:
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
You have deprived noone of their property. You have illegally copied it.
I honestly don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping this simple, factual idea.
Re:Pace yourself (Score:5, Funny)
Be completely wrong - get karma. I love Slashdot.
Re:what if... (Score:5, Funny)
You mean people that share nsync stuff? They deserve to be sued anyway
Re:LOOK AT MY .SIG (Score:5, Informative)
Let's go over this again. Repeat after me:
"Copyright infringement is NOT stealing"
"Copyright infringement is NOT stealing"
Make sure you say NOT really loud. Copyright infringment is only that, copyright infringement.
In fact, if you will search the complete version of the U.S. Copyright Law, you will see, throughout all the chapters, amendments AND appendicies, the words steal nor stealing DO NOT APPEAR A SINGLE TIME.
Yes, downloading copyrighted materials is illegal, but it is NOT STEALING. There is an entirely different law that applies to stealing. If you would like to go over the US Copyright Law, all 290 pages of it are available in PDF and HTML form here [copyright.gov]
4. Stop being taken in by the RIAA FUD-O-MATIC
Re:Is this it? (Score:4, Insightful)