RIAA Warns Individual Swappers

Joey Patterson writes "CNET News.com reports that the RIAA has sent cease-and-desist letters to four individuals for allegedly pirating its music on P2P networks." They have yet to publicly release the names of who they have contacted, but 4 of the 5 were Verizon subscribers involved with their previous high profile case.

Gripe/Rant About RIAA Posts

[goldspider]

OK I'm going to spend a few kharma points to get my point across, but I have made a few observation about the nature of these RIAA stories that just have gotten under my skin.

First of all, these people aren't 'swapping' anything. That implies a trade where one item (or file) is exchanged for another one, with an implied transfer of ownership. They are COPYING music from one another, not trading it (and trading CDs is NOT illegal, contrary to what some seem to believe).

And that brings me to rant #2. It's easy to regard the RIAA as an Evil(tm) organization when you read (and believe) some of the things people claim the RIAA believes/practices. People here have claimed that the RIAA wants such things as making individual backups of personal CDs, and playing said backups on their computer illegal, and that is simply not true! People make these claims without providing a shred of evidence to back up their assertions. They might as well be accusing Hillary Rosen of violating young children, with as much proof they base their statements on.

Please read this article [pbs.org] which clarifies many of the misconceptions about the RIAA's position on fair usage. I think some of you will be very surprised (I know I was).

Is the RIAA perfect? Not even close. But putting words into their mouth for the sake of tricking people into thinking you know something they don't is no way to conduct an honest and meaningful discussion.

Re:Cease and...

[Albert Pussyjuice]

Copying without permission? But you've been given permission by the person sharing it in your example. The RIAA doesn't have a store where mp3s are available for download but you can only download if you have permission.

If I went in to Best Buy, and they gave me a free album - I would not be breaking the law, would I? This is the same with P2P networks. The only violation of copyright law comes on the distribution end, which is not what you cite in your example.

Downloading copyrighted material isn't against the law. It's sharing copyrighted material that has got the RIAA up in arms.

Re:Just Wondering...

[AndroidCat]

Would AOL .. fight for your rights just as ardently?

In a word, NO. They ratted a customer to the US Navy without any legal basis for doing so. Check here [wiredstrategies.com]

I don't see the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast users who are found to be sharing files get an email from the **AA (forwarded by Comcast) telling them to remove the file.

Re:Just Wondering...

[Yagdrasil]

Verizon did fight, and even tried to get a delay after losing the case, seeking to force the the RIAA to first get a judge's order (which is normally required), instead of just requesting the names directly (which the DMCA allows).

Verizon had a major intrest in winning this case and really did try to fight it out. Go to this link [com.com] for a quick look at it.

Re:Wow actually going against people who broke the

[the morgawr]

Please do not encourage the muddying of the legal waters.

This is a civil case, the RIAA is sueing in CIVIL court. They are not pressing criminal charges at this time.

Therefore, these guys didn't "break the law". They aren't even accused of breaking the law as the police havn't arrested even them.

Re:No seriously...

[Idarubicin]

Why doesn't everyone just turn themselves in. The legal system will be backlogged and this is the ONLY WAY congress will see that we arent talking about Pirats (narrr) but real people.

You can't 'turn yourself in'. The act that you have engaged in is copyright violation: a civil infraction. The copyright holder may sue you, but the police cannot arrest you--you have not, legally speaking, committed a criminal act. You can turn yourself in, but they'll laugh and send you on your way. They have nothing to charge you with.

You're welcome to contact RIAA or its members directly and ask to settle--but you can bet that they'll ask for more than what their lawyers will cost them. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:The usual scare tactics

[Tenebrious1]

I'm no lawyer, but aren't there laws regarding selective enforcement? How were these people chosen over the rest of their p2p buddies?

Selective enforcement only comes into play when there's a possibility of civil rights being violated. Firing an employee because their age, race, handicap, sexual lifestyle, etc, is illegal.

In a long line of speeding cars, the officer can choose any car he wants to pull over. If all cars were identical, with tinted windows so the officer could not see inside, and everyone had the same plates, then there would be no concern about "profiling", which is illegal.

Since all the users were anonymous until Verizon released their names, there's no "selective enforcement", as long as it sent C&D letters to all the people. If they got 100 names, and sent letters to 30 that seemed to be middle-class can't-afford-a-good-lawyer-but-still-has-some-mone y-to-pay-settlement people, then it could probably be argued they are profiling. But I'd guess they'd send C&D letters to everyone they can, and take a few high profile traders and make examples of them.

Not ALL Record Company Profits are falling...

[OmniGeek]

This week, NPR reported that indie labels are doing better than the Big Record Companies; for example, one major folk label (I believe 'twas Rounder Records) just had its best year EVER.

The clear and obvious conclusion: Folkies and indie listeners are less prone to dastardly thieving music piracy than, say, Metallica listeners. Of course, the other explanation, that some labels are actually carrying acts people WANT to listen to as opposed to pushing mass-produced synthetic sound-alike cardboard cutout bands and buying air play for them, THAT explanation is too preposterous to consider...

Re:Thank God

[StillAnonymous]

If you honestly believe that CD prices would drop if all music piracy were eliminated, then you are a bigger fool than even your past posts would indicate.

The music industry (they really deserve the title of Syndicate) lied in the past about CD prices. Even though CDs are far easier for them to produce, they still hold a higher cost than cassette tapes. They told us that the prices would come down when the technology had matured and paid for itself. That time has long passed. Prices are still high.

They love their dough, they rake it in with minimal effort, and I'm supposed to cry for them and point fingers at other people because THEY tell me to? All because THEY think their profits should be even higher than they are when every other industry is struggling in these times?

Fuck them.

Re:In other news... dead horse beating spreads

[zurab]

Why should I be scared or offended? If someone's distributing copyrighted materials without permission then I think it's a perfectly fine thing for the copyright holder to pursue legal avenues to get them to stop.

That would be perfectly fine, except that RIAA doesn't need to get court's approval anymore. That's what the Verizon lawsuit was about. RIAA can virtually directly go to ISPs and demand suspected violators' personal information. They have more power than law enforcement itself.

I only get scared and offended when a copyright holder attempts to ban entire technologies, or attempts to bypass the existing and sufficient legal options which are currently in place.

The "legal" option currently in place is the one where RIAA bypasses courts and due process and can directly demand the information out of ISPs. This point has been hammered here already - if you owe me $100 and haven't paid me, can I go directly to your bank and demand your personal information? Can I demand they cancel and close your accounts? Do banks have to comply if I did that? What is the point of having a judicial system?

Do you get scared and offended when the FSF attempts to enforce the GPL when someone violates it? How is this any different?

As far as I know, FSF hasn't used DMCA against anybody to get their personal information directly from their ISPs. If that happened, yes, that would be scary.

Re:Please share a list of addresses

[MacWiz]

Here is a list of IP addresses from which the RIAA and other agencies will attempt to violate your privacy. Add these addresses to your firewall software.
RIAA
208.225.90.0 to 208.225.90.255
12.150.191.0 to 12.150.191.255
208.192.0.0 to 208.192.255.255
Warner Music Group 216.52.242.0 to 216.52.242.255
206.245.128.0 to 206.245.128.255
Business Software Alliance
BSA.org 128.121.215.173
BSA.org.tr 212.98.253.0-212.98.253.255
BSA.org.tw 202.39.48.0-202.39.48.255
BSA.co.za 196.2.147.241
BSA.si 212.18.32.20
BSA.sk 81.0.202.0-81.0.202.255
BSA.lv 195.13.160.32-195.13.160.63
BSA.or.jp 61.197.225.96-61.197.225.111
BSA.hu 212.105.232.128-212.105.232.159
BSA.cz 194.213.210.0-194.213.210.255
BSA.hr 195.29.168.0-195.29.168.255
CAAST.org 207.139.69.0-207.139.69.255
BSA.or.at,.de,.ch 195.243.162.0-195.243.162.255
BSAA.com.au 203.147.240.0-203.147.240.255
BSA.ee 212.107.32.152
BSA.it 195.14.162.14
BSAPERU.org 200.4.218.38
CHINESEBSA.org 210.77.158.57
MPAA
63.199.57.96 to 63.199.57.111
64.166.187.128 to 64.166.187.158
198.70.114.0 to 198.70.114.255
209.67.0.0 to 209.67.255.255