RIAA Warns Individual Swappers 511
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.
Thank God (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank God (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thank God (Score:2, Insightful)
Cease and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow actually going against people who broke the la (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank God (Score:1, Insightful)
I was gonna mod this a troll, but it doesn't really count. It's really just incomprehensible. I fail to see how this story can possibly lead you to that conclusion... I would think, if anything, this story supports the opposite conclusion.
So here's wishing for the [Stupid, -1] moderation.
Re:Just Wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA (and anyone else) can simply point to the Verizon lawsuit as presidence in any future case where they want the names of "pirates".
Personally, I'd like to see the C&D letters the RIAAs henchmen sent out. I'd bet Hillary Rosen's soul (assuming she actually has one) that they're demanding payment for "infringing" on the "artitst's rights".
It's like the lawsuit lottery! (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing is you have much better chance at getting caught going 90 in 60 than you do with 40 GB of mp3s on your hard drive. So they've got 9 people so far. 9 lucky winnners of the RIAA lawsuit lottery! I'm pretty sure this will stop just about no from 'buying their tickets.' (i.e. pirating)
Yeah....and? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cease and... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just Wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, isnt it time to get a new provider? If everyone left, then maybe they'd fight the fight again...
I seem to remember Verizon refusing to turn over the subscriber names to the RIAA and fighting a court battle for their privacy. Only after losing that fight and being ordered by the courts to turn over the information did they finally consent. And even then they waited until the imposed deadline. Now you are advocating that everyone leave a provider that resisted and fought the RIAA? Just because they ultimately lost in court? Good luck finding many with the balls to challenge the RIAA. I've never used Verizon for any service, but I'd hardly fault them for this.
Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cease and... (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it inconceivable that the name of a file in a log is sufficient proof of criminal conduct. If I rename workout_log.xls to bush_assassination_plan.doc am I guilty of a criminal conspiracy to kill the President? No, of course not. If there is sufficient evidence of illegal activity a search warrant would be required to look at the actual content of a file. But, you're right about one point. These days a jury could conclude almost anything despite the evidence or the facts.
Obligatory Star Wars quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the best way to generate business is to treat your customers like criminals.
Re:Yeah....and? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just Wondering... (Score:2, Insightful)
The fifth was from Earthlink, who turned over the account name due to Verizon loosing its court case.
Re:In other news... dead horse beating spreads (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory Star Wars quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Newsflash: People who illegally copy music ARE criminals!
And how can you call them customers when they aren't buying the music?
Re:lol (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't haave to punish everyone, just enough so that the majority are scared of punishment. And you have to mean business.
There is a story of Sun Wu (Sun Tzu Wu of The Art of War), who is demonstrating the effectiveness of his strategies and rules. He give an order (turn tight I think), and the soldiers (actually a group of the king's concubines) giggle. He says that if the troops do not follow orders because they are not clear and well spoken, it is the generals fault. He then gives other orders (turn left). They giggle again. He says that if the ordes are spoken clearly, but not followed, it is the officers fauult. he then order the two lead women killed. After some argument with the kin, they are killed. The next orders he gives are followed.
It's a similar concept, except that RIAA is going after the followers, instead of the leaders, which breeds resentment, not respect.
Re:Yeah....and? (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree with you that they can't take everyone to court and that others will continue mooching files. However, I also look at it your post and wonder if your thinking would be adjusted if they smacked you with a gajillion dollar lawsuit; that's my issue with people taking an apathetic stance on these things.
Re:What so special (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly right. When the RIAA went after Napster, everyone was all for going after individual users and leaving Napster alone. Well, it's too late for Napster, but now a judge that isn't smoking crack has agreed that Grokster and Morpheus aren't responsible for the copyright violations, and the RIAA is now forced to go after individual users who are breaking the law.
Is it a bad law, one that no longer applies to the world we live in? Maybe. But it's still the law.
This the way it should be enforced.
Re:The usual scare tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just Wondering... (Score:2, Insightful)
To go beyond your question. Why are people still buying CD's, DVD's, Tivo, etc... if they truly dislike the products' restrictions???? I know this has been said over and over but in a capitalistic economy it is *easy* for a large group of current consumers to alter the behavior of a company!
RIAA has no clue (Score:4, Insightful)
How much does all this legal bullcrap add to the overpriced cost of music?
I kinda get the impression that the only reason they do this is to facilitate RIAA's own existance so they can say "see look what we are doing for artists?" What I say to artists is this... take a look at Janis Ian's website http://www.janisian.com/ [janisian.com] she effectively uses the web to to keep her fans in tune to her music long after the recording companies (RIAA) found her to be "unprofitable".
I've said it before and I'll say it again... RIAA and the Record Companies do not make artists into stars, their Fans do.
RIAA bite my dingleberry-crusted ass, i'd rather sit in the dark and hum to myself rather than deal with your crap, that's why your sales have been lagging recently.
Stop hiding behind your lawyers and start listing to the Fans/Customers, peace = contentment, you want peace in the music bus make your customers content. Here's a little clue your attorneys are not the answer, didn't you get the memo?
Re:Cost fo C&D letters (Score:4, Insightful)
... or maybe we can convince them to use p2p to distribute their c&d letters, in which case we can argue that p2p has a legit use :-)
On a more serious note, a previous poster claimed that distribution of copyright materials is illegal. It's only illegal if the copyright holder limits said distribution. Look at Linux - copyright Linus Torvalds, yet freely distributable :-)
Re:Just Wondering... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that a bit hard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright vs. Copyleft (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time you get pissed the RIAA is going after some college student, imagine Bill Gates is personally inserting your code into the next version of Windows, and you have to think of a way to counter it... Would you just let it slide? Probably not...
And yet 75% of slashdot posters seem think that that RIAA shouldn't enforce their copyrights. Why is that?
Re:What so special (Score:3, Insightful)
Because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is about protecting your work. I don't think most slashdotters feel copyrights are a bad thing, just the ones that are backed by lack of value. The RIAA has been ripping us off and price gauging us for a long time, so there isn't a belief that "stealing" the songs is anything more than getting what's due.
Surely everyone would agree that stealing is wrong. But many probably feel that price fixing CDs when you have a virtual monopoly is "wronger," and therefore, downloading music is somehow fair.
Re:Obligatory Star Wars quote (Score:1, Insightful)
When they willfully sell defective CDs, they're treating customers like criminals. When they buy laws like the DMCA, they're treating customers like criminals.
But when they prosecute copyright infringers, they're just treating criminals like criminals. WTF is wrong with that? If it weren't for those assholes, then this war might not be happening at all, and then the rest of us wouldn't be taking collateral damage from the xxAA's attacks.
To put it in your Star Wars universe: yes, I don't like it when the Empire blows up planets. If the Empire had good enough technology to be able to just target those rebel spies and traitors on Alderaan, then maybe the planet would still be there, and not so many millions of lives would have cried out and been suddenly silenced.
Re:Obligatory Star Wars quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, no. Technically not. What they are doing may render them civilly liable, and it is morally questionable. In general, they are not criminals--in most jurisdictions, they are not committing a crime within the definition of criminal law.
Yes, I do know I sound pedantic. Nevertheless, this sort of semantic distinction is quite important--if we are going to discuss legal issues, we should take the time to use technically correct language. To take an example likely more familiar to the Slashdot crowd--how many of us have friends or family who just don't get the distinction between memory and hard drive space? As in, "My new computer has eighty gigabytes of memory. That's a lot, isn't it?" Members of the legal profession no doubt cringe at Slashdot legal discussions the way that Slashdotters cringe at technical commentary from the lay public.
Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
They might stop people from downloading. They're also helping to not sell albums.
Re:What so special (Score:5, Insightful)
Apologies if I rambled.
Re:Wow actually going against people who broke the (Score:1, Insightful)
If these were the only choices for changing a law in the United States - the South would still be segregated, women would not have the vote, and we'd still be slogging through the jungles of Vietnam. You forget that mass civil disobedience to unjust laws has also proven to be an effective tool of change. Plus, it gives us all a chance to work on the side of the angels.
This may be a stupid question, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the RIAA is the rights holders to a song, and they put the song on a public P2P share for the world to download, what is illegal about downloading it? By putting the file where they did, they are essentially granting permission for P2P users to copy the song.
How is this different from, say, the RIAA setting up a table at the local mall (a place where their market gathers) and handing out free CDs, and then accusing the people they gave the CDs to that they 'stole' that music because they did not pay for it?
It seems to me that these 'honeypot' P2P traps are on tenuous legal ground for this reason.
Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)
The usual reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Please note, this is a civil action, not a criminal prosecution. The standard of evidence required is "balance of probability", not "beyond all reasonable doubt".
If you are running a service on your machine that is responding to a file sharing protocol and choosing to advertise that you have a 5MB file called Metallica-Enter-Sandman.mp3, what is the balance of probability. Is it more probable that this is a copy of that song that you are offering to make further copies of, or is it more probable that it's your 2 million word magnus opus that you just happen to have given that name?
OK, no doubt you (dear reader) consider yourself a special case. No doubt you deliberately keep piles of misnamed files around, or perhaps just have a hacked client that responds to any searches with "Sure, here it is", just to troll the RIAA. Fine, keep telling yourself that a court will believe you. But look at it another way; if files like that were on 100 Joe Filesharers' hard drives, how many of them would you expect to be copies of copyrighted songs, and how many renamed benign or random content? 1? 5? 10?
If it's fewer than 50 (and it is, if we're being honest) then the balance of probability is that any given file found advertised on a filesharing network does exist, is the content that it says that it is, and is available for duplication in violation of copyright law.
That's all that the RIAA have to show. They don't need to send in the Gestapo to kick down your door and sieze your machine (although they will if they can). They just have to convince a court that you probably duplicated content in violation of copyright law.
Thank you for your attention. Normal service of shrieking about first amendments and absolute proof may now resume.
Pirate Who? (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't even know the RIAA had an album out.