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.
That is just stupid of them (Score:2, Informative)
I donâ(TM)t think that if one uses p2p networks correctly that there is a major problem. When I used napster I did download some music. After downloading some songs I would either delete them if I did not like them. Or I ended up going out and getting the CD because I like what they had to offer. Now that I do not have napster anymore, I have stopped buying CDs. RIAA you only hurt yourself by trying to kill P2P file sharing networks.
--- and for those of you who see this after the site gets
The chief lobby group of the nation's major recording labels today said it 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, Sherman said.
"We have no hard and fast rules about how many files you have to be distributing" to be targeted in the RIAA sweep, he said. "Any individual computer user who continues to steal music will face the very real risk of having to face the music."
There are 57 million Americans who use file-sharing services today, according to Boston-based research firm the Yankee Group. Among the most popular are Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster, which became prominent after the pioneering Napster service was shut down under a judicial order in 2001. Kazaa says that its file sharing software has been downloaded more than 200 million times.
The announcement is part of an attempt to rid the Internet of illegitimate versions of copyrighted works as it tries to find a way to encourage legitimate music download services. The RIAA has said that file-sharing services exist for few other reasons.
Record companies say file sharing is to blame for more than a billion dollars in lost CD sales, as well as millions in shrinking profits. The RIAA has focused most of its efforts on shutting down peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, but a federal judge in Los Angeles in April ruled that the sites have legal uses and should not be shut down. The recording industry instead is pursuing individual file traders.
The ruling came a day after another federal judge ruled that the RIAA could force Verizon Communications Inc., to hand over the names of four of its high-speed Internet service customers who were illegally trading large amounts of copyrighted music on the Kazaa network.
The Los Angeles decision helped pave the way for the RIAA's latest legal attack, said Sherman, who confirmed that the RIAA would use its subpoena power to obtain the names of file sharers from Internet providers.
File sharing "is not anonymous. You are engaging in an activity that's every bit as public as setting up a stall at a local flea market," he said.
Sherman said the RIAA is not targeting people who use P2P networks only for downloading, but he warned that the networks often contain technology that allows members to tap other users' hard drives to make copies of music files. That process can make a digital fence out of an unwitting network user, he said.
He pointed people to the Musicunited.org Web site, which contains instructions for uninstalling file-sharing programs and for disabling the functions that open users' music libraries to pirates.
Wayne Rosso, president of the West Indies-based Grokster file-trading service, said the RIAA's tactics are "nothing short of lunacy."
"I can't wait to see what happens when a congressman or senator's child is sued," he said. "They've taken leave of their senses. They lost their [Los Angeles] lawsuit against us and they're pissed about it, so their answer is to sue their customers.
"We know this piracy is wrong and can't go on, but for God's sake, they won't work with us under any circumstances," he added.
How I escape the RIAA (Score:1, Informative)
LOOK AT MY .SIG (Score:3, Informative)
Check out this post! [slashdot.org]
Interesting notes from IP seminar (Score:3, Informative)
At the Oregon State Bar CLE Seminar on Intellectual Property, they mentioned a provision of the DMCA that states, as I understand it, that someone can only be sued under the statute if their financial gain from the activity can be shown to be over 1000$ during a period of 180 days. This would imply that people who swap a couple of songs a week would be safe from prosecution. In fact, 1000/180 = 5.55$ a day, which would be five songs (and an NSYNC song) at the Apple rates of 1 song = 1 dollar.
Another interesting fact was that there is a three year statute of limitations for infringement for civil suites, so all those college collections of music you made should be free and clear.
IANAL, but I'd like to be one day, mostly so I don't wind up in jail. Again.
Re:Isn't the problem the other way? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Isn't the problem the other way? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:2, Informative)
The internet is not some mysterious cloud. All the entry points are owned by someone, and when pressure is applied said owner will be happy to rat you out as opposed to taking the heat.
The only defense that makes any sense is the wireless router "I didn't know they were using my router." But somehow I think in court it will end up being the person who owns the router's responsibility for not properly securing it.
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.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:3, Informative)
The RIAA isn't far behind.
WRONG (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, Free music is the only kind of music that is legal to download. Free music is what the RIAA is trying to stamp out, Free music is what suffered when Napster died.
What I think you meant to say was that it is illegal to obtain music created by the multinational music cartels in a manner they have not approved and licensed.
And on that point, you are correct.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:1, Informative)
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:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:3, Informative)
Besides technical issues of how they can find who downloaded what on P2P (unless they share their stuff themselves), do you mind explaining what is illegal about downloading files? Are downloaders required to verify all copyright and legal issues before downloading anything over the Internet? This would be a harder case to make.
Sharing on P2P, on the other hand, is a more clear case. If you, as a "sharer", have a source music CD and you know (as you should) that it is protected by a copyright, you have no right to make copies of the material with the intent to distribute it to the masses.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:2, Informative)
Second, piracy is not stealing. Stealing entails depriving a party of use. Piracy is just unauthorized copying. Not stealing.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Re:seems legitimate to me (Score:5, Informative)
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:Sharing porn (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
One sided article (Score:2, Informative)
This would be like Clear Channel blaming NPR for me not listening to the radio stations I used to listen to before Clear Channel sucked them into their void. I stopped listening to commercial radio because I hate Clear Channel (and monopolies). Yes, I listen to NPR instead now, but if there were no NPR, I still wouldn't listen to commercial radio.
Did I buy more CD's before p2p? Yes. I had more discretionary income. Would I buy more CD's if there wasn't p2p? No. The lack of p2p networks would not put more discretionary income in my pocket. And it certainly isn't going to make me forgive them for price fixing.
But, as much as I lothe the RIAA and their tactics, going after the people violating copyrights is probably the first thing they've done right. Suing software and search engine developers is not only wrong, it's stupid. Go after someone who is actually doing something wrong.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:1, Informative)
This is not entirely true. The US Supreme Court ruled in a case a year or so ago brought by a free-lance writer that wanted his copyrighted material removed from a newspaper's web-based archives. The court ruled that the copyright only entitled the writer to fair compensation. IANAL, of course, but this agrees with the intent of copyright provisions in the US Constitution, that is to promote the advancement of science, arts, and the public good. Despite what many people think, you can't own an idea (or song). However, you should be given incentive to share with everyone else. If copyrights are used to halt or limit distribution among those willing to pay for fair compensation, there is a problem. Of course, many of the P2P traders are not willing to pay anything, and that's a problem. Personally, I have almost stopped buying CDs since Napster went down, because that was the only place I could find new music I liked. Radio just doesn't play it. Anyway, FWIW. --a
Re:War on drugs (Score:0, Informative)
>Name one street drug that used to be available, and is no longer
Mescaline
This is a myth. Mescaline was never commonly available on the street. Mescaline costs about $100/dose in an underground lab to make. The same basic setup can make Meth for about 5 cents/dose. Guess what most labs do? Most of the street stuff was either PCP or LSD. A usual dead give away that it's not mescaline is that it's not a "horse-pill". Caveat Emptor-- it's your brain.
Actually, irregardless IS a word (Score:3, Informative)
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Translation -- it's not particularly well respected, but it is a word, at least in American speech, and has been since around 1912.
Maybe we need to find P2P services which share dictionaries instead of MP3s.
Re:Too little, Too Late... (Score:3, Informative)
I find this all crazy, though. Yeah, I *like* the idea of free music, but I won't take something against the wishes of its author.
I love the new PD bill that's going before Congress, though. Finally a way to require the author to *actively* insist that something be protected, not merely assuming insistence. It's amazing the sheer quantity of stuff that's illegal to distribute, yet nobody would complain if you did.
-Billy
Yes they can (Score:3, Informative)
Yes they can. They can strangle every distribution channel except their own. If you try to distribute or download music via any channel that doesn't give the lion's share of profits to an obsolete middleman, they can call you thieves and hackers, sue everyone associated with your distribution network, and whine to every media outlet that their profits are being raped by college students who don't respect the artists' right to earn a living. It doesn't matter that you are distributing or downloading independent music. As long as there is infringing content on the networks they can make this argument. This has been the RIAA's goal all along, IMHO -- to maintain their centrality to the distribution of music. Extorting money from businesses like Napster or from college students ranks a distant second on their list of goals. They want to continue to name the next pop stars, and to continue to determine the musical tastes of the overwhelming majority of fans. Making trouble for p2p networks -- by suing them out of existence, by disrupting the networks directly, or by suing their users -- is a means to this end. It's too bad for them that it is destined to fail, but it is too bad for everyone else that many people's lives will be wrecked and many revolutionary technologies will be abandoned to satisfy the greed and ego of a few large copyright holders (most of whom did not create the work they own).
Re:wouldn't it be theoretically easier... (Score:2, Informative)
1) There's such a thing as the +s(secret) +p(private) and the invisible mode on users, preventing the bots from grabbing what channels they're in, let alone even trying to find the users/bots.
2)Some servers also put in false hostnames for users '
3)There are a lot of irc networks out there that arent known as well as efnet/undernet/dalnet(when they still allowed files to go through) that files are traded on, so going through each and every network would be very costly in time and money if they could get to all of them.
4)With P2P, the primary concept in it is file transfer, with IRC it's the other way around. So, they have to find out where the heavy hitters really are before going out to search the networks.
So, in short, your idea has a good point (they are going against some IRC users), but irc perceives a certain competency level in the area of file transfer, as well as some unique problems to IRC itself.
Don't kid yourself... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How to really F*CK the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
We do have a say so in this & we can change th (Score:2, Informative)
In a post of mine last week I predicted this. Don't believe me? Go read it. This is the time for all of us to make our presence known. No matter what we say or what we do the only thing that makes a difference is money. Everyone who cares about this issue at all should agree on a day to boycott all music sales...maybe even a week. When a few million people decide to not buy a product then their voices are heard loud and clear. Ask Jesse Jackson. He's famous for extorting money out of nothing. Maybe we can "extort" the RIAA off of our backs:)
Instead of rehashing the same topic why not take action? Our words do nothing but not buying their products would change the landscape of things IRL. A true worldwide boycott would cost the RIAA millions and millions of dollars and why fund an entity that's out to sue the average person into bankruptcy? I say JULY 1st and if that goes well we add more dates until they buckle and they will if we can all join together and make a statement of this magnitude.
What do you say? Fuck off won't suffice. Spread the word and make a stand.
www.garageband.com (Score:1, Informative)
Not likely (Score:4, Informative)