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.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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!
Dumb, dumb, dumb (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, just the other day, I was trying to download a couple songs from the new Third Eye Blind album because I'd left the CD that I'd already purchased at home, but I downloaded 20 rotten tracks for every one that I was looking for.
The way it should be (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this "stuff that matters"?
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.
zigging when they should zag (Score:3, Insightful)
The strength of P2P has nothing to do with the small % of users who share huge amounts of material. It's the combination of thousands of individuals each sharing a small amount of material. Seeing tactics like this is even counterproductive because it sends the message that sharing a few files is okay; the real crime is sharing lots of files.
Even with its size, the RIAA isn't big enough to sue the litte guys who are the engine of P2P. This human-redundancy is why P2P is around to stay.
This 'ownership of ideas' is an important issue (Score:3, Insightful)
What are some better analogies? Music as basic human right when available, music as buckets full of water from a communal village stream?
How weâ(TM)ll think of the ownership of ideas is being determined right now. Iâ(TM)d say weâ(TM)ve an obligation not only to ourselves but also to others in our culture and future generations to think critically about what weâ(TM)re making music, the access to music, and the ownership of music, analogous to.
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.
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
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.
Prove It. (Score:2, Insightful)
Um... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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)
It is their right, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:seems legitimate to me (Score:3, 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: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:That is just stupid of them (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can you say boycott? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why the negative slant? (Score:2, Insightful)
"The RIAA has today decided to do nothing to stem the growth in P2P file sharing of its IP. "Share what you like", said a spokesman earlier today, "we don't mind. We'll probably, er, go bankrupt and find something else to do.".
Don't forget, many professional musicians are behind these actions. Can you think why?
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.
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:Why the negative slant? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes I do! I don't have the right to download copyrighted music I haven't paid for.
And furthermore... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can you say boycott? (Score:1, Insightful)
See, they are still not buying our products. They must still be piriting them! We just haven't found them yet!
At the very least a boycott of just a couple of months would defund the RIAA
If everyone who has ever even heard of the RIAA were to stop buying records, the effect on their bottom line would be negligable but probabally attributed to piracy.
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:seems legitimate to me (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed. There is most definitely a line between what is fair use and what is blatantly ignoring copyrights. If you are are downloading MP3s for songs you do not own you do not have a leg to stand on.
That being said, I think the RIAA has tipped its hat and might end up losing its apparent legal edge. First of all IANAL, so correct me if I'm wrong. By going after the people who share music they are dealing a serious blow to P2P networks, but if the people sharing legal own their copies of the songs, they aren't violating any copyrights. It is the people who are downloading the content that are actually in the red. Just my thoughts.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds like you're hinting at the fact that since a substantial amount of people are going to get away with doing unlawful things anyway, we just shouldn't have laws against those things?
Sounds like an argument of someone who does unlawful things.
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!
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:2, Insightful)
If the ruling that p2p networks have substantial non-infringing uses is correct, then those who share files in accordance with those uses will survive, and so the p2p networks will survive. What will not survive (because, as you say, with nobody sharing there's nothing to download) is illegal distribution of copyrighted music. This is exactly what the RIAA should've been doing from the beginning if they wanted to enforce their copyrights online.
(That said, it is now of course up to the court system to make sure they only get guilty verdicts against p2p users who are really violating their copyrights.)
RIAA vs The World (Score:2, Insightful)
One word: impossible.
What they're attempting to do is simply medeival. They will clog the courtrooms, treating people who shared files like Al Capone.
Good-bye, America. Sorry to hear about the brain.
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: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?
Pace yourself (Score:2, Insightful)
This is very simple. A song is something tangible. It may be distributed by it's owners in any number of formats and on any number of different media types. The most common is on a CDROM. In any event, in what format the song is encoded in and on what media it is stored on is irrelevant. A pirate obtains this CDROM and then rips the song off it and encodes it in a different format, such as MP3. He then places this MP3 file onto the internet and allows others to freely obtain it.
This is stealing. The theif has not infringed upon copyrights. He didn't use the beat contained in the song to make his own, nor did he steal the lyrics for a different work of art that he claimed was his. No. He STOLE A SONG.
I honestly don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping this simple idea.
Re:Why the negative slant? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're likely guilty of contributory infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:1, Insightful)
But it _is_ stealing. You are taking something that is not yours, it is a product that you would normally buy to obtain, but you are not paying for it, and most of you had no intention of paying for it. You argue it is about copyrights, but you are completely off there. This is a simple case about taking something without paying for it.
The RIAA is a cartel? They may very well be, but it doesn't make it legal to steal. Arguing that the RIAA is a cartel is irrelevant.
The music industry puts out crappy records? Don't buy them, and don't download them either. If you think they're crappy, why in the hell do you download them anyways? Why waste your disk space?
You'll buy them eventually? Yeah, right, how many people actually do this? Sure, a handful of people do, but I'd argue that the vast majority don't, they just take and take and use the excuses above to justify their taking.
Look, I hate the RIAA as much as the other guy, but stealing is stealing, and there is no excuse for it. Any excuse you give is simply a way for you to justify to your conscience that what you are doing is for all intents and purposes wrong.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:2, Insightful)
It is also illegal, in many states, for me to butt fuck you even if you want it. Or to give someone oral sex. Or to go bowling on a Sunday, or to sell beer for someone to drink in their own home. Or even for someone to drink that beer in their own home. Or to smoke a bowl, whether alone or with a few friends.
Fuck law. And fuck anyone who thinks they're right because they hide behind the thin veil of what passes for truth in any large society.
Re:Can you say boycott? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The way it should be (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Stop calling it ''stealing'' then (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, most of the stuff I download is music videos. I have yet to find a consistent source outside of p2p networks to get copies of music videos I particularly enjoy watching. (Of course, my room-mate said that if I didn't take Blue Man Group's "Sing Along" off of repeat while I did the dishes he would hurt me.....)
Frankly, they can decide what's popular all they want. I'll still decide what I listen to. Heck, I get more exposure to music I haven't heard before from stuff my co-workers bring to the store then anything on the radio.
Kierthos
Re:Sharing porn (Score:2, Insightful)
If all the fancy RIAA and MPAA business managers couldn't figure out something that Ron Jeremy did!
Ron's got it easy: Unzip, insert, money shot, go home and get a beer. The fancy business managers are still working on the money shot bit, but they have figured out how to insert their heads up their rectums. I give the RIAA and the MPAA about 24 months before they manage to drive a large number of their member companies into Chapter 13.
And I, for one, won't be sad to see them go.
How do they know if you're breaking the law? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Cry me a river - you got it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should I feel bad about taking a miniscule portion of some restaurant conglomerate's profits which for years has been selling me inferior food in inferior buildings for huge profits which go straight into the back pockets of knobs like Jim Cantalupo [mcdonalds.com] and almost none of which end up in the farmers' and ranchers' hands?
Because taking things that have value, whether they are hamburgers or songs, against the wishes of the owner (or copyright owner) is unfair to the owner and is also against the law. It doesn't matter if you don't like the company or its practices, it's still wrong.
Re:Sharing porn (Score:5, Insightful)
-B
Good music will always generate revenues. (Score:3, Insightful)
Brooks & Dunn, multi-Platinum country music artists said, "We want the next Brooks & Dunn to have a chance. Piracy hurts that chance. There are a lot of really talented hardworking people making music. For them it's a job... If music gets stolen, it's hard for them to continue. So help us ensure the future of good music."
The Dixie Chicks, Grammy award winning and two-time Diamond award recipients said, "It may seem innocent enough, but every time you illegally download music a songwriter doesn't get paid. And, every time you swap that music with your friends a new artist doesn't get a chance. Respect the artists you love by not stealing their music. You're in control. Support music, don't steal it."
Ya rednecks, how about many artists that became popular, like Darude & his "Sandstorm", because they shared their music?
Mary J. Blige, multi-Platinum award winning artist: âoeIf you create something and then someone takes it without your permission, that is stealing. It may sound harsh, but it is true.â
My grandmother has a collection of Pushkin's works. I did not pay for any of those books and Pushkin is not alive: I can't ask for his permission. How the fuck am I going to read "Evgenii Onegin"?
John W. Styll, President of the Gospel Music Association (GMA) said, âoeFrom ancient times onward, it has been understood by all people that taking someoneâ(TM)s property without their permission is wrong. The GMA supports the RIAAâ(TM)s efforts to use the court system to enforce the intellectual property rights of the creative community, but also calls upon people of faith to consider that this is not just a legal issue, but also a matter of morality.â
Jesus fucking Christ, there are people who pay to listen to Gospel? Isn't religion about sharing and crap? Didn't Jesus mass produce fish and wine in order to feed the poor? I bet local traders were pissed about him flooding the market.
Frances Preston, President and CEO of BMI: âoeIllegal downloading of music is theft, pure and simple. It robs songwriters, artists and the industry that supports them of their property and their livelihood. Ironically, those who steal music are stealing the future creativity they so passionately crave. We must end this destructive cycle now.â
Creativity? You call people like Eminem, Britney, Justin & Co., and other pop *stars* creative? If so, then every special education kid in this country is a member of MENSA.
Finally I do recommend everybody to read the article published on RIAAs web site. Please do it carefully and note the people who are mentioned there. Most of them are untalented fucks that strive to rip general publi off by producing half-baked hits. If people truly appreciated their work they would buy it, would not they?
Long Term Effects (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Illegal traders will move to Freenet [sourceforge.net], where your identity can not be traced.
2. The RIAA will have to prove that they files offered were indeed the copyrighted item. File name alone is not sufficient.
They will have to download and verify every song they wish to sue a defendant for, and prove that it is the orginal and who they downloaded it from. That will be an expensive proposition, and soon their IP ranges will be public knowledge and widely blocked.
My conlcusions is that this is mostly a scare tactic, with probably bad unintentional consequences for the RIAA.
Re:seems legitimate to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Sue...and people will still trade (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's just the technological side of things. Then we deal with ethics, business, money, law, and so forth. But I think those are all small insignificant issues (maybe not insignificant, but in terms of stopping the trading or not it is) and it is ultimately the technology that will change and the file swapping will continue, no matter how many people get sued.
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:Proper course of action for a scratched CD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing to see here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't *reasonably* believe that a random (and/or arbitrary) client on a P2P network has the right to distribute copyrighted songs to you for no fee.
Now where things get interesting is fair use.
I mean, if I own a Metallica CD, I'm pretty certain that format-shifting of it to a collection of MP3s is legal under fair use. Can the *means* of that format shift be downloading them from Kazaa? Or must I rip them myself?
Of course, the DMCA says that fair use ISN'T fair, not if any sort of copy protection is involved, at least...
Bah.
Obviously, the RIAA needs to stop trying to litigate/legislate the problem away (since every attempt seems to invariably infringe on OUR rights under fair use doctrine), and instead work on providing legal alternatives to illegal sharing. There will ALWAYS be infringers, but taking such a hard line will only encourage it, while providing legal and cost-effective alternatives would discourage it.
Xentax
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.
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.
Re:Potential to end Reign of Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
What does the DMCA have to do with anything? They're going to sue people for violations of copyright law, not for circumvention devices. Audio CDs don't have any protection anyway, except a copyright bit, and the idea of that bit is NOT repeat NOT to stop you from copying music, but to allow compliant devices to set the "do not copy" bit on the copies you make, ostensibly for personal use. Hence you can not make a copy of a copy using devices which respect the copyright bit. That includes (unhacked) home audio CD copying units.
Unless they plan to sue people for posessing MP3s which do not have the copyright bit set - unlikely - the DMCA will not be involved even a little bit.
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...
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:Why the negative slant? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hence the negative slant.
Re:Sharing porn (Score:3, Insightful)
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:That is just stupid of them (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's out of the mainstream at all, your chances for hearing it on the radio plummet.
That's why I don't listen to the radio - it never plays what I want to hear.
Re:OK with me... but they need to be careful. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is this it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That is just stupid of them (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.
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:Just what they should be doing (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. If the RIAA is paying attention, they'll note that they are getting positive responses to this from the mouths of people who previously would have been anti-RIAA. A large contingent of the anti-RIAA crowd are so only because of the RIAA's attempts to put a stranglehold on technology. Drop the technology-control agenda and only go after the actual GGTM violators, and they'll likely find that opposition to their efforts drops substantially.
That's just a little bit of history repeating... (Score:4, Insightful)
Way back in the early days of MP3 swapping, before anyone had ever come up with the idea of peer-to-peer, there used to be a lot of pirate mp3 FTP servers and webpages, there for the taking. I remember using a Windows web spider program called MP3Wolf [hitsquad.com] that scanned the web for mp3 file links and listed them for you to choose from and download. I remember when about a zillion mp3s popped right up in the list, right there for the taking.
But then the RIAA and other powers-that-be started suing folks who ran those websites...and almost overnight, MP3Wolf started turning up zip. The RIAA didn't sue everybody running such a site...but they started suing enough of them that word got around it was distinctly hazardous to one's financial health to run an open mp3 download site...so the mp3s retreated onto IRC channels, leech-ratio FTP sites, and, on the web, behind a maze of warez site lists (of lists of lists of lists of sites, if you were lucky; if not, toss in a few more "lists of" in the middle), pop-up ads, and computer-killing pop-up browser window storms, and it was almost impossible to find a direct link to any mp3 files on the web, because if you could find it, so could the RIAA.
A friend of mine put it that the RIAA and the file swappers had reached a sort of de facto agreement: the swappers made the files nearly impossible to retrieve, and the RIAA pretended not to notice them. A balance was struck, and equilibrium was maintained. Until peer-to-peer came along and knocked the whole thing into a cocked hat.
Well, it's happening again. Granted, it's taking a bit longer than it did back then, as the record companies couldn't directly attack the legality of webpages and FTP sites so they had to cut right to the chase, but I think we're going to see a dramatic decline in the quantity and selection of songs flying around on KaZaa as the chilling effect brought on by the first round of lawsuits hits. Rhetoric of "dammit, we have a right to steal music! And it's not 'stealing' anyway because of (car analogy, furniture analogy)" Slashdotters notwithstanding, most file-sharers out there would rather not be prosecuted, even if they think they aren't doing anything wrong. If you don't know who's going to get slammed with a lawsuit, then you're not going to risk being one of them. And that's what the RIAA is after.
It won't be the end of it, of course; in a couple years or so, folks will come up with the next file-sharing paradigm (perhaps something Freenet-style, where there's almost no way to tell who's sharing what) and do an end-run around these lawsuits. And then the RIAA will try to work out how to counter that. And so it goes. To quote a Shirley Bassey/Propellerheads song that's floating around out there on peer to peer right now, "That's just a little bit of history repeating."
Wrong, Cornhole. (Score:1, Insightful)
"Entrapment" is not simply creating an attraction that might induce people to commit a crime (i.e. the RIAA creating a honeypot). If that were the case, I could mug the lady with the big diamond ring, since she "entrapped" me into wanting to take it.
In the legal sense, "entrapment" occurs when a law enforcement official induces a person to commit a crime when that person would not otherwise have done so. A cop can set up a "sting" in which he accepts your offer to buy drugs, but he cannot walk the streets offering to sell you drugs. In the first instance, you demonstrated an intention to commit the crime by initiating the transaction; in the second instance, the cop has entrapped you by inducing you into committing the crime.
The RIAA offering tunes for download is not "entrapping" anyone. First, they are not law enforcement officials. Second, they are not initiating the file transfer (that is, the offense). If the RIAA tried to push copyrighted downloads onto your system, you'd be right. But you're not.
In closing, AC, may I politlely invite you to shut your badly misinformed piehole.
Yes... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You're likely guilty of contributory infringeme (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're offering someone else's IP for free download, without their consent, you're the 'right guy'. Since sharing is something you choose to do, you've made a conscious decision to break the law.
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:You're likely guilty of contributory infringeme (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:We keep losing customers! (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, they shut down Napster - and CD sales failed to increase. So they are going after the true P2P networks. Wanna bet that sales will drop again?
Pardon me while I rant, but on the griping hand, I've stopped buying albums (or CDs, or whatever) not because of price or new DRM inconveniences, but because I've heard so little new material that I like enough to even acquire for free. Where could I hear it? Radio stations? Sorry, but the local all-news station is the only one that doesn't play any of the annoying non-musical "music" that results in me changing the station. And none of them have an "compelling content". Music TV? Similar garbage, except even more interrupted by things like interviews, or even worse "The Osbornes" - and it's certainly not worth paying cable or satellite fees for. P2P? Generally 99% garbage, only useful when somebody who knows my (Dr Demento influenced) tastes recommends that I might like something - and I believe them enough to be willing to sift through the morass for a day or two to find a copy that's barely listenable. (Last time that worked, it turned out that the performer was selling their CD directly with no major labels involved. I bought.)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course this also means that people will finally notice how stupid many of our laws about copyright and restriction to fair use are, and that this might actually become a topic for elections - and hence we might have a chance of getting reasonable laws.
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:2, Insightful)
I've noticed that's a big problem with Alchohol and Caffiene...
Unclean hands (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:What morals here? (Score:2, Insightful)
This would (marijuana users take note) bring the legal system in our country to it's knees. Something would have to change, and if it didn't you'd rinse & repeat next month. That's why you'd not want really heavy fines so you could do it again & again if you had to.
Reasons this would work.
0.) This isn't a civil violation anymore thanks to the DMCA (make sure the song is off of one of the "copy-protected" cds)
1.) Enforcement officers can't pick & choose whom to arrest.
2.) It would be impossible to jail (or even book) that many people at once (other services would suffer, not our problem.)
3.) You have a right to a fair & speedy trial in the US, if they screw that one up, the ACLU would probably love to hear about it.
4.) This *will* get in the news. Politicians will pay attention. They do know the RIAA can't vote.
Of course most Americans would signup for this & chicken out so you'd have about 500 people show up out of 10 million. Bunch of chicken shits....
Jaysyn
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, by that you must mean that the RIAA will imprison millions of otherwise nonviolent offenders, at great expense, turning them into violent criminals through the wonder which is our prison system's "rehabilitiation" program.
Re: Stupid of them? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's stupid in a sense that they're indiscriminently suing their prospectful customers.
I agree that trying to shut down P2P networks is completely ridiculous, and legally questionable tactics. I also agree that suing individuals who are sharing copyrighted mp3s on P2P networks is legally ok. Those people ARE engaging in illegal activity.
However, if RIAA continues on this track, they will eventually totally alienate the very people who spend money on music. Not only that, but the outrageous monetary penalties RIAA is insisting people pay are just grossly unfair. People react badly to unfair treatment of their peers...it's just horrible PR.
Instead of prosecuting they should look into ways of profiting from mp3 sharing. But I guess that's what you get when you have lawyers running the show.
Some of he independent labels and artists seem to have found a goldmine in P2P services. I'm not saying the major labels can do things the same way, but they're not even trying. All they do is have the RIAA parrot the same claims of mp3 sharing hurting sales (and ignoring all studies stating to the contrary). Apple did something, and they had phenomenal success (granted, the longevity of iTunes is yet to be determined). Why aren't the major labels even trying?
They can't possibly think they can intimidate tens of millions of people and get away with it. Or can they? If they do, that's actually pretty scary.
Additionally, RIAA's strategy doesn't at all consider the fact that there are different types of music "pirates": people who pirate to avoid buying, people who pirate to preview music they want to buy, people who pirate but have no plans of buying the music in the first place.
RIAA is losing money only from the first group of "pirates". They actually get MORE money from the 2nd group of people. Yet they claim all music sharing is costing them money. It's typical lobbying tactics, lieing through your teeth and hoping nobody will notice.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill the RIAA
www.boycott-riaa.com
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.
Simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, produce evidence that you can prove is unmodified in any way. Digital signatures aren't legal in a lot of places, why should digital logs be any different?
Furthermore, what are you doing? Querying IP numbers and seeing who's offering what? If that's the case, your argument will hold damned little water -- IANAL, but I don't believe you can sue someone in civil court for intent, and if you downloaded it from the defendent, there was no theft involved, because you already own the music, right? Right.
Move along, please.
On the bright side.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that shareware is pirated any more (or less) than regular commercial software.
So I've really just resigned myself to accepting that not everyone is as honest as I am when it comes to software and music.
I just wish that I could continue to use it for my own eventually-legal methods.
Re:That is just stupid of them (Score:4, Insightful)
They're going to win the battle and lose the war.
Legally, of course, there's no defense for copying music and passing out copies to all and sundry unless explicitly authorized to do so by the copyright holder. RIAA will win this battle, easily.
But look at how recorded music purchases have been driven, historically, and it becomes obvious how the industry is really fighting against itself, and the more effective they are in this battle, the more they lose the war.
Used to be, if you didn't want to buy the whole filler album from One Hit Wonder just to get the one song that was good, you could buy a single. The 45-rpm single was a cheap impulse-buy item, a way you could try out a new band without shelling out for the whole album. Yeah, 45's had lame sound quality, but were small and cheap and available and effective enough. Sound like MP3 anyone?
Oh, and back when vinyl ruled the earth, radio stations weren't as heavily formatted and locked in to tiny top-40 playlists. You had a decent chance of turning on the radio and hearing something you hadn't heard before (heh! Try that now...). Rather than fight the homogenization of radio that cuts off the revenue stream of most of the RIAA's back-catalog and even current material, they instead encouraged it thinking they'd lock down the market that way.
So the industry has by design or inattention locked most of its audience out of ever hearing about most of its product in the media, and abandoned the cheap single-song take-a-chance impulse-buy market. It's little wonder that their sales are down, even leaving the recession out of it.
In the void, P2P has flourished, performing much the same function as 'illegal' British pirate radio did in the '60s (spurring a second British Invasion in the USA selling hudreds of millons of LPs, BTW). Like the BBC did back then, the RIAA's fighting an enemy of its own creation, and rather than listen to the market and meet its demand for more exposure to more different music (and at less than $20/gamble, thanks), it's suing the market instead.
Their solution seems to be to sue anyone who essentially passes a copy of a song to a friend - illegal, probably, but also the last possible way for people to be exposed to new music in the current media market. It's asnine, cutting-off-nose-to-spite-face kind of stuff, and it prevents records from being sold. Idiocy.
why? (Score:3, Insightful)
But it will have no effect what so ever on sharing.
OTOH, I can imagine that the media companies have been told to either protect their copyrights or risk having material pass into the public domain.
This could be an indication of the weakness of the RIAA rather than an action taken from strength.
Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river - you got it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because if I wanted to buy the five or so good songs from an album, I also had to buy the five or so shit songs which were recorded not out of artistic integrity, but because it was stipulated in the contract that the artist had to produce X "full-length" albums per Y years. Are you still with me?
Yup. I still don't understand why you feel cheated. You may not know whether the tracks that you've never heard are any good before you buy the CD, but you certainly know that they are unknowns, and you certainly seem to think that the trend is for you to dislike them. If that's the case, you still have the option of not buying the CD. You do realize that you have that option, don't you? You don't have to have any tracks at all, but you apparently felt that that $15+ dollars was worth it for the 5 or so songs you wanted. You showed that you felt it was worth it by plonking down that cash at the register. If it wasn't worth it, why did you buy the CD? Still with me?
CDs were being burned on cheap media
If you bought burned media, it was either pirated or you're buying completely different music than I do. 99.999% of all commercial CDs are pressed, which is a much higher quality process than burning a CD onto even the best CDR media. But that's a nitpick I'll probably get flamed for pointing out.
On top of that, they recently started adding intentional errors to "prevent ripping". Still here?
So if you buy a disc with errors, take it back. Say it was defective. Keep doing this until you have to talk to a manager and actually get your money back (since most cashiers or CSRs don't have the authority to give you your money back on CDs, you have to go through the manager). If you know ahead of time that the disc has these intentional errors and you buy it anyway, you've proven that you don't mind living with those errors, and so once again I ask, why did you buy the CD and then begin complaining about it?
albums that are not very good as a whole to replace the ones which self-destructed after being left out on a counter one night.
Man, you really are getting cheap CDs. I have never had a CD "self-destruct" after being left on a counter. Unless by counter you mean "stove". The closet I've come were when I laid a CD with the data side down and it got scratched up. Frankly, I don't call that self-destruction.
I hope that wasn't too difficult to follow.
Sorry mate, I guess I just don't follow. If you don't think something is worth your money, don't buy it. You don't have to have CDs. As for replacement, I've never had a CD go "bad" that wasn't directly through negligence on my own part. If I accidentally break it, shit, tough luck, I'll have to buy a new one.
With That Many Lawsuits (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Corporations are getting out of hand (Score:2, Insightful)
well thats my rant for the day
Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to reduce the level of an economic activity (selling cigarettes or drugs), the effective things you can do are reduce demand (through education and increased prices due to taxation), and introduce artificial inefficiencies (taxation again). Cigarrette smoking is way down, without throwing anyone in jail.
Trying to reduce supply just makes the remaining suppliers more profitable. Making the activity illegal removes your ability to regulate and tax it, and means all the profits go to those willing to break the law (and presumably more willing to break other laws, such as the one about drive by shootings as a competitive strategy).
People DO NOT want to download music (Score:2, Insightful)
Because people want physical copies of their music. People want album art, lyrics, and a stamped cd to hold in their hands. They don't mind having to rip their own cds. The thing that people do not want is the expensive price. It's all a matter of economics.
For example, if cds were $10, I would probably start buying more of them. If cds were $5 I would probably buy hundreds. I don't think the record companies would realize how much money they could make if they would simply lower prices. To me, I don't like the Apple store because for a couple bucks less I lose the most important part of a cd... the physical copy. Record companies' business models need to be changed to revolve around airtime, concerts and other merchandise. And they need to do this before people truly hate them so much even a low price won't save them.
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:War on drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
Logical flaw: if the price (actual or perceived) of P2P goes over about $1/song then it becomes cheaper to buy the music through legal channels. No matter how much a dealer charges, you can't go down to Sam Druggy or DrugLand and get a better deal.
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:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't recall anyone saying that just because copyright violations are not the same stealing, that it is "OK".
I believe the poster was just saying "call a spade a spade, rather than the RIAA's bastardization of the definition of a spade".
Manslaughter, by the letter of the law, IS a form a murder (often its called murder in the 3rd degree). Both are felony crimes.
However, by the letter of the law, copyright violation is not a form of theft. Theft is a crime. Copyright violation is a civil tort. That's not a subtle difference.
Please note, however, that I didn't say that copyright violations are "OK".
Re:Just a random question (Score:4, Insightful)
Research (Score:3, Insightful)
They likely make sure and not target anyone with a high profile, especially people like the senator's kids. They'll also stay away from wealthy people who might actually have the ability to fight back in court. (Includes most senators anyway) They'll go for low to middle income people and students who are unable to do anything but choose to settle. That's been their method so far, and it's likely to continue. They'll target some children or teenagers to catch the parents unaware. This will make sure they are good and scared and thus will be more likely to crackdown on their kids.
They want to target the average American user so that other average American users feel that this is hitting a little to close to home for them and will begin to wonder about their own safety from prosecution.
RIAA and its real relevancy (i.e. none to me) (Score:3, Insightful)
Earth to the United States of America: you only represent 5% of the planet's population. You think the RIAA's going to stop Russians or Chinese or Indians or Saudi Arabians (or Iraqis - they gotta get their own back somehow) from sharing files? Or all us effete, decadent European types?
Get a grip. There's a reason it's called the internet and not AOL. Funnily enough, the global communications network does not stop at the US border (although I think I'm the first to make that point in this thread). Stuff happens in the rest of the world (almost all the time!)
Whew! Panic over. Resume stealing from the oligopolists. But first: pull your heads out of your arses.
Re:Open network != Distribution (Score:4, Insightful)
What a staggering piece of wishful thinking. How the hell did this get modded up so high?
Ignorance is not usually a defence in law. Incompetence may reduce the level of the offence, but normally won't get you off the hook either. To claim that misunderstanding what "My Shared Folders" means and that you didn't know that others could rip stuff from your machien that you'd ripped yourself does not change the fact that you are breaking the law, and if you were ripping in the first place, I'm kinda lacking in sympathy.
If you think copyright infringement is a purely civil offence, you need to do more homework. Various recent laws, notably the DMCA in the US, seek to change that. Given the wholesale abuse of the system that goes on and the impracticality of waiting while the civil legal process does its thing, I'm inclined to side with the big media companies on this one, too. I don't like them, I detest their business practices, and I think they're stupid not to take advantage of the on-line world, but abusive Internet users have brought this fate upon themselves, and have no-one else to blame.
Very few people the RIAA go after will have clever lawyers, particularly in the US. That's why they use intimidation and threats of legal action to encourage settlements, as has often been reported here. It's a scummy practice that ought to be illegal (and probably is, if you have the effective power to challenge it). However, it makes a mockery of your implication that they are likely to come up against great lawyers defending their targets.
You can stick your server in Zimbabwe and hope, but if too many people start doing that you can bet that draconian restrictions on getting data over the 'net from that country will follow. In the meantime, do be careful never to set foot on US soil, won't you?
Oh, and as for having no legal way to take down these networks and being unwilling to sue the downloaders, um, did you notice what this discussion is all about?
Once again Slashdot proves the world is full of wishful kids who want everything to be free but haven't thought it through. Unfortunately for them, the real world does not work that way. Unfortunately for the rest of us, in their zeal for advocation they ignore the current legal system and motivate big business to bring this sort of crap down on everyone else as well.
P2P 3rd Generation (Score:2, Insightful)
The RIAA is a dinosaur with a large gun. Its just gonna keep shooting itself in the foot until it bleeds to death.
Now excuse me while I go unshare my files and destroy some evidence.
Ha, the beast has been wounded (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:stupid of them - here's what i've done (Score:2, Insightful)
They forgot one KEY item in their greed, this is MUSIC, it is NOT FOOD, AIR, WATER, CLOTHING or SHELTER. If they ever get around to a subscription model that allows umlimited download for a reasonable flat fee, I'll rethink my decision but the path these knuckleheads are on, I'm not holding my breath.
Haven't bought a record in 1 year now... (Score:2, Insightful)
Trade USED CDs (Score:1, Insightful)
That would be impossible to stop.
Cry me a river (Score:1, Insightful)
P2P is not sharing, trading, swapping, etc. (Score:1, Insightful)
Referring to this activity as sharing, trading, or swapping music is not correct! It is simply MAKING COPIES!
Sharing something is giving up a part of something of value to you to someone else for their benefit, and if you do that, you give up some of your benefits. Trading or swapping something means giving something of value to someone else while receiving something of value from them in return. P2P networks do not work this way. When you offer your music on a P2P network, you are sharing nothing, because when someone else downloads the file, you've lost nothing. You still have the original file plus any files you've downloaded. All of this has the effect of devaluing the original material.
Look at it this way... if I make copies of my money and give it to you, am I sharing some of my money with you? Nope. But what I did do is effectively reduce the value of the money I still have, as well as the money that others have. That is why copying money is illegal. If everyone could make perfect copies of money and give it away, the original money wouldn't be worth much would it?
This is why I don't understand why everyone is making such a stink about what the RIAA is doing. They are simply trying to prevent the value of their members products from being reduced to zero by people giving away copies.
When the RIAA went after the operators of the P2P networks they were doing the wrong thing, because P2P has legitimate uses. So do copiers, fax machines, file servers, search engines, etc.
Going after "sharers" is exactly the correct thing to do, because these are the people that are reducing the value of their products.
Now, I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou here. Have I done this? Yep. But a while back I started to think about how much hard-earned money I had spent on records and CD's, and how much value I placed on it, and the fact that copies of it being widely available on the Internet were making it virtually worthless. So I stopped.
The RIAA is a cartel. IMHO, their member record labels are engaged in price fixing, and using their monopoly market position to prevent non-RIAA labels and artists from gaining exposure. They want to maximize profits for their member labels by paying the artists the absolute minimum. And yes, they have their heads soundly up their ass. All of this doesn't matter. Giving away copies of copyrighted material is illegal. They are selling a product and you are expected to pay for it. OPEC is also a cartel which exists for many of the same reasons as the RIAA. But I still have to pay for my gas.
Re:Stupid of them? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bowling for Cartels, a film by Michael Moore (Score:3, Insightful)
Hilary Rosen and Me
or
Bowling for Cartels
I can hear his ironicaly booed Academy speech already... "Shame on you music thieves and samplers! Shame on you consumers! Shame on you America for thinking that the end of radio station diversity, the exposure of price fixing schemes, the innovations of well intentioned computer programers, the closed door campaign contribution lobbist politics, the antiquated concepts of "fair use" and culture minded ideals of a public domain, the post 9/11 isolationism and protectionism, the misinterpreted doctrines of privacy, competition marketplace economics, and a culture more and more dominated by greed of every kind, shame on you for thinking these things gave you the right to listen to mass marketed music! Shame on you!"
The recording industry has never been intersted in musical diversity but with profit. The "golden years" of radio were only golden because no one knew how easy it was to homogenize markets. Take a look at the horrible tactics other industries use to target teenagers.
(Check the Frontline program Merchants of Cool [pbs.org]for a fantastic look behind the increasing generational marketeering - sorry, I'm not sure if I made the link work)
I would suggest that the recording industry / radio conglomerates are by far the best at this.
I know that as I grow older, it seems clear that that I am less and less a part of a targeted demographic for the recording industry. Why should they bother when their catelogs are already full of music that I still like and is still produced on relatively volitile media? Marketing (and not just for the recording industry) is a moveable feast; they go where the disposable income is.
That means the incomes and allowances of those most likely to spend it. While I might have grown cynical and hesitant to spend $20 on a CD that may or may not be crap, my teenagers have not.
What the recording industry is really doing here is a little cultural engineering. They don't want millions of technologically minded teens downloading music for free instead of paying for it. It seems very logical to assume that a majority of any legal cases arising from this new tactic will be levied at the unsuspecting parents of teens who spent their allowance on cool anime mouse pads instead of CD's. The lesson being reinforced here is of course for those middle class mom's and dad's to raise law abiding citizens.
The future of the RIAA and the music industry is not as rocky as many would like or love to believe. They DO know what they are doing. They don't need the $12,000 life savings of college kids who shared a few thousand files. What they do need is quite simple. The recording industry needs the perpetualy new members of a marketing demographic to see and believe that the music which marks their generation was chosen by that generation, not marketers. Teens who have free access to thousands of artists and millions of songs or just a little musical maturity are not buying into the Brittney Spears / Justin Timberlake marketing. The assimilation and homogenization is incomplete.
Thus the timely rise of conglomerates in radio, with the earnest support of the recording industry. The fight against P2P is about limiting choice. Please remember that while the RIAA members represent about 90% of all recorded music in this country, that other 10% is nonetheless very valuable. And menwhile, decreasing the number of alternatives in that 90% increases profit just as well.
What needs to happen is that all those adults who use file sharing to pinch the occassional Flock of Seagulls' or Bryan Adams' song, need to explain to our children and one another how we have all been duped by the recording industry into paying for something we all have the power to CREATE for free.
Most importantly we need to supp
Anyone wanna get rich? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
>the burden of proof is on the RIAA
No, the burden of demonstrating the balance of probability is on the RIAA. Proof is required in criminal cases.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the balance of probability in any given case of this sort is that the RIAA has collared the right person, that they are sharing copyrighed files, and that they are duplicating those files illegally.
You may be able to show otherwise in your case, but they will be able to show that in most cases they are in the right. Every case that settles or goes to court and loses just tilts the balance of probability in future cases in their favor.