RIAA Sues 261 Major P2P Offenders 1076
circletimessquare writes "Yahoo!/Washington Post is reporting that the RIAA is suing 261 fileswappers whom they consider to be 'major offenders' in illegally trading music online. Remember to visit the EFF when full lawsuit details are released, and see if you're one of the unlucky few." Details of the amnesty program reported last week were also released, with the RIAA announcing it "...would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."
My theory... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course we know what happens to a P2P system with all leachers and no sharers...
I think (Score:3, Interesting)
Why the vow? (Score:5, Interesting)
If P2P trading of Copyrighted music is illegal (and we know that it is), why require this? Is it purely a move to allow easy prosecution should they offend again? Or do they think that prosecuting under copyright law might not work in some cases?
College students are back (Score:5, Interesting)
Rate the article (Score:2, Interesting)
You are not safe with the affidavit... (Score:5, Interesting)
The you're off to a lovely federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison, or forking up hoards of fines.
"File Sharing" (Score:3, Interesting)
Every time I see this "Vow not to share files" or references to "Illegal P2P applications," I start wondering if the wording is such that the victim will not be able to share any files whatsoever, legally or public domain. I can see these huge corporations not really understanding the difference between serving copyrighted music and serving a distribution of GNU/Linux over KaZaa. I'm sure that they would like neither to take place.
is your username subpoenaed? it is now... (Score:2, Interesting)
File Sharing Legal in Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
In short, a levy is paid on blank "audio" media (how they tell the different between blank "data" CDs and blank "audio" CDs is a bit beyond me). This levy gets dispersed to copyright holders in some magic way; in exchange Canadians are expressly allowed private copying, including peer-to-peer file sharing.
Blame Canada.
Music Piracy hurts Artists? (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Artist" doesn't deserve squat.
There. I said it. You can go mod me down, call me Satan, whatever it is you do to those with opinions different than your own. Or you can grit your teeth and read on:
Most "pop" media (music, movies, even books) churned out today is more a product of the producer/publisher than it is a work of art. Except in rare circumstances, the writers, musicians and actors are merely useful brand names, interchangable and of no consequence to the studio's bottom line. Listen to two supposedly different albums with similar production credits. You'll see! Those identical drum beats and background orchestras aren't coincidences. This canned art is inserted as production's way of applying a dose tried-and-true to that brand new artist. "Artists" rarely exert any creative control over the work that will eventually bear their names.
Brittney Spears is hired for her ability to excite teenage boys (and some adult men) and her ability to sell Pepsi, and she is paid handsomely for it. Like most pop "artists" she is barely a part of the product upon which her brand name is stamped, and deserves little, if any, of the proceeds from record sales.
Re:Suing? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's really going to take grass roots effort to remove this RIAA threat. It's the only way to really combat a monetarily powerful organization.
Speaking of grassroots, the Dean Campaign should take note of folks distrust of the RIAA. If they promise to do something about the RIAA, then they'll probably wind up with a few thousand more votes than they may have had. If nothing else, bringing this up in a fair political manner about it might put a stop to some of this insanity.
yes but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why the vow? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Before you all start to whine about this (Score:2, Interesting)
Lovely isnt it? Weither these people are guilty or not means nothing. They will be finiancly ruined by either paying out the absurd suit, a lawyer to defend them, or the RIAA's "Ok well just give us THIS much and we'll go away" deal.
So ya, I think I will whine about this thank you very much.
Re:Anyone else sweat it a little? (Score:1, Interesting)
Statistically speaking, kids who use P2P software probably have a substantially better chance of dying in a car accdident. That's more likely, the consequences are obviously much worse, and hardly anyone worries about that. So why worry about this?
People do a bad job of evaluating risk. Fat people (like me) eat fast food meals, which put them at risk for heart diesease and diabetes, and worry about SARS or West Nile Diesease.
Remember, if you're afraid, then the terrorists have won.
(I'm posting this anonymously because I could see those mofo's suing people who speak out against them -- I don't want to affect my odds.)
Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada (Score:2, Interesting)
Think of it as a publicly funded insurance policy for the music biz. Nowhere in canadian law does it make it "legal" to copy music or software.
Tax dollars go to drug rehab programs too, but it doesnt mean using heroin is legal.
BTW, they make no distinction between data and audio CDs, because there really is no distinction. It's like ladies razors vs mens razors - the ladies Bic is pink, and thats the only real difference.
Re:I think (Score:4, Interesting)
More over, remember the people being sued are NOT being sued for dowloading but for sharing.
The point is, the people being sued may not have stolen anything at all and not intended to help anyone steal. I have a fairly large CD collection, yet I'd say that at least 20% of my disks have scratches on them. I have copies of those disk that I downloaded of the web. Perfectly legal. I am too lazy to rip my CDs, I have too many CDs and not enough time. I download entire discographies from eMule. Once again, perfectly legal.
Still in the eyes of the RIAA I'm a major pirate because I have a huge MP3 collection of which over 50% is downloaded despite owning the CD.
Thats why I donated to EFF and thats why I urge others to.
Re:I think (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Music Piracy hurts Artists? (Score:2, Interesting)
?Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, in an online forum in which he and the RIAA's Matt Opennheim answered questions from readers about the legality of downloading, copying and sharing digital music files.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june03/copyrigh
Future of legal approach to piracy? (Score:2, Interesting)
At first blush this appears to also be a means of getting around the general un-enforceable nature of "shrinkwrap" or click-through licensing. The record labels would love to bind everyone who buys a CD to a contract promising not to illegally distribute its contents... with a liquidated damages clause specifying that should they catch you on Kazaa they get some huge, pre-defined sum.
Such a contract would make their lawyers' lives much easier -- but there's no way to easily bind everyone who buys a CD in this way. The law generally requires people to know the terms of a contract for it to be enforceable, and the music industry does not want to cover the front of each CD with a dense batch of legalese. Putting the terms inside the CD wouldn't work either -- just look at the problems both companies and users have dealing with software licenses that require installing the software to view the license.
Therefore, it appears the music industry is choosing to pursue a top-down approach, where the end users most statistically likely to pirate -- those who have already done so with a reckless disregard for the law -- are legally bound to not do so again. There is no way for these traders to claim they thought their actions were legal after signing this affidavit.
The file-swapping "industry" follows the common model of a relatively few number of users are providing the vast majority of the content. The music industry, I believe, feels it can stem the tide of piracy by corralling these relative few.
Also, since copyright violations are much harder to prove than breach of a (relatively) plain-language contract, the record companies are cutting to the chase, tilting the odds of a pro-RIAA judgment further in their favor.
Look for this to become a trend.
Here's a clue (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not trying to be flamebait - I hate them as much as any of the rest of you - but get a clue, folks!
The way to really do something about the whole 800 lb. gorilla that is the record industry is to STOP SHARING THE MUSIC.
When everyone stops, and their record sales continue to plummet, they won't be able to blame the internet for their problems.
"Gee, maybe it's not the internet! Maybe its the quality of our music and the money that we're charging for it."
--
1,000 songs?! (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My theory... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I think (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, but they do.
With Jane Doe, aka nycfashiongirl, they looked at the meta tags in her files, which included stuff like "ripped by l33t crew" and so on.
Additionally, her MP3s identically matched checksums of files originally available on Napster and the chance of her ripping her own identical copies is vanishingly small.
The evidence that these people have illegal coies is very good.
btw, there's nothing I've ever seen that makes me believe that it's legal to download files that you own the CDs for. That's definitely not 'Fair Use.'
But if you actually get targeted by the RIAA and can prove that you already owned all the CDs, I'd guess that they would drop that case anyway.
Re:Suing? (Score:2, Interesting)
If the RIAA is truly interested in stopping copyright infringement, why are they suing instead of prosecuting? If someone steals my car, and I know who it is, I'm going to let the law handle the situation, not file a civil suit.
Re:I think (Score:2, Interesting)
If they are guilty, I assume they are since RIAA would not want to risk anything like going to court without having a bulletproof case, they will get their penalty. If the are not guilty, the court will find out.
Too mee it looks like many people don't have any faith in our judicial system any more, which is pretty sad when you think about how important these things are.
if these teenagers are innocent they could choose to fight in court and don't bend over like some easy prey for a legitimate organization like RIAA.
If they can't afford decent legal protections against their crimes they should not have commitetd these acts that hurts legitimate bussiness and artist in such a way they end up broke on the streets.
Re:I think (Score:5, Interesting)
Was that my intention? No.
Am I responsible for making sure that every person who downloads the song owns a copy? No.
The person who shares the songs is doing so legaly as long as every person who downloads the songs owns a copy.
The person who downloads the songs and has a copy is doing so legaly.
The ONLY person breaking the law is the one dowloading the song and not owning the orignal CD.
I don't see myself a guilty at all, I don't go about burning CDs and giving them out for people, I don't sell the music I download for money. This by the way is a HUGE business in Russia, any CD you want, $5, booklet and everything.
The copyright laws were to prevent the above, not Joe Blow downloading something he heard on the radio to listen to it for 1 day and forget about it. He's no loss to the revenue anyway, he'd have never bought the CD.
The laws are being abused in this case, don't tell me that it's reasonable to charge college kids 100k song. I KNOW people in Russia who make about 160k/year pirating CD/games, thats who the laws were meant for, not for the horribly broke college kids.
Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is pretty much the way it is in the states, minus the levy. This is why the RIAA is targetting the sharers. If they could technically identify the leechers, they'd still have a tough time getting a judgement in court - at least not $150,000 a song type of stuff, the best they could get would be the retail value of the downloaded songs.
eDonkey2000 not targeted (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I think (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree this is technically correct, may I point out that letting millions of people download perfect duplicates of your MP3, while you continue to have full use of your copy is not "sharing". If we are going to be rules lawyers about terminology, can we at least try and get all the terminology correct, not just that which helps the side we like.
So where are the FT emulators? (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, you search for "Metallica" and my Kazaa/FT client generates a fake listing (from some source list of Metallica songs I guess), and "offers" these songs to download. You try to download them, and you get added to the queue, but never successfully start the download. Thus the RIAA would try to prosecute you, but you have no actual files for share (although it would appear you have a large number of legitimate files available).
So one could setup honeypots for the RIAA...
Are the mp3s I saved from my cache legal copies? (Score:1, Interesting)
Are these legal copies of the music?
Re:gREAT! i'M ON THE LIST!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Question the RIAA's copyright on the MP3 files. This can be fought using two arguments:
a) Did the RIAA make the MP3 file? No.
b) Should they inherit the copyright on the MP3 file? This should be a dispute between the person that originally encoded the file and the RIAA.
c) Can a judge decide who owns the copyright on the MP3 file? Not really. This is where argument 2 comes in.
2) MP3s are just random bitstreams.
a) Until they are put through a specific algorithm, MP3s remain random bitstreams that could really be anything from Madonna's latest single to a recording of modem line noise.
b) Whats to stop the RIAA from taking a sample from your hard drive, putting it through any algorithm it damn well feels like and then making it out to be copyright infringment?
c) The bitstream may be a derivative of the original song and it may not. Whether this is merely co-incidence is up to the person that created the MP3 file in the first place. This is where the argument from 1c comes into play. How can the judge declare that you're violating copyright when only the person who originally created the bitstream knows how it was created.
While none of those have been tested in court, I wonder if they would work.
Now to prevention. Use the overly broad DMCA against them. Before starting a transmission for a file include this message in clear ASCII:
"This file and any contents within have been encoded. This file is intended to be received and decoded by any member of the public wishing to use these files. However, these files may not be decoded if the person's intent is litigation. Any attempt to decode this file will be in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act."
Sure its a long shot.
Any lawyers care to comment?
How long??? (Score:2, Interesting)
The only thing the RIAA will achieve in doing this is to make sure all of the big trader's IP numbers resolve to an off-shore ISP.
Re:In tonight's news (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I started buying music again after Napster came out. Suddenly, I was exposed to tons of music that never made its way to radio.
Whenever I hear about new music, I download a few samples, and buy what I like. I went from buying no music to about three CDs a month. Here's a great example, someone at
Exactly how does me buying MORE music justify me also paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil fees and being placed in jail with murders?! Either I'm crazy or the law needs to be changed.
Re:I think (Score:1, Interesting)
I am writing an application and I need a couple of functions. I download some GPL'ed source code and copy and paste some of it into my application. I don't think I should have to release my source code under the GPL because I was planning on writing the code for those functions anyway, so its not like the copyright holder is really losing anything.
Moby Says it Well (Score:1, Interesting)
My sworn admission to the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
I swear under oath that in the last 12 months I have legally purchased at least 5 CD's of your artist's music. I further swear that I will permanently refrain from ever doing it again. I hope this meets with your satisfaction, as treating your customers as thieves can only have one intended result.
MadCow.
Re:Before you all start to whine about this (Score:2, Interesting)
if you don't like it, *change it*!
Have you EVER tried to contact someone of "importance"? I've attempted everything from writing intelligent, professional letters to degrading myself to sniveling begging to get the attention of one of my two senators. I've gotten:
If YOU have a half million dollars to buy some time with a member of the United States government, please use it to do so. I can't afford to be heard by my *ahem* *cough*representatives*cough*. I've tried.
Here's my letter, send to my two senators... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a phrase that has been a part of United States Government for the last 225+ years, and I'm sure you are familiar with it:
"Innocent until proven guilty"
There is a phrase that all of us should strive to live up to. Reversed, it resembles totalitarian regimes of the past, including Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. It is something that every American should strive to live up to in both their personal and professional lives.
Unfortunately, the United States legal system appears to be moving away from that ideal.
The RIAA is now sending subpoenas and notice of lawsuits to citizens throughout the United States, and these citizens will have to defend their innocence in a court of law, rather than the plaintiff backing up their accusations with incontrovertible evidence.
Let me give an example:
1. John Q. Wallet goes and Legally buys a CD from the local Fred Meyer / Best Buy / Circuit City, and takes it home.
2. John has a slow computer, but an MP3 player and wants to listen to his music under Fair Use Rights, upheld through case law in the courts. "Ripping" said music takes longer than downloading it off his high-speed internet. He downloads the music he has a legal license for.
3. John gets picked up on some type of scanner that the RIAA has on the Internet.
4. John gets served with a copyright infringement lawsuit, ending up paying countless dollars in legal fees to prove that he had the CD, and the fair use rights to the intellectual property contained on the media.
I have a real problem with this, and I hope you do too. Artists should be paid for their compositions and performances, but customers should be able to use their licenses for whatever they want within the law.
Example 2: Sharing
If I leave my car unlocked in a bad neighborhood, does that make me a felon if my car gets stolen?
If I own a store, and someone shoplifts from me, does that make me the shoplifter?
Are the cable and satellite TV companies getting sued when someone commits Theft of Service?
Then why are the people hosting files on the Internet getting sued for having files available for download?
As we speak, the "Filesharers" are being served with court notices. These are people that possibly aren't doing anything wrong, but the RIAA is sending their lawyers to work, without any hard evidence of wrongdoing. I'm sure you understand the law far better than me, but I see this as a criminal court -vs- civil court loophole:
If you have evidence, take it to a judge and he'll sign the arrest warrant. If you don't have evidence, file a civil suit and bury them so far under paperwork that they will be ruined financially when they eventually file for bankruptcy.
Innocent people filing for bankruptcy after being sued by a corporation with hundreds of lawyers and hundreds of millions of dollars. That is an America I would rather not see happen.
Re:Suing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it most certainly does try cases based on those laws. The executive branch of the government is responsible for enforcement of the laws created by the legislative branch. Which is why the Justice department and the Attorney General are both arms of that branch. In other words, it is up to the executive branch to decide what cases to try (when representing the people) and what means and remedies to pursue for the actions it does pursue. The Microsoft case is a classic example of how the policy of two different administrations (Clinton vs. W) can affect the enforcement of law.
At a more pratical level, the President is very much involved in the creation of laws. The President, with his veto power and general position of the power wields influence over the legislative (and to a lesser extent) and judicial branches of government.
Antiquation (Score:5, Interesting)
When CDs first came out, they were about the coolest way to spend money. There were no DVDs, movies came on cumbersome magnetic tapes which degraded quickly, and the software of the day just wasn't compelling to most people (and also came on cumbersome magnetic media).
The prices for CDs have hardly fallen since.
Today, you can spend $20 on a DVD. Technically, it's also just a piece of plastic, but it carries a couple of hours of data for the eyes as well as the ears. Or you can buy a video game for $35-$50 that lets you actively participate in the entertainment. Being non-linear, a video game could provide anywhere from 0 to thousands of hours of entertainment. Then there is cable TV, where for the price of a couple CDs a month, you get 24-hour access to lots of different crap.
With a CD, you get about an hour worth of music (I've seen some go as low as 40 mintues), and even if you really like all the songs, it only engages your ears. Hence, on average, CDs are less entertaining.
Nor is the CD a convenient format for anything but home use. Keep your CDs in your car, and they inevitably get ruined or stolen. So for your convenience you burn yourself a copy for your car, making it more valuable to you. But the industry isn't simply failing to increase the value of its product, it's trying to interfere with the ripping and burning that could make the content more convenient (and hence more valuable).
Re:My theory... (Score:5, Interesting)
This has already happened. Truth is, most people I know used to share everything. Now I can quite honestly say I don't know a single person who leaves sharing enabled. In fact, making sure Kazaa has sharing disabled has become as important as making sure there's a virus scanner when any of us has to fix a friend's/relative's computer.
I was talking with some friends about this the other day. While it sucks for the network users, it just comes down to the fact that you would have to be friggin INSANE to leave your computer sharing lots of files right now. Why not just put a sign up that says "Hey, RIAA! Come sue me!" No thank you.
What
If you are being sued, claim Safe Harbor provision (Score:4, Interesting)
I already wrote about this in another thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77293&cid=6876 918 [slashdot.org]
Bzzzt. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, I don't believe that's correct. Regardless of any contract existing between you and the RIAA, prosecution for copyright violation and civil litigation for damages incurred should proceed along the usual lines.
You cannot enforceably contract to forbear from illegal activity any more than you can contract to commit illegal activity. Or rather, you can do so but the promise is not binding. Such a promise, I believe, is contra bonos mores and unsupported by consideration.
IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot.
one more thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Here's my letter, send to my two senators... (Score:4, Interesting)
From the decision [gigalaw.com]:
time to fight back (Score:3, Interesting)
It is time to fight back. No, I don't mean to step up to protect your rights. To Speak out against the overreach of copyright law. "Getting involved" or some such nonsense.
The problem is, all that is really defense. And defense, by definition, is war on the territory your enemy choses, at the time of your enemie's choice. You are doomed to loose.
You
It is now time to take the fight to the enemy. The RIAA, by suing ordinary citizens and publicly declaring its intent to instill fear in everyone's hearts, has officially declared war. War on You, The People. And still it is You The People who governs this land. Now this is personal, and this is everyone's fight. Stop begging for mercy from an overbearing oponent. Write off the those who get sued - that is Their War, and Their time. Those few are doomed anyway, soldiers who have fallen, if you want so.
Now your target is the music industry itself. Destroy the music industry. Defeat them utterly ! Attack their livelyhood. Drive them to bankruptcy ! Identify their weaknesses, and attack them there.
Destroy the music industry
It is up to you! You The People. Pass laws that undermine their revenue. Pass laws that curb their marketing. Seize their IP assets for misuse. Pass taxes that reduce their profits, have DAs raid their coke snorting execs, destroy the careers of their political lackeys. Do whatever it takes.
And, above all, be open with it. Cry out loud, that nothing will satisfy you than their utter defeat. Go and win the public debate. Dont appeal to politicians, appeal to the people. Be Creative to get your message out. Others have well developed tactics for that - use them.
Drive them into defense. Get them into hiding. Make it so that music execs' children will hesitat to admit their parent's jobs. That churches exclude them from posts. Make them universally hated and feared. Make it that their execs cant even sleep at night any more because their fear of you, and of failure, is haunting their dreams.
And then go out for the kill. And kill the beast, have no mercy! Dismantle the RIAA, RICO the Big five, put their execs to jail, and fire the rest.
Someone should send the leading music indutry people a good book on the history of another large and powerful institution. An association of huge wealth and immense power, that grew arrogant and became so full of itself that it started to ignore and trample those who actually ruled the land.
And when the last Templar Knights agonized towards their deaths on the fires on Paris streets, their once mighty order became all but a footnote of failure in history.
Or a perpetual memento: "Such is the fate of those, who deem themselves above all others, and their power beyond limits"
Interesting tidbit (Score:2, Interesting)
Like we must accept yours? (Score:2, Interesting)
My claim is no more spurious than yours...
Why the RIAA should be scared (Score:2, Interesting)
It is simple to set up a licensing scheme for music content, but they don't want it because the price would go way down if music simply shot over the network to those who wanted it. If consumers had real choice over which songs they wanted to pay for. If we found out about good music by hearing DJs spin who make the same amount of money as the rest of us.
Ignore the smoke and mirrors of the current litigation and support systems like iTunes where you pay what songs are worth. Cut out the RIAA middlemen! Artists deserve to be paid for creating music. Copyright law was invented to incent artists. The RIAA has hijacked that system through its monopoly on distribution and now is the time to take it back from them!
Re:Suing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously why wouldn't this work?
do you believe those being sued are innocent then? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm still lost, here. (Score:2, Interesting)
So when I leave my files available for download, what law have I broken? I'm just leaving the front door open, letting people peruse. It's up to THEM to break the law and download the file. If I own every album that every MP3 I possess comes from, what law have I broken by *ALLOWING* others to download from me? I'm not encouraging it, I'm not endorsing it, but I'm allowing it to happen.
So I'm lost. Why hasn't this issue been raised yet? Are we waiting until the first court case to bring up that leaving the front door open is not illegal? Having an open file share with no password on a Windows platform computer isn't illegal, so why should this be?
Legalities of fuzzy recordings (Score:5, Interesting)
eg : you download a 160kbps MP3, the RIAA gives you a court order for copyright infringement. The copyright is for a song that they have the rights for.
But is their copyright valid for the digital representation of the song? The RIAA'd argue yes , of course it is, after all CD's contain binary 16 bit samples of audio at 44.1kHz.
But, even with your leet 160kbps mp3, you don't have an exact duplicate in it's entirety - not by a long shot. Could you argue that your MP3 is just a summary of the original work? It's 1/10th the size, isn't it? To draw (hah!) a parallel in the art world, does my rough sketch of monet's sunflowers constitute copyright infringement? Hardly.
Take a leaf from the SCO debacle, and print out a copy of both the CD digital audio and your MP3 onto paper and politely ask the prosecutor to underline the offending parts of your data for you. Just the sheer difference in size of your printouts would go some way in convincing the court that they are not the same.
If they pull the "for all intents and purposes" response, just wheel out the expert witnesses and the double-blind tests, and the sonographs of distortion. You should be able to prove that the audio that your collection of bits on your drive represent is completely different to the audio from the collection of bits on the CD.
What am I missing here? Why is this defence not used?