Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government The Internet United States News Your Rights Online

The RIAA Sues 482 More People 535

Posted by timothy
from the befriending-the-youth dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Today the RIAA said they have sued another group of people, 482 to be exact, for copyright infringement. The RIAA used their 'John Doe' litigation process in this round of law suits, because they do not know the names of the copyright infringers. After appeals court ruled that Verizon does not have to provide names of customers to the RIAA, the RIAA started using the 'John Doe' litigation process." (Similar stories at Wired News and CoolTechZone).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The RIAA Sues 482 More People

Comments Filter:
  • by MacGoldstein (619138) <jasonmp85&mac,com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:28PM (#9501670) Homepage
    I wonder when they'll ever figure out that suing your consumers is not an effective business model?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      you are not a consumer if you are offering others files for free.
    • by lightspawn (155347) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:36PM (#9501766) Homepage
      I wonder when they'll ever figure out that suing your consumers is not an effective business model?

      When SCO files for bankruptcy.
      • by Ateryx (682778) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @09:13PM (#9502055)
        wonder when they'll ever figure out that suing your consumers is not an effective business model?

        When SCO files for bankruptcy.


        For some odd reason this joke reminded me of the fact Creed is calling it quits. I've been having a rather poor day and you reminded me that hope survives. Thank you.
    • by loid_void (740416) * on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:56PM (#9501949) Homepage Journal
      No, I think the think the question really should be: How can the recording industry be so stupid as to be represented by an association that by it's very actions drives it's customers away. Oh yea I forgot, the industry choose them. Then they deserve to die the slow death that they have chosen.
    • When people stop buying CDs from RIAA artists. Which, after close to three years of this nonsense, they haven't. In fact, according to SoundScan, OTC sales are actually up.

      So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that suing potential customers IS an effective business model, if you get more money from the suit then you would from their potential sales and if other customers want your product so much they're willing to buy from you even as you screw them. And seeing as how they're settling for $3k+ from filesharers who aren't likely to be buying 160+ cds any time soon, it looks like this is going to be just another line item in the budget. $5,000,000 from price fixed cd sales here, $2,000,000 from recouped advances, and another mil or so from suing grandmothers and preteen girls. Very effective; and you don't even have to call a sleazy accountant to do the books.
      • by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @09:51PM (#9502347) Homepage Journal
        If they lost ALL their customers, they would go straight to congress with some fabricated numbers and force a way back into our pocket books... somehow. Much as they do with taxes on music CDr's..

        Perhaps a national 'pirate tax', beacuse you know, EVERYONE is doing it, right? Bah.
      • by SQLz (564901) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @10:10PM (#9502462) Homepage Journal
        When people stop buying CDs from RIAA artists. Which, after close to three years of this nonsense, they haven't. In fact, according to SoundScan, OTC sales are actually up.

        People will never stand up for their rights because a. people are friggin idiots and b. the sales increases are driven by P2P. The RIAA is having their cake and eating it too per say. Not only do they enjoy the benefits of P2P, they sue for damages on top of that.

      • You almost sound as if those people that downloaded music on the internet are saints. Well, mind you, they still broke a law. So I'd say that all in all, they deserve some punishment.

        Now the way they do it and the fact that thay suck as a commercial entity is another matter altogether.
        • Whoa. I didn't say anything about the scum who steal money from artists by indignantly giving away their only product and acting like they're doing them a favor. I was merely dealing with the tactics of the other group of scum. Believe me, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around in the world of digital music.
      • Could the recent increase in sales have anything to do with the economic recovery? Sure, not everyone has more money now, but I'd say most people are not as worried about being laid off and those that were laid off in 2001 have probably found new employment by now.

        I really don't think too many people are saying to themselves, "Gee, I don't want to get sued for downloading music, better do what I did 3 years ago and pay $20 at the mall for that new Britney Spears album." This business model will thrive for
        • It doesn't matter where the increase is coming from...the very fact that there is an increase in RIAA member sales indicates that purchasers in general don't give a wet slap that the RIAA is suing file sharers.

          I don't care myself. I'm not going to deny myself good music just because the artist signed with a major label. Shit, I *like* Velvet Revolver. I don't care that they're popular nor that their CD had (easily defeated) copy protection. I wanted the disc, I bought the disc, I enjoyed it. I wouldn't have enjoyed it any more or any less if it were on Bumblestick Records.

          Incidentally, I have never heard of a single artist who turned down a contract merely because it was with an RIAA label. It's hard to turn down worldwide exposure, active promotion, industry contacts and that nice advance just because they sued some freeloaders.
          • by TyrranzzX (617713) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:24AM (#9503252) Journal
            "I just wanted the CD, I didn't want to make a political statement", inotherwords. Well whuptefucking do. I didn't hear the black people of America cry about not being able to use the train when they were fighting for their rights.

            As far as freeloaders are conserned, how about you shut your trap on that one. Go out and take a survey; what's music really worth to most people? $20 a CD, or $3? $50 a month for all you can handle? The RIAA is a cartel, and people have gotten used to cartel prices.

            As far as "worldwide exposure, active promotion, industry contacts and that nice advance", what dream world are you living in? They get you to sign a contact giving them right to whatever you make, you then pay for your own studio time to record your songs (which can run $500-$600 or more an hour). You send it to them, they may or may not make a CD, atwhich point if they do you get a few pennies per sale, and the rest of the money you make are at conserts, and even then you get a cut of the ticket sales. Making music is more of a job than a creative work with the RIAA.

          • by zerocool^ (112121) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @03:15AM (#9504180) Homepage Journal
            Incidentally, I have never heard of a single artist who turned down a contract merely because it was with an RIAA label.

            Ever heard of Rancid?

            After the "Ruby Soho" craze, they had people beating down their door, throwing money at them. But, they were unwilling to give up the freedom that being on a small label gave them - they weren't willing to sign their lives away for the money, when what they wanted was to not get screwed.

            ~Will
    • In other news, the RIAA announced they're now succesfully suing a John Doe every week.

      'Im sick of it. I wish they'd pick on somebody else' said an annoyed Mr Doe earlier today.
  • Yay! (Score:5, Funny)

    by mekkab (133181) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:29PM (#9501674) Homepage Journal
    Lets get those pirates who are stealing Britney Spear's music!

    Maybe we can SUE good taste into them...
    • Re:Yay! (Score:5, Funny)

      by fwitness (195565) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:51PM (#9501908)

      I feel like Britney is stealing from me every time I hear her songs on the radio. It's like my soul is just a little smaller.

      Then I see videos of her practicing in sweats. Alright, we're even.

    • Re:Yay! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Epistax (544591) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [xatsipe]> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @09:19PM (#9502101) Journal
      And let's not forget why we call it stealing. ..
      We call it stealing because the original owner no longer has it. No wait...
      We call it stealing because.. umm.. they don't get money?
      Oh right we call it stealing because the people who made it need money... no wait..
      Oh I remember, we call it stealing because some CEO someplace needs to buy a yatched. Yeah, that sounds right.

      Disclaimer: This is a joke. Taking this seriously offensively makes you look like an idiot. If you had a girlfriend she'd dump you.
  • Overall total? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BrickM (178032) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:30PM (#9501682)
    Does anyone know the number of people the RIAA has sued thus far? I'd be interested in a comparision between that number and the number of estimated pirates (the more accurate numbers, and the RIAA's numbers). I'm wondering if all of this litigation is a financially sound strategy for the RIAA.
    • Re:Overall total? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mOoZik (698544) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:34PM (#9501737) Homepage
      The total thus far is 3,429 [wired.com]. As for the number of pirates, it is in the millions and millions, for sure.

      • Re:Overall total? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BrickM (178032) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:40PM (#9501797)
        So according to Wired's total (and their settlement estimate), the RIAA is looking at $10,500,000. That's pretty impressive for a bunch of copy-n-paste lawsuits. Any lawyers want to estimate the RIAA's legal costs for this campaign?
        • Re:Overall total? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gcaseye6677 (694805)
          If they were less than $10 million for the entire campaign, I would be surprised. Then there's the immesurable loss of goodwill. Furthermore, relying on lawsuits for profits, if the lawsuits ever in fact generate profits, will lull execs into a false sense of security. Rather than innovating and taking online music distribution seriously, they will just do whatever they have to in order to prop up the old system until the very end when they become obsolete. Long term, this is a loser's strategy, no matter h
      • Re:Overall total? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sysopd (617656) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:53PM (#9501920)
        As for the number of pirates, it is in the millions and millions, for sure.

        And as for the number of good Artists, hundreds? Seriously, I am willing to bet that most people who have 50GB of mp3s have less than 1GB of music they really even remotely like. You have to sift through piles and piles of pure crap to find the gems.

        So any figures I see about the amount of $$ someone has 'stolen' by downloading gigabytes of music I have to reject because they would never buy all that crap and if they had to, they would have given up long ago without finding anything they like. I for one have bought way too much music ever since I started downloading it. If its good I buy it. I have close to 1000 cds and over 100 vinyl.

        Think about it, how much of your collection is something you'd buy or already own and how much is refuse you have collected and somehow can't delete? How many people have binders full of software they never use, music they don't like, and movies/tv shows they haven't watched or don't like? I know several.

    • Re:Overall total? (Score:3, Informative)

      by shadow099 (685953)
      Cool Tech Zone says 3,429 total users..
  • by neon-fx (777448) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:31PM (#9501698)
    I feel sorry for this John Doe character, he's always getting picked on.
  • by wo1verin3 (473094) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:32PM (#9501719) Homepage
    .... but unless it's an odd case like a 93 year old grandmother we don't here much about the outcome. While I'm sure some have come to settlement, where are the other thousands of cases? Have ANY of them gone to trial?
    • by Erwos (553607) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:45PM (#9501848)
      The fact that you're not hearing much about the outcomes is primarily linked to the fact that settlements typically include gag clauses to prevent you from coming out and berating the RIAA.

      You can probably infer from the fact that we've not heard much that 99.9% of the cases have been settled privately.

      I'm not usually a guy to whine about spelling, but it's "hear", not "here". If you want people to take you seriously, spelling is important.

      -Erwos
  • RIAA faq. (Score:5, Informative)

    by RobertTaylor (444958) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (4321rolyattrebor)> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:33PM (#9501723) Homepage Journal
    "the RIAA started using the 'John Doe' litigation process"

    For those wanting to know more about 'John Doe' processes etc here is the RIAA's FAQ [riaa.com].
  • Sue Happy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Osgyth (790644) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:34PM (#9501739) Homepage
    I don't know about anyone else, but these "sue to scare" tactics just don't worry me. They have failed to change my computing in anyway. I still download music; in fact, I may download more, just to site them. IMHO I feel they are just alienating more people with each lawsuit.
    • by Brandon Glass (790653) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:44PM (#9501844) Homepage

      I wonder why more people don't realize this, the RIAA are actually balancing on the edge of a knife with this one: They want to stop copyright infringement, but they don't want to draw too much attention to the copyright infringement via P2P issue, because they realize that if too many people start paying attention to it, the masses will realize what the law actually says regarding this.

      Downloading isn't the key issue, uploading is. Copyright infringement is traditionally defined by unauthorized distribution - so they really only have the right to go after those who are illegally distributing their content. This means the uploaders. Depending on your P2P client, it is possible to prevent uploading, or at least stop uploading by removing the file from the P2P system as soon as it's downloaded - of course, in some cases this will render individual P2P networks unusable if too many people do it, but some, like Emule/Edonkey, have the ability to upload while downloading... so unless they catch the culprits very quickly, removing the files from the shared directory and thus preventing further uploading will take all of a few minutes, and no charges can (theoretically) be pressed.

    • Re:Sue Happy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by loid_void (740416) * on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @09:02PM (#9501990) Homepage Journal
      Exactly, and just like Prohibition, no one stopped drinking, everyone just got a little more careful.
      • Re:Sue Happy (Score:3, Interesting)

        by westlake (615356)
        Exactly, and just like Prohibition, no one stopped drinking, everyone just got a little more careful.

        The numbers tell a different story. In the decades before World War 1, americans were drinking about 30 gallons of beer per capita, in 1935, two years after Repeal, only 15 gallons per capita. It would take forty-five years for consumption to return to pre-WW1 levels, and then only with a significantly less potent product. U.S. Consumption of Beverage Alcohol [druglibrary.org].

  • by Tuxedo Jack (648130) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:35PM (#9501745) Homepage
    Hasn't got jack about the new lawsuits. Can anyone get a list of what IPs are being sued?

    And in lesser news, thank god for dynamic IP addresses...
    • by Anonymous Coward
      And in lesser news, thank god for dynamic IP addresses...

      you actually think that'd keep you safe? i can't speak for any other ISP, but the Comcast service in my area uses dynamic IP addresses, and ties the MAC address of whatever's connected to the cable modem to your customer name/etc. guess what shows up in DHCP logs?

    • They are planning to sue a whole lot more people next time, since the RIAA set their eyes on the pirates with IPs in the sets 127.x.x.x and 10.x.x.x.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:35PM (#9501747)
    What if you already own the CD? Isn't that just fair use?

    Before anyone jumps on this and says it's stupid - I recently downloaded a whole bunch of songs to which I had the CDs. Why? Because my CD drive and my secondary hard drive (which housed all my MP3s) both recently went tits up. I blame a bad drive cable. Anyway, my gf was leaving town for a month and I was in the process of putting together a 'mix tape' on a portable mp3 player for her. Since she was leaving soon I didn't have time to run out to the store and buy and install a bunch of new equipment - but I could leave my p2p software running overnight.

    Uncommon? Sure. But that alone doesn't make it illegal.
    • by Sancho (17056) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @09:01PM (#9501974) Homepage
      It's highly unlikely that they're suing downloaders anyway. I believe everyone thus far sued have been sharing files. The media just latches on to "downloading music" for some reason--either as scare tactics, pressure from the RIAA to spin it this way, whatever. And really, it makes sense. Unless the RIAA were hosting files and tracking the IP of people who downloaded them (a shady practice to say the least) they've got no way of knowing who's downloading something. All they can really do is scan the P2P network and see who's offering, get the IP, and sue.

      Now it's still alleged if they didn't actually check every file to make sure that it's actually music instead of crap, viruses, etc. But I suspect that unless you re-shared those files that you downloaded, you won't have any need to fear getting sued over your download.
  • by Valiss (463641) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:35PM (#9501750) Homepage
    "We keep losing customers! I don't understand! We sue the fuckers, and they still won't buy our products!"
  • by anakin357 (69114)
    So basically they file lawsuits with as "RIAA vs J. Doe" and then subpena the information from Verizon and then the ISP is required to release the information or be held liable by the court.

    Just a quick link I found, pretty informative. http://www.mttlr.org/voleight/RederOBrienver5TYPE_ HTML.htm [mttlr.org]

    • This is where I hope ISPs clue into who THEIR customers are.

      The legal process is *notoriously* slow. Hopefully the ISPs rotate their DHCP logs faster than they can receive/action the supoena...(nudge nudge, wink wink).
  • by SB5 (165464) <freebirdpat&hotmail,com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:41PM (#9501814)
    3 years ago the economy went to shit...

    3 years ago CD sales went down....

    Think that's a coincidence.

    Also CD sales don't count as much since we got the legal downloading music DRM bullshit now... You have to count those eggs too....
  • More info, please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cove209 (681558) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:42PM (#9501825)
    I have two questions regarding this: 1- The RIAA is filing "John Doe" lawsuits (they will add the names later after the discovery process or warrants are served or whatever). At this time, they are trying to use the ip addresses to establish the identity of the people they are suing. How come the ip addresses are not posted in the news stories or on the eff page if it is public information and is in the lawsuit? 2- Exactly how is the RIAA obtaining their information? Are they seeding songs with data in the tag so they can then say in court that this song was slightly modified and now has a unique filesize or date in the tag and we alone have put this song out there and let people download it? And if so, can they legally do that? They are not a law enforcement agency, can they say that the laws regarding copyright don't apply to us since we own the copyright? OK, more than 2 questions: 3- Exactly what applications are the people using when they download this stuff? Kaaza? If it is Kaaza, are they then looking int he default shared Kaaza folder for the song they have seeded? I have found NO websites that have this info. Any thoughts?
    • Re:More info, please (Score:4, Informative)

      by D.A. Zollinger (549301) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @09:17PM (#9502088) Homepage Journal
      You can, of course, read about how the process works from the RIAA website [riaa.com] or I can attempt to summarize: They log onto the same p2p networks using the same p2p software that everyone else can freely download from the internet. They look for songs from their signed artists, and if possible those who have large collections. They download several songs, documenting when, and from which IP address. They confirm that those songs are what they claim to be (artist, and title), then file a lawsuit with the IP address instead of the name of the person.

      Once the lawsuit has been filed they can legally demand that the ISP connect the IP address and time of download to a name. Once they have a name and street address, they can send legal notice, and carry out their former scheme (settle for $3000, or be convicted and pay $MILLIONS later!). On their website, they bemoan this path in that they can no longer offer pre-lawsuit notification (less legal fees), so they are implying that with the court mandated extra steps, they have to spend more money to find the identity of the infringing party - which of course gets passed on to the infringing party as a higher settlement cost.
  • Does anyone know the cumulative total of all the RIAA lawsuits? These are just being instantiated in order to scare the general populus into thinking they get sued. Sure, go download music as much as you want but if you share it you get sued. It is definitely a one way street.

    What I don't understand is that I can have an archive of music on a network and someone can "break in" and steal that music from me and then I can get sued by the RIAA. Where is the logic in that!

    Bah Humbug,
    Aj

    GroupShares Inc. [groupshares.com] -
  • Anonymous P2P (Score:5, Informative)

    by KrisHolland (660643) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:43PM (#9501829) Homepage Journal

    Anonymous P2P will likely 'solve' these lawsuits, the technology is coming along nicely.

    I think that I2P [i2p.net] and Mute [sourceforge.net] need some developers though if you are interested.

    • Re:Anonymous P2P (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SB5 (165464) <freebirdpat&hotmail,com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @09:11PM (#9502045)
      The RIAA is being VERY STUPID. The only thing they are going to do is make P2P stronger. Probably stronger than the internet.

      It will eventually become very decentralized, very efficient, probably encrypted, use really good hash file verification systems.

      And it is going much faster than it probably would have if the RIAA didn't step in....
      • Re:Anonymous P2P (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I think you are right, RIAA right now is the biggest factor in the move towards anonymous P2P. I dont think there would be 1/10th the progress without their actions, LOL.
      • Re:Anonymous P2P (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kjella (173770)
        The RIAA is being VERY STUPID. The only thing they are going to do is make P2P stronger. Probably stronger than the internet.

        Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's kinda like infections and penicilin. If you don't treat it, the infection spreads. But if you do medicate, they develop immunities. But what good is it if you can't use it? RIAA is trying to use the legal system in the same way.

        Also, I found your statement a bit surrealistic, since P2P is the Internet. Just like mail, web, im, newsgroups,
  • by digitaltraveller (167469) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:44PM (#9501845) Homepage
    Judge:

    Bailiff, remand Mr. Doe into custody. Mr. Doe, how do you plead?

    Bailiff:

    Judge, the defendant has failed to appear.

    Judge:

    Issue an arrest warrant in Mr. Doe's name.
    Case dismissed.

    RIAA:

    Doh!
  • Future RIAA news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Artifakt (700173) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:49PM (#9501887)
    I can't say this isn't stuff that matters, as it matters a great deal to some of us, but it looks like stories like this will be posted every couple of months for the forseeable future.
    That being the case, I'd like to see the post itself contain some distinguishing marks, like a mention of what round in the series this is, or a comment on overall trends. This is the 4th round of these suits, right? (or is it the 5th?)
    I know, people should read the article, and google for basic questions, and all that. However, this subject is becoming almost like SCO. There are just so many repetitious elements that it is extra easy to lose sight of the bigger picture.
    Also, we can't expect the other media to convert data to knowledge. I doubt most press releases on this are going to keep track of whether the numbers per round have increased, decreased, or fluctuated both ways, for example. As another example, would you want to rely on Wired to tell you whether these clusters of suits start comeing closer together? (That's not to criticise Wired in particular, but to say that the press tends to become complacent the umpty-umpth time they are covering what sounds like the same story.).
  • by RancidLM (723035) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:50PM (#9501892)
    im sure the Fine print on the letters Read
    "ALL YOUR DRUM & BASS ARE BELONG TO US"
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:50PM (#9501894)
    We prefer copyright challenged.
  • About time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sumdumass (711423) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:50PM (#9501899) Journal
    As much as i hate the idea of RIAA and MPAA sueing fileswappers, at least now they have to show a little merrit in the case before they can automajicaly get the realname and personal information of the accused. I think this is a giant step forward in corecting some flaws in the DMCA that allowed anyone to get personal information about anyone else if they insinuate that they have violated thier copyrights.

    To me finding that RIAA has to now get some aproval (form a court) before getting the infromation they are seeking is the true news worthy potion of this article. I think most people havn't really had problems with RIAA and the likes going after people breaking the copyright laws, thier problems was with the way they went about doing it. Some will always have issues with others trying to protect thier investments and there will be some that still don't like the lawsuite/extortion ways RIAA is doing it. As i see it now one down and more to go.

    Thier extortion tactics, whiel can be viewed with good intentions leaves alot of problems open to come back and haunt people. Maybe there should be a test to what how they actually gather evidence and how that evidence is displayed.. also it would be nice if all the lawsuites could be lumped into some class action deal were people could share the cost of actually defending themselves from it.
  • by GoNINzo (32266) <GoNINzo@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:54PM (#9501937) Homepage Journal
    Anyone want to join a googlebomb of mine? I'm doing bunch of pricks [riaa.com] for the RIAA. Anyone want to join me?

    Put this on a webpage: what a <a href="http://www.riaa.com/">bunch of pricks</a>

  • Countermeasures (Score:5, Interesting)

    by digitaltraveller (167469) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @09:05PM (#9502003) Homepage
    From the RIAA John Doe [riaa.com] FAQ:

    When we come across a user who is distributing copyrighted music files, we download copyrighted music files (of our member companies) the user is offering, as well as document the date and time that we downloaded those files.

    Do any P2P clients keep a log of files up/downloaded? If so, record your own song and give it a clever name like 'Timberlake's Justified'. Stick it up and wait for the RIAA to come along and snag it. Then sue/countersue them.
    Lewis Carroll taught me how to do it:

    "Is it very long?" Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.
    "It's long," said the Knight, "but it's very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it--either it brings the tears into their eyes, or else--"
    "Or else what?" said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.
    "Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called 'Haddock's Eyes'."
    "Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested.
    "No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little vexed. "That's what the name is called. The name really is 'The Aged Aged Man'."
    "Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called?'" Alice corrected herself.
    "No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called 'Ways and Means': but that's only what it's called, you know!"
    "Well, what is the song, then?" said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
    "I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is 'A-sitting on a Gate': and the tune's my own invention."
  • The sad thing is (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BCW2 (168187) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @09:08PM (#9502026) Journal
    Every penny they con out of people with this scam goes to Sen. Hatch and his cronies, for more sub-moronic laws.
  • my strategy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <<circletimessquare> <at> <gmail.com>> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @09:24PM (#9502128) Homepage Journal
    i use kazaa-lite, and what i do is i downoad about 32 songs only, then i turn the program off

    while i'm downloading, some dude might start uploading from my temporary download folder

    this is the point at which the riaa can sue you

    however, i'm protected by the fact that i basically download european trance music for jogging purposes

    only through kazaa am i allowed to sample artists i would never be able to explore in any other forum: cds, too expensive; radio, nonexistent play; legal paid downloads, too constrictive on my selection and the rights they grant me

    and i believe that international issues, even if both nations involved have fierce copyright laws, leads me to feel comfortable and confident: i'm probably downloading from european kazaa users, and uploading to them too... the riaa does not involve itself in international transfer cases: too complicated

    so since i avoid the pop shit, the odds of me getting sued enter the realm of me winning the lottery

    the day i win the lottery is the day i'll begin to worry about the riaa
  • Murderers, too! (Score:3, Informative)

    by MacWiz (665750) <gzieman54@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @10:05PM (#9502431) Journal
    Since suing people is too slow (not one of these cases has actually gone to court yet), the RIAA and MPAA are now having people murdered.

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/2004 06 19/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting_piracy_3

    What a country!
  • by mandalayx (674042) * on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:05AM (#9503463) Journal
    The Harvard Business Review ran an article recently claiming that illegal downloads aren't hurting the music industry's bottom line. In fact is supposes that it may help, from an economic sense. I submitted as an article but alas rejection :)

    Music Downloads: Pirates--or Customers? [hbs.edu]

    Professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee and co-author Koleman Strumpf floored the disbelieving music industry with their findings that illegal music downloads don't hurt CD sales. Oberholzer discusses what the industry should do next.
  • by Shihar (153932) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @03:41AM (#9504324)
    The issue is not free music, it is the method of shopping. For a while I was happily shelling out my monthly fee to e-music. They supported the type of shopping I wanted to do. I want to go, download a bunch of stuff that I could potentially hate and listen to it. Hopefully I will find a few golden eggs. Every month they got my check (credit card actually, but who is counting?). Then they decided to go to a more 'regular' installment where you have to buy x number of songs at x price, completely missing the fucking point as to why people would pick e-music over any other service.

    Look, all that I want is to be able to explore new music. I want to do it simply and easily. I don't want to dick around and spend my time searching for it. Nothing under the sun is going to make me buy a horde of CDs hoping that some of them don't suck. Nothing is going to make me go out and research which bands suck and don't suck before I buy them. I honestly don't care enough to waste my time doing this. I'll happily shell out my money for the right to explore someone's database of music. I'll shell it out every single month. Hell, I do it already for movies. I couldn't be happier with NetFlix.com - care free exploration of movies at a flat rate. They get my 20 a month instead of blockbuster now because they realized that I am a different type of shopper. I used to pirate movies all of the time, until I found NetFlix.

    Until these idiots listen to the market, it will be NetFlix for movies and my P2P of choice for music. The first company to satisfy my music buying style gets my cash. NetFlix won my movie dollars, now hopefully some idiot will win my music dollars. They can sue their asses off. I break the law all the time; I speed, I smoke the evil herb occasionally, I drank under 21 (when I was still under 21), and I merrily pirate music. It is just another calculated risk. Most people violate the law reguarly knowing a potential risk involved with doing it. The RIAA will never win this game. Only growing the balls to compete in the market is going to win me back.

All the evidence concerning the universe has not yet been collected, so there's still hope.

Working...