Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy The Courts The Internet

RIAA Targets 21 Sites For Shutdown 140

Posted by Soulskill
from the go-big-or-go-home dept.
New submitter souperfly writes "The Inquirer has a list of 21 sites that the RIAA is looking to get shut down by ISPs this week. The list includes sites filestube, Bomb-Mp3, Mp3skull, Bitsnoop, Extratorrent, Torrenthound, Torrentreactor and Monova, and at least one ISP — Virgin Media in the UK — has confirmed the number of targeted sites. BT confirmed it will block the site, but didn't say when. Before, it was thought that only six sites were lined up for a chop."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Targets 21 Sites For Shutdown

Comments Filter:
  • by intermodal (534361) on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @05:11PM (#45273297) Homepage Journal

    Please, find a violation on RIAA.org and get them shut down. I'm begging you.

    • by 0racle (667029) on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @05:16PM (#45273329)
      Not your personal army.
    • Re:Dear Anonymous (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Solandri (704621) on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @05:31PM (#45273499)
      The thing is, the RIAA knows how to play the game - they paid for the rules after all.

      You can only get the extravagant fines for copyright infringement if you've registered your copyright with the Library of Congress (which involves paying a fee and sending them a copy of the work). If the copyright isn't registered, the owner can only claim damages suffered. So when the RIAA "steals" artwork or text from a random web artist/author, worst case they have to pay what they would've paid if they had licensed it, best case they're not caught and they pay nothing.
      • The registration fee is $35.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fredprado (2569351)
          So? Even when it is cheap it still needs to be done, and many times it is far from cheap. For a photographer, for example, registering each picture he takes for 35 can add up to very high amounts.
          • Re:Dear Anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)

            by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @08:08PM (#45274911) Homepage Journal
            Couldn't a photographer register copyright in an entire album of photos taken in a week or month or whatever?
            • I don't know, but the point is the more prolific you are and the more fragmented is your work the more expensive it becomes to formally copyright it.
              • I don't see how it should necessarily be so hard to select all of one's photos whose timestamp is last month, paste them in a document, verify that they're actually photos that one remembers taking, save in some format accepted by copyright.gov, and submit the file for registration.
                • Well, the process is probably not without a fair measure of bureaucracy. I guess that is why most people do not bother to do it. And I am not sure you can copyright in bulk like this without publishing a book with them or something.
                  • by mcgrew (92797) *

                    Well, the process is probably not without a fair measure of bureaucracy. I guess that is why most people do not bother to do it. And I am not sure you can copyright in bulk like this without publishing a book with them or something.

                    I just registered Nobots a month or so ago, and registered two software programs in 1984. It's quick and painless; in 1984 there was paper you had to write the copyright office to get but the forms were easy to fill out. Today you just go to copyright.gov and do it online, it's a

      • Solandri: You can only get the extravagant fines for copyright infringement if you've registered your copyright with the Library of Congress (which involves paying a fee and sending them a copy of the work). If the copyright isn't registered, the owner can only claim damages suffered.

        Evidently we can't file suit at all without registering with the LoC first -- though this is the first I've heard of it despite having read a hell of a loton the matter as a writer over the past couple of decades. From the USCopyright Office FAQ [copyright.gov]:

        Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration [copyright.gov].”

        Ihaven't seen anything related to the kind/sum of fines involved in the suit based on registration status. IIRC, all infringement suits are supposed to focus on loss of income ("damages"), with the US law originally written to target companies/individuals selling

  • by neo-mkrey (948389) on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @05:18PM (#45273351)
    I didn't know about half of those before.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @05:19PM (#45273361)

    And all these sites will have due process rights and a day in court before any of thier sites or livelyhoods are ruined... Oh wait a minute....

    • No, they will just fine them 100,000$ per song and 2 million per movie, plus 50,000$ punitive damages for each .torrent found.

      (after seizing the servers located in other countries that is)

    • by rea1l1 (903073)

      Mob rule is the fall back when a republic is usurped by an aristocratic elite.

  • by Aguazul2 (2591049) on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @05:34PM (#45273519)

    I thought for a moment this was going to be more interesting. "But you can't shut down our ISP, how will we connect to the internet?" "We don't care. Virgin Media has been used for copyright infringement and must be eliminated from the face of the earth. Our business model requires it, and we all know that the well-being of the music industry overrides all other concerns."

    • by suutar (1860506) on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @05:44PM (#45273599)
      This brings to mind a persistent fantasy of mine: buying a substantial share of an RIAA member, and having them repudiate the RIAA and otherwise stop being evil, and watching the rest of the RIAA panic as they lose market share. The reason this comes to mind is that while I don't have the resources to do it, Richard Branson might...
      • If a mutual fund formed for the express purpose of buying out the music industry and releasing their entire catalogs to the public domain, I'd buy. True, the share value of the fund might tank once they achieve 50% ownership and the power to force the release of all the music, but share value wouldn't be the point of it. It might also not tank, to the vast surprise of the old guard predicting doom.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels

    I no longer do.

    Sharing cassette tapes in my day was how we learned of new music.

    Notice the sansui g 8000-35000 are in storage not the living room.
    We shared listening experience Who cares the crap mp3 on someones ipod no one.

    • So if I were to write, record, and release an album outside the RIAA system, how should I defend myself from plagiarism accusations brought by the music publishers that share a parent company with the RIAA labels? For example, what should George Harrison have done differently when writing "My Sweet Lord"?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    They stole from Canadian artists and are suing people who pirate albums from Canadian artists, against the will of said artists.

    • by HiThere (15173) <charleshixsn&earthlink,net> on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @08:21PM (#45275011)

      They steal from US artists, too. Never believe them when they say they're doing something for the sake of the artists. The artists never see any of that money (bar one or two out of a thousand or so). They drive more artists into debt than they make wealthy. And by debt I mean they get them to sign a contract allowing the company to promote the artist as they choose, and commiting the artist to pay for it, and when the promotion costs more than (by *their* accounting) they bring in, the send the artists a hefty bill. And every time they've been reviewed by an external auditor (it's rarely possible to force this) they've been found to be under counting the profits.

      You are, on the average, better off if you never sign anything they offer you. The exceptions occur, but they are so rare as to be an anomoly.

      • Well yeah, but they literally stole from the Canadians. There was an article awhile back about the (Canadian-equivalent?) RIAA making compilation albums and saying "we'll pay you guys later" and then never doing so.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    These have been high-quality torrent sites. I'd be outraged to see them go.

    One less reason to like 'murika >:(

    • by X0563511 (793323)

      Please don't dislike us because of these skidmarks - there's plenty of other reasons you might dislike us for that we actually have control over.

  • by themushroom (197365) on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @06:28PM (#45274089) Homepage

    Yeah, that was nice, don't tell us what all is affected.
    (MP3Skull will be no big loss, never saw a downloadable file ever.)

    And I'm betting if KAT was on the list we'd hear about it.

  • by oic0 (1864384) on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @07:28PM (#45274603)
    The RIAA is actually the music industries final form. The only way for them to remain relevant is to become a law firm that litigates non stop.
  • Didn't Apple (mostly) kill music DRM by proving that people will buy digital music if it isn't a major pain in the ass to purchase, store, recover, or access? Hasn't the rise of streaming services like Pandora, Rdio and Spotify places the final nails in RIAA's coffin?

    Isn't the lack of live, streaming NFL and NBA games cable and satellite's last hope for DRM laced video? More and more people prefer NOT to sit with a bunch of self absorbed phone addicts in a dark theater to watch a crappy movie.

    • by jonwil (467024)

      Maybe if the movie theater owners did more to make the experience better, more people would go to the theater.

      Why cant theaters just have conditions of entry that tell people that use of mobile phones in the theater is prohibited (along with recording devices, alcohol, glass bottles, metal cans and hot food). Anyone who violates the conditions of entry gets ejected from the theater.

      Here in Australia, all theaters I have been to have such rules (and they usually have a message right at the start saying "plea

      • by jxander (2605655)

        Maybe if the movie theater owners did more to make the experience better, more people would go to the theater.

        Might I direct your attention to Cinepolis [cinepolisusa.com]

        Tickets are a bit more pricey, just under $20 a seat ... but it's a leather recliner, with plenty of elbow room. Some are positioned in pairs for couples, with small tables for ACTUAL food and drinks (to include beer and wine) delivered to your seat, at the push of a button.

        It's the only way I watch movies these days. Totally worth it

  • An opportunity! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Thanshin (1188877) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @03:21AM (#45277445)

    This is good news. The torrent server panorama was getting stale and complacent.

    Cheers to the new players! Live short and bright lives!

  • RIAA is just a proxy for the big names of the entertainment industry. Hurt them where it hurst, in the wallet. Boycott movies and cable TV.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...