RIAA Sues 261 Major P2P Offenders

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."

Re:Suing?

Ok, after a little bit of research [cornell.edu], I see that I had some misconceptions about copyright law. Feel free to mod parent "-1 Wrong."

Re:Suing?

Bingo. For years the feds tried to shut down pirate bbses and ftp sites with no luck, because most pirates do it for fun and make no money from their efforts. Judges basically said "no financial gain, no fault" and threw out the cases.

In 97, the whores in congress passed the "No Electronic Theft Act" 17 USC blah blah blah that:

1) changed the definition of financial gain to mean "receiving anything of value" such as a copyrighted work- so running an FTP site that receives files is now financial gain, as is a program that sends and receives copyrighted files- but it's much more complicated than that

2)by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished

however....!

evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.

c) some details

In case it wasnt obvious, the burden of proof to prosecute someone under this statue is pretty difficult to meet unless you are going after a pirate bbs or a pirate ftp site with a permanent address and fairly static library of files.

A sporadically connecting (and constantly moving) p2p client that is only sharing fragments of files is not really an entity that you can easily track. In addition, since the files on any individual client change often, or are (most often) unshared the second they finish downloading, it is almost 100 percent certain that "copyrighted works" (as well-formed files) are not shared by more than a small percentage of users, except perhaps accidentally.

It is also amusing to note that verifying that a user actually has a file is nearly impossible- its hard to distinguish between a client sending you the real file and a client sending you nonsense. Also, what about fakes, and files that dont exist in complete format anywhere? I've come across releases of movies where everyone has 99 percent of the file, but no one has the final 1% and the file might as well be random bits. Actually downloading files from a specific user on a P2P network to verify that it is copyrighted content is very difficult for one user, let alone millions spread across international borders.

To summarize- NET was formed to combat piracy that revolved around whole-file transfer protocols like FTP, HTTP and irc file servers. It is not well suited to prosecuting the massive file sharing networks that exist now. Even if it were possible to do so, it would be political suicide, since a hundred million voters will be a much bigger headache than a few whiny content industry lobbyists.

Re:Suing?

A sporadically connecting (and constantly moving) p2p client that is only sharing fragments of files is not really an entity that you can easily track. In addition, since the files on any individual client change often, or are (most often) unshared the second they finish downloading, it is almost 100 percent certain that "copyrighted works" (as well-formed files) are not shared by more than a small percentage of users, except perhaps accidentally.

Gee, that gives me an idea... what about a P2P app that only gives downloaders access to a part of the file, while making sure another peer elsewhere share the other parts. The client downloads and merges them automatically, of course, but the shares are never, at any time, providing access to a complete file. Coordinating who shares what might be difficult, maybe those with odd-numbered IP get to share parts 1 and 3, and the even-numbered share part 2 and 4 from a file chopped up into 4 bits? I wonder how lawsuit-proof this idea would be. ;-)

Re:Suing?

Isn't copyright infringement a criminal activity?

no. it is not.

See, even you bought into the lies that they have spread and now people are starting to understand this.

Copyright Infringement is NOT A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY that is why they are bringing up lawsuits as that is the only way to defend a copyright.

the cops are NOT SUPPOSED to bash down your door kill your cat and trample your petunias and then drag you naked in the street for copyright infringement.. (Contrary to the BSA's belief's)

all they can do is sue you and have a judge tell you to stop and order you to pay a restitution.

Got the idea yet?

Defense Strategies

Everyone, including myself, has already sounded off their opinions about every facet of this issue. Even this story isn't really "news"; it's simply an official statement of something we knew was inevitable. Rather than revisit old arguments, then, let's try to offer some new thoughts. And in that spirit: If any defendants are reading this, now, here are a few tips, should you go to trial. (I have studied law, and I have served on a jury. If that qualifies this advice, so be it.)

1. Everything is sales. This is certainly true of trial law. Those 12 jurors are, ultimately, American consumers. They are bombarded with consumerism day and night, and one thing is true of American consumers: If they want to buy it, they will. (Witness the success of the SUV.) Make them want to buy your story.
2. Introduce yourself. It's much easier to royally screw "The Defendant" than it is Billy, or Jake, or Tom. The first words out of your lawyer's mouth should be, "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John. This is Billy." Your first name should be the most repeated word in the courtroom. If Juror #12 has a son your age, you want her unable to separate her son's face from yours during deliberations.
3. Dress sharply. Packaging is a crucial element of marketing. Your appearance will matter -- to jurors, to the judge, and even to your personal confidence and demeanor at your table and on the stand. If you come down to your last $1,000 and you can't decide whether to buy food or pay your lawyer, do neither: Buy a suit. Check out Alan Flusser [amazon.com], or another expert for advice. Straighten your tie. Button your collar. Wear a blue shirt. If you think it sounds silly, consider this: If the jury finds against you in the amount of $12 million, you're going to spend the night sitting awake in bed, asking yourself, "Did I do absolutely every little thing I could have done?"
4. Smile."More bees with honey," and so forth. You can't overestimate the value of a good impression. Watch a reality dating show, some afternoon. You'll hear plenty of folks say about their blind date, "When I first saw him, he was smiling. That really put me at ease, and I felt very comfortable." Your jury should be convinced that you are a warm, friendly person. "Caring" is a nice adjective, too...but seriously, it should fall third, behind "warm" and "friendly." Put your jury at ease.
5. Admit your anger. This is a cardinal rule for criminal trials, but you might find it useful here. Some lawyers will tell you, "Remain calm. Never flash anger." That's bunk. The jury knows you're not a robot, and they will distrust you if you act like one. You shouldn't get visibly upset every time a witness for the other side says something against you, of course. But if you take the stand, it can help if you admit, "I'm angry, at being in this position." In criminal trials, take it a bit further: Admit that you resent the jury. Don't antagonize them, and be careful how you speak...but admit the truth. "I am not guilty of this crime. And truthfully, I'm angry. I resent the fact that you 12 people are going to decide whether I may remain free. I don't mean to offend you...but I resent this. I'm not guilty, and I'm angry that you have the power to lock me up for something I didn't do." It's natural. If you admit your resentment (without hostility), the jury is reminded that you're a man. An innocent man.
6. Consider delivering your own closing argument. Don't represent yourself, of course. Even if you are an attorney, you'd be a fool not to hire someone else. But when the time comes for summations, it's often best to favor the human argument over the legal. The jury has already heard the law -- and they'll be reminded of it again, when the judge offers instructions. Be a salesman. Be yourself. Stand up, and sell yourself. Speak, don't read. Use notecards if you must, but don't read a speech. Just talk. Make eye contact. Take the

Re:Defense Strategies

That's bullshit. You judge people based upon their looks just as much as everyone else does. You probably, like most of us, will not form a complete opinion of someone based upon their style of dress and their general demeanor (i.e. posture), however I assure you that, waiting at the Flatbush Ave. train station in Brooklyn at 3:30 in the morning, you will be much more comfortable waiting for the train with a sixty-something white-haired man in a business suit than a mid-twenties black or Hispanic man wearing oversized jeans, a blue and white bandana and size 17 Timberland boots. This, I assure you, carries over to the courtroom very frequently.

Re:Suing?

The RIAA will remain relevant as long as they have the money to do so. These bastards are going to get away with it for as long as we let them.

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.

Re:Suing?

If the Dean campaign tells you that they are going to do something about the RIAA then I can tell you they are lying. The Executive branch does not make laws and it does not try cases based on those laws. It is up to the Legislative branch (your senators and representatives) to change the laws or the Judicial branch to declare them unconstitutional. For that to happen it would have to bounce to the top (Supreme Court) which won't happen because nobody has deep enough pockets to fight it that far.

Re:Suing?

The executive branch has a lot of influence on the legislative branch, due to the fact that the executive has veto power. (You insert and pass this anti-RIAA bill, and I'll rubber-stamp the next "homeland security" bill you want). If you don't think this kind of stuff happens all the time, you're stupid and/or high.

Another thing to keep in mind, the Executive appoints the members of the Supreme court.

Re:Suing?

Democrat (n): Someone who thinks the group you belong to is more important than who you are.

Republican (n): Someone who thinks the amount of money you have is more important than who you are.

Re:Suing?

There are some additional definitions as well:

Democrat (n): Some one who thinks you are too stupid to make decisions for your self, so the government should make them for you by taxing the living shite out of everyone and creating a vast gigantic pig such that Americans will need to suckle at the teat in order to survive.

Republican (n): Some one who thinks you are too stupid to make decisions for your self, so the government should not tax the rich and powerful top 1% cause they really have everyone's best interest at heart, including bending us all over and giving us what we need, the way they want to.

Hi. You're a liar.

Unless the Democrats decide they don't like those appointments, which is why they've been delaying every single one of Bush's nominations to the federal courts.

I don't know what wingnut propaganda outlet you get your news from, but it's obviously rotted your mind. To date, Bush has had 117 federal judicial nominees approved by the Senate. This is completely in line with historical norms. Reagan had 293 appointments over his two terms, Bush Sr. had 150 appointments, and Clinton had 306 over his two terms.

So I fail to see where you see evidence that the Democrats are delaying appointments. If there were any delaying going on whatsoever these numbers would be much lower.

Source [judicialselection.org]

Re:Hi. You're a liar.

Ah statistics. Raw numbers sound impressive but they mean nothing. The fact of the matter is that history actually proves that Bush the Younger's judicial nominees are getting the shaft.

Former presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton each saw most of their circuit court nominees confirmed -- 100 percent, 95 percent, 96 percent and 86 percent, respectively. For George W. Bush, that number is a paltry 53 percent and, unlike his predecessors, he has had many of his initial nominees ignored completely.

I'm sure Miguel Estrada, who was stonewalled because he was a Hispanic judge that didn't toe the Democratic Party line, might disagree with you on whether delays are going on.

Finally, the Senate Democrats themselves announced they would delay appointments. They issue a fscking statement to the media saying exactly that. Proof enough for you? Do I have to get Tom Daschle to call you and tell you exactly the same thing?

Re:gREAT! i'M ON THE LIST!!!

Run.

Run fast.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor and retire to the Bahamas.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor and retire to the Bahamas and thank the RIAA for your new life.

Re:gREAT! i'M ON THE LIST!!!

Well, IANAL but if I was in your shoes I'd take the following road:

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?

My theory...

Since they know they can't stop downloaders, they figure if they make it a point to go after the biggest file sharers people will become paranoid and turn file sharing off. They'll become leachers.

Of course we know what happens to a P2P system with all leachers and no sharers...

Re:My theory...

Alternately, you'll end up with sharers in countries where the RIAA doesn't have a legal way to mess with 'em. The US will likely become 100% leech on the public P2P networks, sadly--but you can't really blame leechers when legal threats are flying, right?

Go one better--stop downloading and stop buying. Let 'em sue themselves right into the dirt.

Re:My theory...

Now here's an interesting point - for firms that compete in the music biz, they generally want overall interest in music to increase, while not allowing their competitors to make more money than them. So what's to prevent someone outside the US, who has some stake in one of the firms (say as a shareholder) from scooping up material from the competitors, and making it available for download via P2P? There's an incentive there to freely distribute the competition's material, if you can get away with it...

only if you accept their premise

there's no evidence that p2p has had a negative effect on record sales. in fact, sharing your competition's music might increase interest in that very music. just as radio play would. the effect would be to stimulate music sales for your competition and degrade your own music sales.

of course, you also are making the assumption that there's any sort of competition at all. there's plenty to suggest that the members of RIAA are collaborating to gouge the consumer and keep out alternatives.

Re:Let's get Al Kaida to take out the RIAA!

Yes, I think international terrorism is an appropriate response to the effort to stop illegal filesharing.

Re:My theory...

people will become paranoid and turn file sharing off. They'll become leachers.

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 /. tends to forget is that the VAST majority of p2p users ARE downloading copyrighted songs. And if we got sued, the vast majority of us would lose even if the RIAA had the most incompetent lawyers on the planet (which I'm sure they don't...) It takes someone who really didn't break the law to challenge these suits. For the rest of us, it's simply not worth the risk, so we'll just pull our machines off line and wait for a more secure way to do things. I can certainly do without the music for a while...

I think

the EFF needs you donations more then ever. Remember, you don't have to do anything wrong to find yourselves in a position to prove your inocense. Yes, under these circumstances, you have to prove your inocense, simple disgusting.

EFF Action Center

Even if you won't donate, at least go to the action center and send some angry letters to your senator.
EFF Action Center [eff.org]

Here's my letter, send to my two senators...

Mr. Senator,

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:Here's my letter, send to my two senators...

There is no "Fair Use" right to download and MP3 rip of a track, even if you have purchased a CD containing the track. This was decided in the my.mp3.com case.

From the decision [gigalaw.com]:

... although defendant seeks to portray its service as the "functional equivalent" of storing its subscribers' CDs, in actuality defendant is replaying for the subscribers converted versions of the recordings it copied, without authorization, from plaintiffs' copyrighted CDs. On its face, this makes out a presumptive case of infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976...

Re:I think

Ah but the catch is that they don't know that you didn't own the CD. 1000 songs is very little when you think about it. You have ~15 songs per CD, so thats about 67 CDs. That not that many.

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

Yes and no. Did me sharing mp3s aid piracy? Yes.
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:I think

What I dont understand is where all of these pirates are coming from

I havent personally saw anyone with patches over their eyes recently. Or any tall masted ships.

This leads me to believe this is all propaganda to make the average person scared to "surf".

Gibberish.

Re:I think

More over, remember the people being sued are NOT being sued for dowloading but for sharing.

Suing for downloading would be tough. I have downloaded many MP3s for which I own the CD, purely for convenience.

The point is, the people being sued may not have stolen anything at all and not intended to help anyone steal.

They might not have infringed on copyrights themselves, but by allowing others to download from them, they've opened themselves up to the lawsuit.

If every morning, I made a copy of the Wall Street Journal (to which I hypothetically subscribe) and published it on my website for my own viewing pleasure, I should be obligated to make reasonably sure that unauthorized users can't view it. I should not be able to leave it out in the open with the excuse that "Maybe everybody accessing it is a legitimate WSJ subscriber."

Re:You don't think.

Thanks for providing me with the best laugh I have had all day. I don't know what exactly possesses people to compare downloaded music to the US war of independence, but it never fails to amuse me. Then again, perhaps IHBT.

Casting this as a fight between rightousness [sic] and corruption, and of escaping a cultural stranglehold, is dubious at best. There are good reasons for copyright law to exist (remember, without copyright law, there can be no GPL). Most downloaders' motivation is to avoid paying for music, not to bring down a music empire. And most of the songs that are downloaded are the same cultural pap that is marketed by the RIAA.

If you're looking to feed your revolutionary tendencies with a bad law having actual, serious consequences, how about the Patriot act? Or the federal budget, which will lead to a trillion dollar increase in the federal debt over the next ten years? Everyone in the world -- American or not -- should be concerned by that, since if the US pulls an Argentina, nobody is safe. By comparison, the fight over file downloading is a childish spat between spoiled children.

The line of reasoning: "the founding fathers rebelled against laws they disagreed with; I am rebelling against laws I disagree with; therefire, my struggle is as noble as theirs" is as absurd as "they laughed at Einstein; they laughed at me; therefore, my ideas are as important as Einstein's".

Re:I think

Here's some logic, following dictionary.com [dictionary.com].

Property, definition 2 [reference.com]: The right of ownership; title.

Steal, definition 1 [reference.com]: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Take, verb, definition 1: [reference.com] To acquire possession.

RIAA has the right of ownership to the songs. A person distributes through a P2P, which according to copyright law requires ownership or title to do so. Therefor, the person aquired possession of the ownership and distribution rights without permission of the rightful owners (RIAA.)

Ergo, distributing songs in which you do not have ownership from is in fact stealing.

That was a lot of fun.. I'm a touch too bored right now.

Re:I think

Repeat after me: Copyright infringment != Stealing

It's only "stealing" when SCO or Microsoft does it.

Re:I think

Sorry, no way. People who amass collections of in excess of 1,000 mp3s (of songs they do not posses on CD) are by no stretch of the imagination "victims".

Like hell. Were I live [canada.gc.ca], I have more than 3000 MP3s, most of which LEGALLY MADE from CDs I borrowed from the library. It is perfectly legal to make a copy for your own use.

Re:I think

And not legal to *distribute those copies*. How difficult is it to understand this concept? If you're using P2P software and making your 3000 MP3 collection freely available to the masses, you are BREAKING THE LAW.

Re:I think

In Canada, I can give my CD to a friend to make copies of all I want. I just can't give him a copy.

Not correct. You can give him a copy. You cannot sell him a copy.

Re:I think

Breaking the law, breaking an immoral law.

Any law prohibiting the sharing of information between people, IMO, is immoral and MUST be ignored.

Would you say that the Baath party members, abiding by Saddam Husseins laws torturing law breakers were right?

Any law is always subjected to general human values. And any law that limits the right to exchange information is a crime itself.

You may find my opinion radical, and alas it is not yet very generally accepted. But I am convinced that, once people see what the disastrous results of current "intellectual property" laws are, more and more opposition will come and one day we shall return to the situation like the 17th century where the concepts "patent", trade mark, copyright did not or hardly exist.

Without them our civilization rose, building on ideas of others the renaissance and rationalism got us out of the middle ages (when other monopolies on information existed). Now because of such laws we threaten to slide back into a new era of dark ages, where individuals have no rights and no knowledge, and a few entities can corrupt society, control politics (which merely in name is democratic).

We have been brainwashed that todays knowledge economy needs protection of intellectual property to exist and prosper, but have we seen any prove that it won't work without? I do not buy it any longer. I won't rest until all those who want to implement such laws ara safely locked away themselves, for they are the THIEVES themselves, of democracy and human rights.

Re:I think

the EFF needs you donations more then ever. Remember, you don't have to do anything wrong to find yourselves in a position to prove your inocense. Yes, under these circumstances, you have to prove your inocense, simple disgusting.

Yes, the obligatory +5 interesting spiel for donating to the EFF. And, of course, it is +5 Incorrect. Yes, the DMCA allows copyright holders to supboena the names of people from ISP's without bringing a case first, or getting it signed by a real judge, but that doesn't mean that the system of innocent until proven guilty is out the window. These people, if it goes to court, will have the same rights afforded to them as in any other legal case.

There are problems with the DMCA, but can we cut out the FUD please?

Re:I think

Ah, we're young and innocent, aren't we?

Here are some quotes by judges I've actually witnessed in court:

"Lady, what do you expect here, justice? This isn't about justice, it's about procedure."

"Yes, you can have some time to get a lawyer, but I'm not going to allow him to examine the plaintiff."

And directly relevant to the issue under consideration in a case where defendant requested that the judge dismiss a complaint because plaintiff had offered absolutly no evidence in support:

"It isn't the job of the plaintiff to prove their case. You are the defendant. It's you job to defend yourself."

The judge then denied the defendant's request for the plaintiff to produce financial documents relevant to the case.

Not do you, in practice, have to prove your innocence, but it isn't at all uncommon to be denied the basic rights and tools to do so.

I guess that's why they call it the legal system now, rather than the justice system.

KFG

Re:I think

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.

Sadder still are the people who are willing to ignore the problems in the judicial system rather than try to fix them. Faith will only blind you to the truth.

Re:I think

Yes, the DMCA allows copyright holders to supboena the names of people from ISP's without bringing a case first, or getting it signed by a real judge, but that doesn't mean that the system of innocent until proven guilty is out the window.

You're confusing civil and criminal law. In criminal law, yes, you're innocent until proven guilty. It does not work that way in civil law, which is what we are talking about here. All you need to show is a small amount of proof to haul someone into court, and then you only need a "preponderance of the evidence" to win the case.

This is why I object to the RIAA's tactics. I agree wholeheartedly that the ones who are actively sharing files are the ones guilty of copyright infringement under the law, but I disagree with subpoenas issued without a judge's signature.

These people, if it goes to court, will have the same rights afforded to them as in any other legal case.

Except the right to a lawyer. Once again, in criminal law, I am guaranteed a lawyer, paid for me by the state if I cannot afford one. Not so in civil law. I have to pay for my own attorney. So I see nothing wrong with the EFF providing funds to help defend people in civil cases, since this helps offset the disparity that exists in the system.

There are problems with the DMCA, but can we cut out the FUD please?

Subpoeans without a judge's approval is not FUD, it's a travesty of justice.

Not being able to pay for your own defense in a country that so highly values liberty is not FUD, it's legalized extortion.

Why the vow?

"...and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."

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?

Re:Why the vow?

PR. Offering the "amnesty" looks like they're willing to work with consumers. They'll still screw them but they hold up the amnesty as a concession.

Giving someone a temporary break from extortion is hardly amnesty.

Re:Why the vow?

"Is it purely a move to allow easy prosecution should they offend again?"

Yes. If you sign the aggrement they no longer have to rely on copyright law. They have a binding contract with you to abide their terms.

Debt collectors who buy up bad paper and then seek to recover use this trick too. The law has very carefully prescribed limits to the actions that can be taken to collect a debt, even in cases where judgement has been found against the debtor.

If they can get you to sign a contract expanding their rights to collect, by your own volition, than they can hold you to that contract.

Then you are, as they say, "hosed."

KFG

Re:Why the vow?

Actually, if anything, it's a PR move. It's basically a way for the RIAA to look benevolent without looking like they're bending over and letting the pirates win. The only other options are to sue the pants off everyone and risk looking like bullies, or to stop pursuing P2P traders, which, of course, is impossible.

Sticking it to da man...

Last count 4+ million users on Kazaa. It looks like the RIAA is having an effect. Too bad it's the opposite effect they want. M

'Amnesty' with sting in the tail

A demand to sign a notarized admission of guilt is just _not_ an amnesty (literally -- a forgetting). Is there no limit to the way in which these people will twist words so that they are not saying what they appear to be saying?

Re:Will that be on my permanent record?

What are the chances the RIAA will become another place employers add to their list of sources for background checks?

x2 Special double slashdot paranoia bonus modifier.

Get your tinfoil hats now!

Oh what a beautiful morning...

Well... this is going to be a fun morning for those 261 people.

*Random guy turns on computer*

You've got subpoena!

Re:Oh what a beautiful morning...

And next, "ENLARE your subPOENA 4+++ inches! MAXXimus V fomular!"

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

Boo hoo. If they can't prove their innocence, they must be, by definition, guilty.

Okay, let's play by your flawless logic. Imagine a hypothetical example as follows. After reading this hypothetical example, let's see if you understand the point.


Okay, you're caught!

According to my records and investigation, you stole my copyright material from my server. You thief!

You can get a lawyer and present absolute incontravertable proof that you did not steal the material alleged in the complaint. What?!? Can't proove it? Then by definition you must be guilty.


And, if that's the case (which it undoubtedly is for many of these people), they must accept the punishment that they (knowingly) brought down upon themselves. After all, it's not like they didn't know what they were doing was illegal, or that they'd be fined massive sums of money if they were caught.

That will be $150,000 please for the single violation that I claim so far. Hey, you knowingly did this knowing you would be fined massive amounts of money.

Your next action is that you could get a lawyer and fight it. Or you can settle with me. In the settlement, you must, of course, admit guilt. Since I'm such a nice guy, and in such an especially generous mood right now, I'll settle if you pay me only $19,999.99. Special today only. I think that is more than generous. Don't you?


On another note, I don't feel there's any reason to distrust the RIAA, regarding who they are going after.

And likewise, you should trust me. I am your friend. Trying to cure you of your evil doings and get you to mend your evil ways. My goals in this, and in my generous settlement offer are above reproach. Just ask anyone here on Slashdot. Really. Honest.

Especially no reason to distrust me considering who I'm going after. (implication: considering what despicable scum I'm going after.)


There is every reason for them to do their best to go after real pirates... after all, it sets an example for other would-be pirates.

I couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly what I'm doing.


As a result, I'm willing to believe the people who are being sued are, in fact, quite guilty of copyright infringement, and as such, such be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

From the defendant's mouth, your honor. I rest my case.

He willingly believes that he is being sued because he is already guilty, before the trial, of the heinous crime of -- gasp! -- copyright infringement. (audible gasps of shock and horror are heard from the judge, jury and observers, followed by a dead silence in the courtroom!)


I would try to explain my point in using the above hypothetical example. But I'm unclear on whether you would actually get my point.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

OK, fine. Then I want my money back for all of the piece-of-shit CD's I purchased because I had no means of sampling the music first due to them prohibiting me from listing before buying.

After that, I want my money back from the illegal price fixing that has gone on for years. Then throw those execs in jail because after all, if you are willing to do the crime you should be willing to do the time.

Additionally I want my money back on crap CD's I bought that had noise added in to the songs to make MP3's I burned useless. I wanted to listen to those in my MP3 player while I excersised but apparently they knew better.

Finally, I want an apology from the execs themselves for all of the misery I have to endure when flipping through the radio channels and I hear the SAME music for the past 5 years with an occasional new tune thrown in for a little spice.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

"Alternately, listen to word-of-mouth from others before you buy the CD in the first place."

Where do those word-of-mouth sources get their information from? Someone has to buy the CD and be plagued with crap. Besides, they play one track on the radio that might be really good and then the rest of the album sounds like the band was learning to play during those recordings.

While there are risks involved in any purchase that does not entitle the seller to categorically screw the buyer. Restaurants can't serve you undercooked chicken. Real estate companies can't sell you a house that has radioactive waste in the basement without telling you. Car dealers can't sell you a car without disclosing known problems. The music cartel should NOT be allowed to sell CD's without letting you sample the music first for which many people use downloads. In a book store you can read all you want before buying. Funny that in a CD store you can't do the same. Wonder why?

Whine?

we should be screaming. They can take our money, pull us into court, and wreck our lives witn no proof.
A corporation should never have the ability to do criminal investigations. ever. It totally circumvents the constitution.
These people are running amok, with no checks and balances. All this for possible copyright infringment. Copyright is the will of the people, enacted through congress, perhaps these people had better remember?
distributing music, in and of itself, is not always infringement. Used music stores come to mind.

The real problem for them is that the same music can be redistrbuted over and over again, easily. This is no different then any other advances where information can be spread more easily. There model needs to change, and it will. Unfortunatly lives will be dis-perportionaly destroyed in the process.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

..remeber that these people, however you feel about RIAA and their bussiness, have actually distributed music that they don't have the rights to. If you do the crime; you should be willing to do the time.

That's right. Copyright infringement is the biggest threat to the free world as we know it today. These evil villians must be put away for a long time and/or made to work in toil the rest of their natural lives to repay the enormous damage they have done to the recording industry. For such a heinous crime, it is fitting that their entire lives and even careers should be completely destroyed.

While I'm at it, let me propose some changes to our lovely mandatory sentencing guidelines. How about $10,000 per incident for jaywalking, which is much less serious than copyright infringement ($150,000 per incident). What should be the penalty for smoking in the non somking area?

For all of you who were hoping to get rich through the wonders of P2P file sharing, may I merely point out that it is much more profitable for those who simply rob convenience stores. And the penalties are far less severe.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

If you do the crime; you should be willing to do the time.

Bullshit!

Where's the crime? This is copyright violation, not a crime. It's a civil offense, not criminal (since even the RIAA hasn't found a way to invoke the criminal parts of the DMCA). Since it's a civil law violoation, you cannot go to jail. It's not piracy (no ships are involved) and not theft. Words have meanings, you know, and legal words have very precise meanings.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

have actually distributed music that they don't have the rights to.

I (and I suspect more people here than you'd think) have little sympathy for people who share music when they're not supposed to. But I would like to see this proven first, in a court of law, that those charged have actually, knowlingly shared music in violation of the law.

Their own words 'shock an awe' are aptly chosen in this case, and we should see this campain for what it is: legal strongarm tactics.

The RIAA is asking these people to promise something that is not in all cases forbidden by law. How would you feel if you'd find a letter from Microsoft on your doormat, stating
"You have illegaly copied MS products, and thus we are preparing to drag you through legal hell for the next 30 years, at the end of which we will take you you for every penny you own... unless you sign this agreement that you'll never use commy open source products again, and never use Bill Gates' name in vain.". When faced with that, does it even matter whether or not you actually copied said software?

These cases should be decided in a court of law, and with all parties on an even footing. As it is, the stronger party can bully the weaker one into agreeing to basically anything.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

I agree that if they've done it, they deserve a slap.

But I'm not entirely sure that bankrupting someone is a reasonable punishment in all instances.

I'm fed up with the pro-infringement people who will make any excuses they can to avoid paying artists for the work they've done, work the artists have done believing that, as the law says, people will pay in some way for using that work. Part of me is glad they're finally getting slapped.

But at the same time, it's undeniable that current copyright law is extreme, and needs to be liberalised with specific rights given to content users; that it is extreme in certain areas (I can't watch a DVD *I* bought under Linux? I can't convert it to a different format? I can't back it up?) unfortunately goes some way to discrediting copyright in others, to the point that people seem to be more willing to engage in the blatent ripping off of artists.

Thousands of dollars in fines per download is also doing nothing to improve the credibility of copyright law. It just promotes an "us vs them" attitude, which is very obvious in the average Slashdotter's blind, uncompromising, irrational, hatred of content producers.

Things have to change.

College students are back

I myself just got back into my dorm and seeing this article made me think. Many thousands if not millions of students are going off their dialup/cable/dsl home connections and back to the fat pipes the universities have. As much, I would expect P2P usage to rise again, but how much more with RIAA lawsuits?

Served?

Remember to visit the EFF when full lawsuit details are released

I'm not sure how justice works in the USA, but here in the UK you are notified if someone initiates legal action against you...

I HEREBY PROMISE -

I will not ever pay for an RIAA member label music product until such a time that they end their predatory lawsuits.

Frankly, this won't be a hard promise to keep, since most mainstream music sucks.

PS - The radio is still free, and I have an TV/FM tuner/capture card.

You are not safe with the affidavit...

Filing for RIAA amnesty may immunize you from civil litigation, however that affidavit becomes excellent fodder for your prosecution under CRIMINAL statues. Certainly RIAA owns one or two over-eager district attorneys wanting to make a name for themselves.

The you're off to a lovely federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison, or forking up hoards of fines.

RIAA Math

261 Major P2P Offenders

So, is that the equivalent [slashdot.org] of 50 file swappers, downloading really fast?

"File Sharing"

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.

Da' finga'

"We're willing to hold out our version of an olive branch," Sherman said.

...and I'm willing to hold out my version of da' finga'.

Re:is your username subpoenaed? it is now...

When RIAA writes something Anti-P2P they will know that a great number of the readers will be actual filesharers reacting to that article. That will give them plenty of IPs in their server logs... *That's* the real problem if you happen to be a filesharer. Not the EFF. :)

As a side note it could be wise for you filesharers to check your browser doesn't send a Down-with-the-RIAA-KaZaA-rules-forever site as the referring page while browsing. The site itself could also be a trap done by RIAA to get to know as many filesharers as possible. There have been trap sites of such kind in the past... Be careful out there!

File Sharing Legal in Canada

A quick Google [google.com] will pull up lots of other articles, I just picked one [101-280.com].

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.

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada

Yes, be jealous.

There was rumours cd-r's were going to skyrocket in price as a result of that thought...however prices of cd-r's have dropped like a stone here just as they have everywhere.

So my 50 cents canadian (0.001 american dollars) is letting my have some legal file sharing

Yay for Canada! We also recently got electricity :P

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada

His legal understanding of Candian law is right. And in Canada, you do have the right when you buy a pack of CDR's to copy music as long as it is for NON PROFIT USE.(Read the laws) The money has been collected by an agency(CPCC) that is directly redistributing back to the artists, they are getting their money wether you are using those CDR's for data or Audio, profit or not. Now, think on that, and wonder why Canada has one of the highest "piracy" rates in North America, it's because people already know they are paying for the goods that they haven't paid for!

I've gone over this a dozen times with lawyers to, the Industry Minister(Rock), to the Minister of Heritage(Copps) both people who are at the top of the new "levy", and the law is on the copiers side on this. I've met them face to face and gotten into nice little debates with them, I'm almost sure that the levy is going through. I love the prospect of dropping a $20 for a pack fo 10CDr's.

A note to my fellow Canadians, if you feel like buying an MP3 player with a HDD in it, do so now. They will be getting very expensive when the new levy comes out.

As for the last bit, ofcourse they don't make any distinction between data and audio CD's, how else could they pillage us at the store and still take our money and give it away to artists when we are doing something buying media for backups.

I Hope They Don't Come After Me....

I've [gentoo.org] downloaded [knoppix.com] gigs [debian.org] and [slackware.com] gigs [redhat.com] of [suse.com] stuff. [sourceforge.net]

Music Piracy hurts Artists?

Boo Hoo! The artists are getting ripped off! Can we keep it real for a moment?

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.

Doesn't sound like propaganda to me

"...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."

Offenders must also confess to having been to the proletariat areas and consorted with the prostitutes, or they go to Room 101...

So let's see if we got it straight:

The RIAA coordinates an industry-wide reduction in the amount of music released to increase the value of output. They do this to shore up the hyperinflated price of CDs (due primarily to collusion for which they have already had a civil judgement against them) and to attempt to make up for the decline in sales of cassettes, a format that they have actively worked at making obsolete. They also hope to continue to command their traditional percentage of discretionary teen/20s spending.

Unfortunately, the output remaining tends not to be compelling, their target audience has a number of other venues for their spending (video games, DVDs, online activities) and the economy goes south.

So which Business school teaches that the best way of addressing these sorts of problems is to spread fear/resentment/anger amongst the audience you are attempting to win back?

And as a side note, if getting the music listened to by potential buyers is such a bad activity, then why to record promotion people give away free singles and CDs at events? Why do companies allow songs to be played on the radio? And if pirating is such a depresser of CD sales, why was one of the most pirated CDs around, The Eminem Show, such a sales success? Could it be that people liked what they heard and were willing to pay for it?

Hypocracy.

First we cry foul when companys sued and tried to regulate Internet Service Providers, into requiring them to keep the laws for their users.

Then, they became something of a "common carrier."

Now, RIAA is actually going after the people *who are breaking the law* and yet you are still complaining about it?

So what if its some 14-year-old kid in his house downloading the latest MP3 from his favorite band. It's still *breaking federal law* and, under that law, allows monetary damages to be collected by the person whose copyright was infringed.

This right is executed all the time in copyright infringement cases; if it didn't exist, nobody would protect their IP. IP violation fines are the deterrant to copying protected works. Just because the kid isn't even legally an adult yet, doesn't mean he can't break the law just the same.

Federal law allows up to $150,000 / violation. A violation is one infringed work (i.e. 1 unauthorized mp3 file. An "authorized" file is one you have permission to own -- either in writing by the copyright owner, for example, or because you own the CD and ripped it to your hard drive for easier listening.) In this respect, RIAA's $50k and we'll be done with it is more than reasonable, because *the government* would allow for fines of up to $4.5 million!!! for an amount such as 30 songs.

RIAA should produce better music if they want to maintain their customer base and prevent piracy. There needs to be more tangible benefits to purchasing the legal version of the song vs. downloading it. For me, this benefit is the fact that the CDs (1) sound considerably superior to the average 128kbit MP3 file (2) I can feel like I am at least pretending to support the artists I like, many of whom are on indie labels anyways, and (3) I get a physical product that I can take with me in my car to play on my car CD player, which doesn't like burned CDs; and I can make as many mp3s of it as I want, as long as I don't share them.

RIAA could adjust its business model, make it better to purchase the CD vs stealing it. Or, switch to a different modus operandi all together, and provide some new kind of operation.

Re:Legally bound to my arse

Ok i havnt RTFA and i dont no much about American copyright, but isnt there a law that says you must uphold copyright infringements, i.e you have no choice in who you sue, you have to sue everyone who infringes your work?

You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright.

Furthermore, you are not forced by law to protect trademarks: if you want to lose your trademark protection, by allowing others to infringe, then you certainly have the right to do so. However, if you want to protect your trademark, then yes, you need to actively enforce your rights.

Alternatives: Kuro5hin front page story

Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads [kuro5hin.org] There is hope that we can get out of legal mess. This article says that 90% - 95% of artists are unsigned. There has got to be plenty of quality out there, waiting for the people to find them. With good collaborative filtering, we can find the music we want without those bastard lawyers. Musicians, don't sell out! We want to support you! Let us hear your work, and the money will come. I am downloading iRate [sourceforge.net] right now.

In tonight's news

The RIAA finally does what geeks have asked for years by going after the offenders instead of after P2P technology itself. And geeks still object. Film at 11.

I've got a very novel idea for avoiding a RIAA lawsuit. It is an idea that I'm sure will be unpopular, and I'm therefore also sure that this message will be moded down as flaimbait even though it is nothing of the sort, because that is how simpleminded moderators deal with a differing viewpoint here.

But my idea is simple...don't want to be sued by the RIAA? THEN DON'T SWAP COPYRIGHTED MUSIC WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.

Re:In tonight's news

You're oversimplifying the situation. I'm about 40 and stopped buying music in about 1993. Ironically once alternative music broke into the mainstream, it became impossible to hear new good music.

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 /. mentioned the Japanese duo Puffy in their signature. I downloaded some songs, fell in love, and bought one of their CDs that night. Here's another example, I hear some Junior Brown in a Spongebob episode, download some of his stuff, and buy his first CD about a week later.

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.

time to setup FTP servers

this is the net result of this stupid campaign: people are setting up FTP servers and snail-mailing each other mp3 compilations. OK, it's not as user-friendly & Napster-cool but the point is: MP3 trading will never stop.

Links to Legal Downloads at Kuro5hin

On the front page today at Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org]: my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads [kuro5hin.org].

You don't need to worry about getting sued by the Recording Industry Assocation of America [riaa.org] or arrested by the FBI if you download legal music. Many independent and unsigned musicians offer downloads of their music in hopes of attracting more fans. Here's some music from my friends The Divine Maggees [divinemaggees.com], Oliver Brown [kingturtle.com] and Rick Walker's Loop.pooL [looppool.info].

If everyone started downloading legal music instead of violating copyright with the file sharing programs, we would make short work of the RIAA, because people would start buying CDs directly from the artists and seeing their shows instead of enriching the major labels by buying CDs from the bands the labels have chosen for us to listen to. The RIAA would also have no cause to complain - these music downloads do not infringe copyright because the artists give you permission to download them.

The article is under a Creative Commons license. Please copy and distribute it. The copy on my website [goingware.com] has particularly simple markup to enable easier copying.

Remember that CD prices are dropping too

Universal Music Group is cutting its prices [buffalonews.com] by 30% (and note that UMG is by far the largest music multinational). Many think that this will push down many cds below the magic 10 dollar mark.

I guess it's up to each to decide if these two cancel out. Of course this does answer two of the biggest /. gripes against the music industry: the labels taking too big of a piece and over inflated SRPs. The only one left would be that the RIAA is a vindictive/cruel/abusive litigator... but how much effect does that have on a purchase? How many folks upon hearing this decide to not buy a cd (or pick up something indie... say Interpol Turn on the Bright Lights which was selling at 9.99 for the last year)?

Predictions

1) Next "Blaster" worm causes every Windows machine on the Internet to start sharing files.

2) 200 defendants in the last case blame the last "Blaster" worm and claim they had no idea their computers were sharing files.

The internet is still an excellent source for..

RIAA free music. I mean its funny they complain about their numbers dropping while attacking some of their most devoted fans.

On the other hand there are lots of musicians begging for exposure that are even willing to give their music away for free.

1sound.com [1sound.com]
www.mp3.com [mp3.com]
iuma.com [iuma.com]

And it just goes on.

eDonkey2000 not targeted

I noticed eDonkey2000 is not among the list of P2Ps for which EFF advised turning off upload. Is it because donkey is too small or is it because it is immune from RIAA?

The Ultimate Solution to RIAA...

...is actually pretty simple: Boycott the Music Industry. It's all over-marketed crap anyway - the Madonna/Britney Spears kiss, for example, wasn't an artistic expression, it was a shock statement made to get people to watch the awards program and pay money to RIAA for the music manufactured by their neutered artists.

Stop stealing music. Stop buying music too. Support your local artists. Go to a local nightclub, watch the local bands, and happily pay the cover charge. Buy only CD's the performers sell themselves, and don't steal their music, because you'll be ripping of a performer, and not RIAA.

Your local garage band won't be a technically proficient, but they will be more honest and original, even if they are a cover band playing other peoples' music.

Don't get Amnesty

DON'T apply for Amnesty! It's a trick! And if you get sued, don't settle! The RIAA is suing people like nuts right now because everyone is settling. They are pretty much getting tens of thousands of dollars for free. Forget selling music, they're making up their lost money by stealing money from college students.

The amnesty is a trick. The way it works is they get you into a contract that says you will stop sharing music. Once you're in that contract you no longer have the option of fighting them in court. They will sue you for breah of contract as opposed to copyright infringement, and then you're screwed.

If you get sued fight them tooth and nail. Get a good lawyer, and some help from the EFF and other folks. We just need one person with balls enough to fight, and when they win it will set a precedent. Everyone else will be able to fight and win by default. If I got sued, I would fight.

Don't let the greedy RIAA get away with this crap. Fight!

Simple solution

There is a very simple way to have the RIAA put a stop to all this: stop buying records from them. Zero, zilch, nada.

If all p2p users were to do that, the RIAA would backtrack in an instant. I think there are enough readers in /. that even if only us were to boycott, its impact would be felt by the RIAA...

Turn the tables around...

If the headline of this article read "FSF sues 261 major corporations for GPL violations" I wonder how the comments might differ.

Enforcing copyright is enforcing copyright and if you want the GPL to be enforcable then you better learn to deal with RIAA's copyrights being enforcable too.

The Amnesty Documents

We've downloaded the amnesty documents from the RIAA owned Music United and made them available on boycott-riaa.com [boycott-riaa.com] for those of you who don't want your ip grabbed by the borg.
2 page PDF [boycott-riaa.com]describing the program
2 page PDF [boycott-riaa.com]of the affidavit.

Remember the RIAA only represents the interests of labels and performers and can only give amnesty for those rights. The RIAA doe NOT represent the copyrights of the publishers and songwriters who could still sue. And they could subpoena the RIAA for that information. This is a publicity stunt. If you accept the program, bend over and spread'em you're about to get screwed.

forget the RIAA, download OTHER music

The RIAA doesn't have a monopoly on music. They just have a monopoly on getting music into the media.

Kuro5hin has a recent article [kuro5hin.org] which explains the issue, including pointers to archives with about 40,000 music titles that are legal to download.

Boycott the RIAA, and start downloading / buying music that isn't theirs. Support artists who make good music and don't have access to the RIAA's media juggernaut.

My sworn admission to the RIAA

Dear RIAA:

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.

Plenty of bands ALLOW you to share

The Grateful Dead
Widespread Panic
Phish
Moe

Those are four I listen to - excellent music - freely available via Torrent. Plenty more out there if you go looking. Oh, you want ass sucking top forty crapola? Well that, my friend, will cost you $15.98/CD and it won't change.

The bands don't suck, they do what the RIAA member execs tell them. The RIAA doesn't suck, they enforce their copyrights. The fans? Yes, most of the fans suck, and specifically their taste in music is the source of the sucking.

I will now go chill out and listen to some feelgood hippie music I downloaded :-)

Antiquation

It seems like the music industry is dying because it has vastly overestimated the value of the product it sells.

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).

If you are being sued, claim Safe Harbor provision

DMCA has safe harbor provisions for ISPs. You can become an "ISP" if you share your internet connection using a wireless router.

I already wrote about this in another thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77293&cid=6876 918 [slashdot.org]

Share Offline

Take a laptop or a USB hard drive around to
friends and combine your mp3 collections.
Burn a CD spindle or two full of mp3s and
pass it around some more. Ask your co-workers
to borrow their CD collection a little at a
time.

These methods are a little more work than
downloading from KaZaa, but the RIAA can't
spy on you as easily, either.

time to fight back

How often did you hear that ? Time to fight back ? Tired of that phrase ? Maybe you shouldn't - since nobody does it, right now.

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 ... are ... doomed ... to looose!

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"

A war on many fronts:Misinformation and the lot

I all sides to the current arguments on this subject and could easily side with most. What gets me of late is the people who say this argument is nothing but two spoiled kids arguing over a topic of inconsequential value. This would be my reply yot that...

1)Yes we have some very important issues in this day and age. War, economy, healthcare, etc.
2)There are better rights to fight for than downloading music without fear of retribution.
3)The RIAA is grasping at straws.

With all of that being said I can move on to my point...

This isn't simply about downloading music or demonizing and archaeic institution/business model.
This isn't about spoiled kids whining about a god-given luxury.

The underlying theme here is illegal, unethical, and forgoing of certain rights as guaranteed under our constitution. I'm not talking about our right to download free music. I'm talking about punishing copyright infringement reasonably if at all.

Why aren't people upset over a corporation issuing it's own sopoenas without judicial oversight?

Why aren't people challenging their local politicians over passing such bills?

Why are politicians selling our rights as guaranteed under the constitution in exchange for campaign donations?

The laws being past as related to the drm and dmca reach much farther than downloading mp3's. Just think of how it pertains to the future and the extent the corporations will go to to protect their outdated business models. They don't give a damn if you rot in jail for enternity as long as the profits keep rolling in and the American public does nothing to change it. I guess you could say the entire world does nothing as a whole except whine and complain isntead of actually mounting some kind of grass roots uprising.

I hope everyone understand that I'm not even talking about mp3's. I'm talking about our laws and rights and where this is all leading in our collective futures. I'm not some right wing, over conservative thinker with alterior motives protecting my own personal interests. I'm about protecting the rights I've always had and I can see them slowly slipping away, bit by bit. I don't want it to be too late when "joe Average" starts to understand because by then it will be too late and there's no new "America" that we can set forth on ships to regain our freedoms.

The time to act is now and time is of the essence. Don't make this about music. Make this about maintaining what we have always had. The fight with the RIAA is the first of many battles of which will be a long, drawn out war of attrition. Our power is in our voices, pockets, and numbers. We cannot let the greedy few sell our rights in exchange for money and job security.

We can win this...

Legalities of fuzzy recordings

Something I've wondered about is the legalities of 'fuzzy' recordings.

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?