Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

RIAA Files 477 New Filesharing Lawsuits 478

Posted by timothy from the hey-it's-a-nice-number dept.
Fallen Kell writes "According to the CNN story, the RIAA has filed another round of lawsuits against filesharers. This round has many college students who are allegedly sharing music on their university networks. Again, the defendants are listed only by their university IP addresses. No lawsuit has gone to trial yet out of the 2,454 litigations started by the RIAA since it began its crackdown."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Files 477 New Filesharing Lawsuits More

RIAA Files 477 New Filesharing Lawsuits

Comments Filter:

  • When will the backlash come? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jaywalk ( 94910 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:50PM (#9001475) Homepage
    At what point will this prompt a countersuit? Everyone knows the RIAA is suing music downloaders, so it stands to reason that the music downloaders will take steps to hide their identities, including using other people's accounts. If the RIAA stays true to form, they're going to assume that an IP address definitely identifies the culprit, when that is nowhere near true. When do they become legally liable for the false accusations?

    • Re:When will the backlash come? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by The Analog Kid ( 565327 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:53PM (#9001514)
      Some lady in New Jersey is suing the RIAA on racketeering laws, saying that the RIAA is extorting money from filesharers by filing these mass suits and then settling because there is no way these people can legally fight the RIAA.

      • Re:When will the backlash come? (Score:5, Informative)

        by koganuts ( 526569 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:00PM (#9001613)
        Yeah here's the info [com.com]:

        RIAA sued under gang laws

        Last modified: February 18, 2004, 1:39 PM PST
        By John Borland
        Staff Writer, CNET News.com

        It's probably not the first time that record company executives have been likened to Al Capone, but this time a judge might have to agree or disagree.

        A New Jersey woman, one of the hundreds of people accused of copyright infringement by the Recording Industry Association of America, has countersued the big record labels, charging them with extortion and violations of the federal antiracketeering act.

        Through her attorneys, Michele Scimeca contends that by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime.

        "This scare tactic has caused a vast amount of settlements from individuals who feared fighting such a large institution and feel victim to these actions and felt forced to provide funds to settle these actions instead of fighting," Scimeca's attorney, Bart Lombardo, wrote in documents filed with a New Jersey federal court. "These types of scare tactics are not permissible and amount to extortion."

        Scimeca is one of a growing number of people fighting the record industry's copyright infringement campaign against file-swappers, although few have used such creative legal strategies.

        According to the RIAA, which filed its latest round of lawsuits against 531 as-yet-anonymous individuals on Tuesday, it has settled with 381 people, including some who had not yet actually had suits filed against them yet. A total of nearly 1,500 people have been sued so far.

        The industry group says that "a handful" of people have countersued, using a variety of claims.

        "If someone prefers not to settle, they of course have the opportunity to raise their objections in court," an RIAA representative said. "We stand by our claims."

        Few if any of the cases appear to have progressed far, however. The first RIAA lawsuits against individuals were filed more than five months ago, although the majority of people targeted have been part of the "John Doe" campaigns against anonymous individuals this year.

        Several individuals and companies have started by fighting the RIAA attempts to identify music swappers though their Internet service providers (ISPs).

        The most prominent, known by the alleged file-swapper's screen name "Nycfashiongirl," resulted in at least a temporary victory for the computer user. A Washington, D.C., court ruled in December that the RIAA's initial legal process for subpoenaing ISP subscriber identities before filing lawsuits was illegal. Because "Nycfashiongirl" had been targeted under this process, the RIAA dropped its request for her identity.

        However, that may have provided only a temporary reprieve. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group that is closely following the RIAA's campaign, the Internet address used by "Nycfashiongirl" was included in the batch of lawsuits filed on Tuesday against anonymous individuals, raising the likelihood that she will be drawn back into the courts.

        Separate attempts to fight subpoenas are ongoing in North Carolina and St. Louis, where the American Civil Liberties Union and ISP Charter Communications are respectively challenging the RIAA's information requests.

        In San Francisco, computer user Raymond Maalouf has taken the first steps toward fighting the RIAA's suits. His daughters were the ones that used Kazaa to download music, and one of them even wound up in last month's Super Bowl advertisement for Pepsi's iTunes promotion, which featured a handful of teens caught in the RIAA dragnet.

        In documents filed with San Francisco courts, Maalouf's attorneys noted tha

      • Re:When will the backlash come? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by RickHunter ( 103108 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:06PM (#9001672)

        Even worse is that its literally impossible to prove your innocence. Any logs you have can be doctored just as easily as the RIAA can doctor their logs, and most courts are going to be a hell of a lot less likely to believe you. If, OTOH, the Judge places a reasonable burden of evidence on the RIAA, it becomes impossible for them to continue their case. (As was done in Canada, and which the Liberal Party has promised to change if they're re-elected.)

    • If the RIAA stays true to form, they're going to assume that an IP address definitely identifies the culprit, when that is nowhere near true. When do they become legally liable for the false accusations?

      When they make a false one. But nobody's been able to show up and claim that yet.

      Remember, the burden of proof in a civil case is a whole lot lower than that in a criminal case. "This other situation may have existed." just isn't going to fly without evidence supporting that theory.

      • Re:When will the backlash come? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bechthros ( 714240 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:05PM (#9001671) Homepage Journal
        false logic again. Just because nobody *has* shown up to claim that yet doesn't mean they haven't been *able* to. There could well be people who've already pleaded out who seriously didn't do it, but were so terrified of fighting an entire industry and the costs of doing so that they figured it would be easier to make the payout. Just as there are lots of women who are raped who never report it, and victims of organized crime who pay protection money, etc etc. Next.

    • Here's an idea for a backlash (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Windcatcher ( 566458 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @06:11PM (#9002359)
      I'm a Pennsylvania resident. This year, the polling between Bush and Kerry in my state couldn't be closer, and we have a lot of electoral votes. They will be fighting over my state like no other this year. I *always* vote, and until now I've always voted with the party with which I'm registered. I'm registered with one of the two major parties (I'm not saying which one because I want them *both* to squirm).

      I say we start a petition in PA: unless the parties DO SOMETHING (as in *ENACT LAW*) about the current situation regarding fair use, reverse engineering, infinite copyright extension, etc. our votes are GOING TO A THIRD PARTY. It doesn't matter which one, as long as it's not one of the two major parties. Let's make our message clear: IF YOU WANT TO RETAIN OUR LOYALTY AND HAVE A SHOT AT GETTING THIS STATE, YOU WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BEFORE ELECTION DAY. I can't think of any greater kick in the political balls than this. The politicians have made it clear they don't care about us, so let's see how they respond to fear.

    • Re:When will the backlash come? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by macdaddy357 ( 582412 ) <macdaddy357@hotmail.com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @06:40PM (#9002571)
      The backlash would be if everyone stops buying CDs, [dontbuycds.org] and the labels have no money to bring frivolous lawsuits. It seems, however that the latest teen pop shiat keeps flying right off the shelves, lining the pockets of the RIAA and affiliated labels' executives. Kids, stop feeding the hand that bites you!

  • New TV show announced: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:51PM (#9001480)
    Law & Order: RIAA
    • Law & Order: RIAA

      It's more like CSI:RIAA

    • Re:New TV show announced: (Score:5, Funny)

      by base3 ( 539820 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:05PM (#9001663)
      Cool--got a .torrent?

  • A 437-0 record with 437 wins by knockout... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:51PM (#9001483)
    None of these lawsuits have gone to trial, but the RIAA has a record of 437 settlements and zero dismissals.

    That is to say, nobody's been able to force the RIAA to trial and say that the lawsuit is outright bogus. Some have been sucessful in delay tactics, but everybody facing a trial date settles for their entire life savings rather than risk a bankruptcy-forcing verdict that takes away everything the defendant owns.

    The RIAA's lawsuits have thus far been entirely spot-on. They've yet to accuse somebody who "didn't do it". Illegal music filesharers beware... you have a substatial risk of having to pay the piper. Don't do it.

  • Oh Canada (Score:3, Funny)

    by Curtman ( 556920 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:52PM (#9001489)
    O Canada!
    Our home and native land!
    True patriot love in all thy sons command.

    With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
    The True North strong and free!

    From far and wide,
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

    God keep our land glorious and free!
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

    • Re:Oh Canada (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phorm ( 591458 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:59PM (#9001589) Journal
      Yeah, you keep singing, and don't forgot to pay your tax on every CD-R or MP3 storage device that you buy... nevermind that that probably far exceeds losses by piracy
      • We have the same situation here as in Canada (both regarding downloading and taxes), but it's pretty simple to get around the taxes. Just buy the CD's you need through a company (taxes are lifted) or buy from a country that doesn't have taxes. If you buy enough CD's at a time, the shipping charges become neglible.

    • Re:Oh Canada (Score:4, Funny)

      by Vargasan ( 610063 ) <[swhisken] [at] [rogers.com]> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:00PM (#9001617) Homepage
      O Canada! Terre de nos aïeux,
      Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!

      Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
      Il sait porter la croix!

      Ton histoire est une épopée
      Des plus brillants exploits.

      Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
      Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

      Protégera nos foyers et nos droits

  • None to trial? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:53PM (#9001502) Homepage Journal
    Are we supposed to take it that all of those have been settled (supposedly by paying the RIAA)?

    I wonder if there are any instances of the RIAA saying "oh, well you clearly know your rights and have not done anything illegal, so never mind."

    There was that Mac user who was accused of sharing over a P2P that isn't available for Mac...

    • Re:None to trial? (Score:3, Informative)

      by shark72 ( 702619 )

      "Are we supposed to take it that all of those have been settled (supposedly by paying the RIAA)?"

      Most have. A few have been dismissed (the most famous is the grandmother who has a Mac [wired.com]). At least one has countersued [msn.com]. But for the most part they've been paying up.

      A good way to avoid being sued by the RIAA is to not dump 1,000 copyrighted songs into your Kazaa share directory. A good rule of thumb is "if you are not sure if you have the right to redistribute something, don't."

      • Re:None to trial? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Dr Caleb ( 121505 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:18PM (#9001812) Homepage Journal
        A good rule of thumb is "if you are not sure if you have the right to redistribute something, don't."

        I have thousands of MP3's, named the same as albums, artists and tracks. They are 3k-4k of random noise. eg: "Madonna - Sympathy for the Devil.mp3"

        As was pointed out during the original hearing to release names of users here in Canada, the CIRA had no proof of what was actually in the files that people were sharing. No one downloaded the files, then listened to them. There was no trail of evidence, so it was dismissed.

        Share junk - let them download it - maintian CD backups of the originals - maintian download and connection logs - and countersue for racketeering. Get rich quick.

      • Most have. A few have been dismissed (the most famous is the grandmother who has a Mac). At least one has countersued. But for the most part they've been paying up.

        I guess honestly if you play with fire then expect to get punished. I was speeding, got pulled over and got a speeding ticket. Instead of bitching about it I just paid it. I was clearly in the wrong doing almost 20mph over the limit. People sharing hundreds of songs via the Internet is clearly illegal and they should expect consequences if

  • Fuck! (Score:5, Funny)

    by dupper ( 470576 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:53PM (#9001509) Journal
    This is clearly all Keith J. Winstein's [slashdot.org] fault!

    How many times do people have to be reminded:

    DON'T TAUNT THE FUCKING DYNAMITE MONKEY

  • Time to scare your friends (Score:5, Funny)

    by Brento ( 26177 ) * <brento.brentozar@com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:54PM (#9001518) Homepage
    Heh heh heh - time to dust off my fake RIAA lawsuit press release [68.93.68.105] to scare your friends with. It's a press release ripped off Yahoo, but you can fill in your friend's name and occupation to generate an official-looking link. Tell them you saw their name in the press release, and watch 'em drop their coffee. The link to turn themselves down at the end of the article clues them in that they've been had. Generate a personalized link at http://www.brentozar.com/breakingnews/ [brentozar.com].

    Last time I published this on Slashdot, a few people got fooled so badly they sent me threatening emails. Hee hee... Of course, last time, I didn't get near the top of the postings, so my server didn't get much of a load. I can almost hear the DSL line screaming in protest as I click Submit.

    Oddly, I only had to change the date and a couple of numbers. The other headlines on the page still ring true as current: rebuilding Iraq, SCO's salvation, and the flash mob craze.
    • Cute, but I think your program may have a race condition in the ID assignment; I've tried several times now and I think I'm getting other people's information.

      I think you're doing a "SELECT MAX(id) FROM database" when writing the link out onto the screen but you can't do that; other records are being inserted before the link is written. But that is just a guess.

      I was able to hack the URL to find the one I want to send to a friend, though, so thanks from me.
    • I tried this on several people, all saying they got either blank or server error pages.

      Puzzled I fired up Internet Exploder and sure enough the URLs give "Invalid Syntax errors".

      Apparently that recent patch that blocked URL spoofing disallows all addresses with username:password@domain.

      I guess I will have to convince all of my gullible friends to upgrade to firefox before I can trick them. :/

  • Permission mask? (Score:5, Funny)

    by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:55PM (#9001537) Homepage Journal
    from the hey-it's-a-nice-number dept.

    I was trying to figure out what the editors meant by this, so I'm guessing they're talking about file permissions?

    4 7 7 = 100 111 111

    Owner has read-only
    Group has read-write-execute
    World has read-write-execute

    The implication is clear. RIAA doesn't have execute access to their own lawsuits, so they don't plan on actually following through. However, the World will probably Execute by deleting their files. If not, then the Group (ie the university or corporate network) will Execute the offending User.

    I've probably shown how little I understand both this joke *and* *NIX file permissions, all in one post.
    • Letters belong to those who they were sent to... so...

      The named person can read-it-and-weep...
      There's a massive group with power to execute...
      and the rest of the world can gang up too...
  • I'm really worried. I think I might be one of the people the RIAA sued.

    I just got this e-mail a few minutes ago with a subject saying that the RIAA is watching me and that I need to buy something called "KaZaA Gold" to get them off my back.

    What should I do??? I'm really nervous!

  • They had better win (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:56PM (#9001560)
    IANAL but, the RIAA had better win. If they don't win they will then have files 2,454 frivolous lawsuits. That's something the courts frown upon.

  • Protect your privacy (Score:4, Informative)

    by fiber0pti ( 728998 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:57PM (#9001566)
    http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/

  • This is about to lose meaning. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Geancanach ( 652302 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:57PM (#9001567)
    The more people they sue, the less meaning the lawsuits have. Realistically, how are they going to go after thousands of people? So their lawsuits will just become small news items that fail to scare anyone. What is the point?

  • Who? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:00PM (#9001609)
    Anyone know where we can get a look at the list of IPs? I can't seem to find anything new on the EFF list of subpoened IPs [eff.org]
  • ...do people with mobile IP or DHCP have to file for a change of name?

  • Musings (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:01PM (#9001624)

    I can't help but wonder if there is a warehouse in Bangalore with rows of tables and computers, and workers trying to download music off the internet.

  • Awful principle (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lazy_arabica ( 750133 )
    I always hated the principle to sue a few people, 'as an example', with in mind the idea that if they are severely punished, nobody else will do it again. It only shows one thing : the RIAA does not care about people. They could destroy one's life, they don't care if it can bring them $$$.

  • If you want to do something about it.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by phaetonic ( 621542 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:02PM (#9001635)
    This website [boycott-riaa.com] has a plethora of information regarding the RIAA's current fights, things you can do to fight them, and some anti-RIAA propaganda. Interesting stuff..

  • Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NEOtaku17 ( 679902 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:02PM (#9001637) Homepage
    Why is it that digital photos are not legal evidence in a court case but if they have your IP address doing the downloading(or uploading) automatically means you did it? Because computers don't lie? BS! I can think of a hundred ways that they could have false positives(such as IP spoofing and and using stolen remote connection and the like). I don't see how they could get it right everytime and that those people wouldn't fight it.
    • Unfortunately, most people dont fight it because
      A) they did it or
      B) they dont want to go to the expense of hireing a lawyer to fight it in court. or
      C) both
      This creates a situation similar to the Direct TV smart card lawsuits where a Extremely rich and pollitically powerful company uses those assets to intimidate and harass common citizens that can't afford to mount a defense. Basically it's extortion.

      Support the EFF and hopefully they can put a stop to this kind of harrassment.

  • Kazaa users are the RIAA's candy jars (Score:3, Interesting)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:07PM (#9001687) Homepage Journal
    This is a great business model for the RIAA.
    File lawsuits a few hundred at a time and let the checks roll in.

    Too bad no one stands to gain financially by fighting back.
    Also too bad (correct me if I'm wrong) they choose to sue people who are either quite young or who are quite old.
    Have yet to hear of the RIAA sue someone who is say... 30's to 40's, owns a house and can afford some decent attornies.

    Considering the age groups I've seen publicised, it makes me wonder just how random the RIAA's Kazaa user sampling really is. Until someone actively stands up and fights back, no precedent shall be set on this.
    Sure, the person might loose and have to pay more than they would have if they just settled... guess what we need is a good samaritan to step forth and martyr his/her self.
    I don't mind the RIAA getting *something* for the bits that were downloaded for free, what about 0.99$ US per provably non-fair use download plus court costs for their time?

    This sue for bags of cash and take a few grand to be "mercifull" crap needs to stop.

  • I wonder when they'll get ME.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dustinbarbour ( 721795 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:09PM (#9001708) Homepage
    Whoopety doo.. 437 lawsuits is it? And how many people did I see co nnected to KaZaA the other night? What? A million you say? Let's see. Up to now, I stand a scant 0.0437% chance of being sued. I think I'll take my chances.

  • Business 101 (Score:5, Funny)

    by pvt_medic ( 715692 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:09PM (#9001713)
    What a great business model. You cant sell CD's because there nothing good coming out these days, and they are drastically over priced. So to stay economically viable you sue everyone. This way you dont havet to pay the artist and keep the money for yourself.

    I would love to see what percentage of these agregious file sharers are sharing new songs or older songs.

  • Crackdown (Score:2, Funny)

    by Caharin ( 690600 )

    No lawsuit has gone to trial yet out of the 2,454 litigations started by the RIAA since it began its crackdown.

    Extra emphasis on the crack.

  • RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by perlfu_ ( 775406 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:13PM (#9001757)
    At this rate it seems they may never really put a dent in the file-sharing community!

  • Random observations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by boomgopher ( 627124 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:17PM (#9001799) Journal
    Not sure what exactly I'm trying to say with this post, but these are a few of my random observations on this:

    Many/most people today (especially young people), do not view file sharing of music and videos as wrong.

    The entertainment industry has done more in the past 50 years to promote a youthful recklessness/lawlessness and a 'fuck the man' attitude. Now that it's turning around and hurting their own profits, they're resorting to strongarm tactics to scare kids into line.

    This puts a cloud of fear over my and other's perception of the entertainment industry. Entertainment is supposed to be a light distraction from real life - it's not a requirement like food, clothing, and shelter. As such, I feel like people are being treated like cattle, and are being force-fed 'entertainment'.

    The percieved value of music and other types of media is dropping. I personally laugh at the idea of buying a $10-$20 CD anymore - it no longer seems worth it. $1 per mp3/aac/whatever is equally laughable. I'd personally be willing to pay about 10 cents a song (with no DRM). I have no idea if this is even economically feasible. But that still doesn't change what I'm willing to pay.



  • Wow, we're on a roll today! (Score:3, Funny)

    by DroopyStonx ( 683090 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:24PM (#9001875)
    An interview with fuckwad Valenti, and now more RIAA lawsuits! Woweee!

    They're sure doing a good job into scaring me... scaring me so much that tonight, I'm gonna be downloading more than normal!

    Got Movies? [newzbin.com]
    Got Music? [newzbin.com]

    I do NOW, and so can you! Aim your middle fingers at them and grin, because this is the best weapon against 'em.

  • Flea Market Pirates are the Real Crooks. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Peschula ( 774267 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:30PM (#9001949)
    I am in the independent music/ film industry in Wilmington, NC and couldn't care less about who downloads my music. However if I did have some success and money invested in advertising and one of these people burned it and sold it at the flea market I would sue. I don't think the RIAA gives two sh*ts about downloaders either - just the bootleggers. It goes the same for the alcohol industry and moonshiners. In a capitalist economic system you can't have a business without a license and avoid the ability for your product to be taxed. Also these flea market distributers don't have enough command to know how to do business research on their own - only steal.

  • Students: Ask your administrator! (Score:3, Informative)

    by djcatnip ( 551428 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:34PM (#9001989) Homepage Journal
    seriously, other companies are charging institutions for the privelege of offering their draconian DRM laiden music services. iTunes on campus was announced this morning, and it's free for your school! ask your administrators to please sign up for it!

  • My Music Library. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Biotech9 ( 704202 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:52PM (#9002177) Homepage
    Around a week ago i divided my music library into 2 smart playlists, one was 'Songs I own', and the other, 'Songs I don't own'.

    Intially there was just around 10 gigs I did own, and 15 i didn't. Then i decided not to add more music unless It was stuff i DID own, and I had to take away correspondingly much from the playlist of music i DIDN'T own.

    I now have around 15 gigs I do own, and 10 i don't, which has led me to two points.

    (1) Why did I do this, was it because the RIAA are scary? Or am i obsessive compulsive?

    (2) The playlist for music i don't own is actually now (now that i've stripped it down to the good stuff), a really good shopping list of music i should buy. And i probably will.

    So, does the RIAA tactics work? Am i going to buy new music because of these scary law suits?

    (really, i want to know!)

  • Transformative Uses of an MP3 (Score:3, Informative)

    by blckbllr ( 242654 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @08:35PM (#9003412)
    I don't know how many of you speak legalese, but what about a transformative use of an MP3? When determining whether a person has engaged in copyright infringement through the use of a copyrighted material, courts often look at whether the use was a transformative one. In this context, "transformative" can mean "different from."

    For those of you with access to law libraries, look at Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 280 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002). The opinion in Kelly has been reissued, but it has not changed with respect to the discussion on transformative uses.

    Unfortunately, I do not have the skills to implement the following idea:
    What if someone could take an MP3, parse the audio signal into a series of colors and/or symbols, and reproduce that music as a digital image. For example, maybe using this software would reproduce a Korn song or a New Found Glory song into a landscape, artscape, or colorscape. This would probably constitute a transformative use because the music has been converted into a digital image. The next step would be for someone to write software that would take these digital images and re-interpreting them as music. However, the decoding process should work with any images, less a court find that the decoding software is contributing to copyright infringement. I think one tenant of copyright law is that so long as there are legal, noninfringing uses of the device, then the device is generally legal (e.g., a VCR).

    Anyone given any thought to making transformative uses of MP3s? This way, one could distribute an "image" of New Found Glory's "Better Off Dead" without technically committing copyright infringement.

    Love to hear your thoughts.

    -BB

  • this has got to stop and this is why.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MoFoQ ( 584566 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @09:13PM (#9003641)
    this really has to stop. 2,454 lawsuits, none go through, but it still, it means that the courts have to process not just the initial suits, but also the settlements. That takes time away from more deserving cases including tyco, enron, worldcom, reliant/dynergy (in california), etc. (the civil suits that is). It's a waste of taxpayers money to do this. And using public resources to further one's bottomline is suppose to be a no-no. Of course the old argument that this is a form of extortion; the fact that the whole and sole intent of filing the lawsuit is to intimidate and force those who don't have an army of lawyers at their disposal nor the law-savy to know that they have rights, pretty much get defrauded.

    And another, just because they settle the civil suit doesn't mean smooth sailing from that point on. There's still the risk of a criminal suit if an "anonymous informant" gives the feds the info, in which case, the Recording Industry Ass. of America can and might get some more money. Double jeopardy in their favor (or lack there of).

    In essence, you can actually categorize the Recording Industry Ass. of America as a terrorist organization. Webster's dictionary defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." Using a threat of legal action against defenseless, unexpecting individuals with an army of lawyers definitely qualifies as inducing terror as a means to coerce or to extort. Hell, I prefer the mob over the Recording Industry Ass. of America. At least they don't target 12yr-old girls [theregister.co.uk]. That's low; lower than Hamas [myway.com] in some ways. (I won't use Michael Jackson to compare and contrast....as the saying goes "innocent until proven guilty* *-Unless you don't have millions for an army of lawyers") To target kids with lawsuits, the old addage, "taking candy from a baby" comes to mind and it's not right.

    At least the RIAA has finally shown its true colors. Wait until they sue someone who died while serving their country (or a person in a coma); there will be hell to pay then. I hope that the politicians (especially those facing re-election) finally set up to the plate and condemn them and start passing more strict (or start enforcing existing) laws that prohibit using lawsuits or the threat of such with the sole intent to settle, which amount to a form of extortion.

Slashdot Top Deals

New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.

Close