RIAA Warns Individual Swappers 511
Joey Patterson writes "CNET News.com reports that the RIAA has sent cease-and-desist letters to four individuals for allegedly pirating its music on P2P networks." They have yet to publicly release the names of who they have contacted, but 4 of the 5 were Verizon subscribers involved with their previous high profile case.
Thank God (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank God (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank God (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thank God (Score:3, Informative)
The music industry (they really deserve the title of Syndicate) lied in the past about CD prices. Even though CDs are far easier for them to produce, they still hold a higher cost than cassette tapes. They told us that the prices would come down when the technology had matured and paid for itself. That time has long passed. Prices are still high.
They lo
Re:ARE YOU AN IDIOT (Score:3, Interesting)
That doesn't stand up at all. I'm not saying that p2p music copying is right, and I don't do it myself (ok, I did, once, on a friend's computer; I wanted to listen to the Soviet National Anthem, so I downloaded it with Kazaa), but downloading music from the internet harms no-one. The only possible cause of harm is if you were going to buy the music otherwise. Personally, I have bought o
Re:ARE YOU AN IDIOT (Score:3, Interesting)
What exactly are they covering for? It's fair to say that Wal-Mart would have to raise prices substantially if, say, 5% of their inventory was routinely shoplifted. The people who bought the other 95% would have to absorb the costs.
But how does digitally copying a song inflate the prices of CDs? I never understood that. If all the music stealers were going to the brick-and-mortar music stores and literally stealing the CDs, yes, it would be cause to raise CD prices to force
Re:Thank God (Score:4, Funny)
Next week we learn how to keep yourself safe from the billions of evil baby raping pedophiles who infest the internet.
Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news... dead horse beating spreads (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In other news... dead horse beating spreads (Score:3, Funny)
Something tells me I'll be getting my letter when I'm in my 90's.
â¦Dear Honest Man, 60 plus years ago you transferred âoemetallica â" enter sandman.mp3â and we want an interest compounded amount of $45,161.448.15 for that single act of infringementâ¦â¦
Honestly though - after legal costs and the h
Re:In other news... dead horse beating spreads (Score:5, Funny)
Your Jedi mind tricks will not work on me...
Re:In other news... dead horse beating spreads (Score:3, Interesting)
I only get scared and offended when a copyright holder attempts to ban entire technologies, or attempts to bypass the existing and sufficient legal options which are currently in place.
Do you get scared and offended when the FSF attempts to enforce the GPL when someone violates it? How is this
Re:In other news... dead horse beating spreads (Score:3, Informative)
That would be perfectly fine, except that RIAA doesn't need to get court's approval anymore. That's what the Verizon lawsuit was about. RIAA can virtually directly go to ISPs and demand suspected violators' personal information. They have more power than law enforcement itself.
Just Wondering... (Score:2, Interesting)
And people stay with them.... why?
I mean, isnt it time to get a new provider? If everyone left, then maybe they'd fight the fight again...
Re:Just Wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA (and anyone else) can simply point to the Verizon lawsuit as presidence in any future case where they want the names of "pirates".
Personally, I'd like to see the C&D letters the RIAAs henchmen sent out. I'd bet Hillary Rosen's soul (assuming she actually has one) that they're demanding payment for "infringing" on the "artitst's rights".
Re:Just Wondering... (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now.
ARTIST: Er...can I talk to someone about my contract?
RIAA Front Desk: How much did you make for us on your last release? ARTIST: Uh...$500,000. ish. RIAA FD: In that case, no. But I feel sorry for you, so here's a buck for your next cardboard house.
Re:Just Wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, isnt it time to get a new provider? If everyone left, then maybe they'd fight the fight again...
I seem to remember Verizon refusing to turn over the subscriber names to the RIAA and fighting a court battle for their privacy. Only after losing that fight and being ordered by the courts to turn over the information did they finally consent. And even then they waited until the imposed deadline. Now you are advocating that everyone leave a provider that resisted and fought the RIAA? Just because they ultimately lost in court? Good luck finding many with the balls to challenge the RIAA. I've never used Verizon for any service, but I'd hardly fault them for this.
Re:Just Wondering... (Score:5, Informative)
In a word, NO. They ratted a customer to the US Navy without any legal basis for doing so. Check here [wiredstrategies.com]
Re:Just Wondering... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the last straw. . . (Score:5, Funny)
It won't work (Score:3, Funny)
You'll have to keep pirating songs instead.
Re:It won't work (Score:3, Funny)
It sure put me off my lunch.
The usual scare tactics (Score:4, Interesting)
As usual the RIAA is resorting to the use of FUD to stop people swapping music. College Students, High School Kids and Lone P2P Users are very easy targets for a massive corporate body.
It may even be working to a certain degree.
Re:The usual scare tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure they are going to try to make examples out of some folks, but they are just going to be playing whack-a-mole.
Now, do I personally like that people distribute copyrighted material on p2p networks? No. I think the practice is wrong. (Then again, so is xeroxing sheet music for the chuch choir.)
The Music industry is perfectly legally correct. The problem is the same as if I was legally correct in proceeding through a green light while a Mac truck was blowing the red in the other direction. I end up in traction regardless of how many tickets the truck got.
Re:The usual scare tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The usual scare tactics (Score:5, Informative)
Selective enforcement only comes into play when there's a possibility of civil rights being violated. Firing an employee because their age, race, handicap, sexual lifestyle, etc, is illegal.
In a long line of speeding cars, the officer can choose any car he wants to pull over. If all cars were identical, with tinted windows so the officer could not see inside, and everyone had the same plates, then there would be no concern about "profiling", which is illegal.
Since all the users were anonymous until Verizon released their names, there's no "selective enforcement", as long as it sent C&D letters to all the people. If they got 100 names, and sent letters to 30 that seemed to be middle-class can't-afford-a-good-lawyer-but-still-has-some-mon
Can you download me now? (Score:3, Funny)
Cease and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cease and... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cease and... (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it inconceivable that the name of a file in a log is sufficient proof of criminal conduct. If I rename workout_log.xls to bush_assassination_plan.doc am I guilty of a criminal conspiracy to kill the President? No, of course not. If there is sufficient evidence of illegal activity a search warrant would be required to look at the actual content of a file. But, you're right about one point. These days a jury could conclude almost anything despite the evidence or the facts.
Re:Cease and... (Score:5, Funny)
The Department Of Homeland Security is pleased to inform you that the enemy of freedom known as "Octagon Most" in online terrorist circles has been eliminated.
Re:Cease and... (Score:5, Funny)
Patriotically,
Octagonmost
Re:Cease and... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. You are also guilty of posting the concept of renaming out files to "bush_assassination_plan.doc" on Slashdot to a large audience. You are a terrorist, and will be delt with accordingly.
(And it gets worse if you share mp3s.)
Correct and untampered log files still worthless (Score:5, Interesting)
As it happens, the file is named "Metallica_Enter_Sandman.mp3" on most of the clients, and the "hicksville.mp3" was renamed such by another user who wanted to hide it. You still have no idea that it's a Metallica song you download, as you searched for hicksville.mp3.
The logs of those you download from, and who might be RIAA agents, might well show that you're downloading a Metallica song, but in this case there was no intent to do so. During the download process, others can also download parts of the file from you -- before you've had a chance to check it out. Logs from the outside will show that when someone searches for "Sandman.mp3", yours is one of the hosts that share it out. So you're also sharing it out -- thing is that you might not know, and it might not be your intent!
Summing up: There's no guarantee that the file name on the sending side is the same file name as on the receiving side, or that the file-sharing user even knows that there's a discrepancy. The file name on the remote side must be dismissed as evidence.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Cease and... (Score:4, Funny)
What quality setting would that file've been encoded with?
Re:Cease and... (Score:5, Funny)
Assuming that a 5 meg file at 192 kbps is 3 minutes 30 seconds long then a 10,303,334 meg file is approximately 13.75 years worth of Metalica.
That shouldn't be a crime, but the punishment.
Re:Cease and... (Score:5, Funny)
It's the Extended Dance Remix version.
k.
Re:Cease and... (Score:3, Interesting)
Downloading music is not illegal in and of itself. It is unauthorized distribution that is illegal, as well as possesion of copyrighted materials *knowingly* obtained through unauthorized distribution (this basically means that you must have had probable and reasonable cause to suspect that the source you obtained the material from had, in fact, been authorized). A person who is willing to bear 100% of the legal risk of unauthorized distribution (that is
Wow actually going against people who broke the la (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow actually going against people who broke the (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if these people were totally innocent of any civil or criminal wrongdoing (which I doubt) the cost of successfully defending themselves would bankrupt them -- not, of course, that innocence is any guaranteee of victory.
And, if they were in fact guilty of some civil tort, they would face paying for, not the actual damage that they may have caused, but rather huge *statutory* damages.
Great system: Cause some RIAA member $1.25 in damage, and face $1.25 million in costs. Nothing like equal justice under law.
Re:Wow actually going against people who broke the (Score:5, Interesting)
Why the quote marks, dude? They *did* break the law. You may not like the law, anymore than you like the speed limit, but it's still the law. Going after the P2P software guys was like going after the auto manufacturers because they enable speeding violations. And logic bombing an alleged transgressor's PC is just plain wrong. Going after the individual -- speeder or downloader -- is the right and fair way to do it.
If you don't like the law -- speed limit or copyright -- you can break it, and hope you don't get caught, obey it grudgingly, or speak out to your legislators to get it repealed.
The "Napster Era" is over, friend. We wanted to be able to sample and acquire music online at a fair price, and it is now available. We wanted the Powers That Be to lay off the P2P technology itself, and now that's happening, it seems.
Time to move on. You want to do 90 in a 55 MPH zone, that is your prerogative. I do it myself occasionally. It's just not a news story, or a movement, or a cause celebre, any more, and that's fine.
Re:Wow actually going against people who broke the (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, not quite. It may be the way you interpret copyright and fair use law, and it certainly is the way the RIAA interprets it, but it is not as cut-and-dried as you may think. Other legal viewpoints say that fair use is still being invoked in many P2P cases, and P2P can be used for obviously non-infringing files. Ultimately things will be decided by conclusive court cases, at which point you may be able to say definitively they broke the law. Right now it's just a point-of-view that is being propagandized to the masses, and to the courts.
And to your point, the propaganda is mostly working.
-----------
Verizon now hosts RIAA website (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Verizon now hosts RIAA website (Score:2)
Re:Verizon now hosts RIAA website (Score:2)
Re:Verizon now hosts RIAA website (Score:2)
i find this more scary than anything else...
Re:Verizon now hosts RIAA website (Score:3, Funny)
I don't buy CDs (Score:5, Interesting)
Just my $0.02 .
Re:I don't buy CDs (Score:5, Funny)
Heh...at least you have $0.02 to spare. I did purchase some CDs from the major music labels...
It's like the lawsuit lottery! (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing is you have much better chance at getting caught going 90 in 60 than you do with 40 GB of mp3s on your hard drive. So they've got 9 people so far. 9 lucky winnners of the RIAA lawsuit lottery! I'm pretty sure this will stop just about no from 'buying their tickets.' (i.e. pirating)
trading files (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah....and? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah....and? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah....and? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's currently illegal for me to drive 80 mph on I-696 in Michigan. In fact, if I get caught, it'll cost me at least $100 or so. That's a lot of money. Speeding to work every morning saves me -- what? 5 minutes? If I'm late to work by 5 minutes, I don't make so much an hour that it's going to cost me $100. It would be much more sensible economically to be 5 minutes (and receive a resulting 15-minute
Re:Yeah....and? (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree with you that they can't take everyone to court and that others will continue mooching files. However, I also look at it your post and wonder if your thinking would be adjusted if they smacked you with a gajillion dollar lawsuit; that's my issue with people taking an apathetic stance on these things.
Note to self... (Score:5, Funny)
-Check stash for those drunken nude Hilary Rosen pics...just in case.
D
Why... (Score:3, Funny)
Letter delivery? How? (Score:5, Funny)
Thank goodness I never check my verizon.net e-mail address!
Obligatory Star Wars quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the best way to generate business is to treat your customers like criminals.
Re:Obligatory Star Wars quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, no. Technically not. What they are doing may render them civilly liable, and it is morally questionable. In general, they are not criminals--in most jurisdictions, they are not committing a crime within the definition of criminal law.
Yes, I do know I sound pedantic. Nevertheless, this sort of semantic distinction is quite important--if we are going to discuss legal issues, we should take the time to use technically correct language. To take an example likely more familiar to the Slashdot crowd--how many of us have friends or family who just don't get the distinction between memory and hard drive space? As in, "My new computer has eighty gigabytes of memory. That's a lot, isn't it?" Members of the legal profession no doubt cringe at Slashdot legal discussions the way that Slashdotters cringe at technical commentary from the lay public.
Re:17 USC 506 (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, for most casual file traders, Sec.506(a)(1) doesn't apply, so let's look at (2). It looks like you have to download $1000 (retail) worth of music in a 180 day period--about six months. At about a buck of retail value per track, that's 1000 songs in six months. Some people do collect music at that rate--but I suspect it's a small fraction of the population. Maybe it should be a Slashdot poll.
It certainly means that it is inappropriate to describe individuals with moderate file collections 'criminals'. Heck, mp3s have been readily available for what, about five years now? If you download steadily, you could have acquired a ten thousand song music library without committing a criminal act. It may also be difficult in a criminal case to prove that the requisite amount of music was downloaded within the 180 day time frame. It might be difficult to find a prosecutor who wanted to go to the trouble of charging you, even if you asked very nicely. Civil proceedings still make more sense.
Re:Obligatory Star Wars quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, I work out every morning at the gym or at the park. I take my Rio S30S with me every morning so I can have some good workou
Gripe/Rant About RIAA Posts (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, these people aren't 'swapping' anything. That implies a trade where one item (or file) is exchanged for another one, with an implied transfer of ownership. They are COPYING music from one another, not trading it (and trading CDs is NOT illegal, contrary to what some seem to believe).
And that brings me to rant #2. It's easy to regard the RIAA as an Evil(tm) organization when you read (and believe) some of the things people claim the RIAA believes/practices. People here have claimed that the RIAA wants such things as making individual backups of personal CDs, and playing said backups on their computer illegal, and that is simply not true! People make these claims without providing a shred of evidence to back up their assertions. They might as well be accusing Hillary Rosen of violating young children, with as much proof they base their statements on.
Please read this article [pbs.org] which clarifies many of the misconceptions about the RIAA's position on fair usage. I think some of you will be very surprised (I know I was).
Is the RIAA perfect? Not even close. But putting words into their mouth for the sake of tricking people into thinking you know something they don't is no way to conduct an honest and meaningful discussion.
Re:Gripe/Rant About RIAA Posts (Score:3)
Please, please, please! give me some of what you're smokin'. Who the heck do you think came up with the insane idea to make CD's incompatible with computers and other CD players by putting on a lame "copy-protection scheme" that could be defeated with a black magic marker?
Re:Gripe/Rant About RIAA Posts (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it? I've read the article too and while that isn't their stated aim, it's certainly the result of the DMCA, which is the RIAA's baby. On the last page of the article, the interviewee avoids the question altogether and suggests that not being able to make copies of your disks is somehow good for you!
Of home 'fair use copying, they say:
You should feel free to copy it onto other formats, such as .mp3, so that you can listen to it on your computer.
But if they will only sell you a copy-protected disk, which under the DMCA, it is illegal to crack, then how do you make your fair use copy? Answer: you can't. That's the problem with the RIAA and the DMCA.
I needn't even go into the massive lobbying for copyright extension so they can keep charging for stuff that should now be publicly owned; the heavy-handed threats; the pursuit of people who hadn't done anything; and finally their incredibly stupid assertion that their cartel keeping CD prices high has nothing to do with declining CD sales.
J.
C&D for 1 file! (Score:5, Interesting)
How much is too much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is downloading a catchy tune I heard on the local Clear Channel station gonna get me busted? What if I share it after downloading?
Will I have the RIAA coming after me for downloading (and then sharing) the latest Billboard Top 20 Dance/Club tracks?
Or does it take me downloading Blender's "500 albums I must own before I die" and then sharing those to the world?
Exactly how much can I get away with?
It seems these kids must be doing something incredibly stupid to get the RIAA coming down on them when there must be many millions of people sharing at a given moment.
What a great world (Score:3, Interesting)
Ive never ripped a CD in my life, my biggest crime is downloading mp3's and allowing my P2P software to share them with others. Ive never speeded, commited murder, rape, genocide, ive never mugged or assulted anyone, or shoplifted or burgled. Im not a pedophile or an international terrorist, and ive never held power in a government while doing dodgy financial dealings for my own gain.
I've paid my Starbucks and McDonalds tax, and i even watch commercials sometimes.
But, i could still be raided at 6am and have my computer confiscated and get a criminal record and loose everything just for downloading music. FFS ive never even intended to buy a CD, if i didnt download things i would only listen to the radio.
What a great world were everyone gets their prioritys right.
No seriously... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No seriously... (Score:3, Informative)
You can't 'turn yourself in'. The act that you have engaged in is copyright violation: a civil infraction. The copyright holder may sue you, but the police cannot arrest you--you have not, legally speaking, committed a criminal act. You can turn yourself in, but they'll laugh and send you on your way. They have nothing t
RIAA has no clue (Score:4, Insightful)
How much does all this legal bullcrap add to the overpriced cost of music?
I kinda get the impression that the only reason they do this is to facilitate RIAA's own existance so they can say "see look what we are doing for artists?" What I say to artists is this... take a look at Janis Ian's website http://www.janisian.com/ [janisian.com] she effectively uses the web to to keep her fans in tune to her music long after the recording companies (RIAA) found her to be "unprofitable".
I've said it before and I'll say it again... RIAA and the Record Companies do not make artists into stars, their Fans do.
RIAA bite my dingleberry-crusted ass, i'd rather sit in the dark and hum to myself rather than deal with your crap, that's why your sales have been lagging recently.
Stop hiding behind your lawyers and start listing to the Fans/Customers, peace = contentment, you want peace in the music bus make your customers content. Here's a little clue your attorneys are not the answer, didn't you get the memo?
Ironic that this should happen today... (Score:3, Funny)
p2p is old school. (Score:4, Interesting)
These days, I use streamripper [sourceforge.net]. To snag shoutcast streams. I set it to download a stream, queue songs up for an hour, then start listening to them. As I listen I delete the ones I don't want.
I've found a lot of new music this way, and the network admins don't really mind because I'm not using one of the banned p2p clients anyway.
RIAA won't do what it needs to do.. (Score:3, Interesting)
What should the RIAA do? Quietly acknowledge that they are powerless against p2p 'sharing', that new laws are not needed, but that they will continue lawsuits against large p2p 'sharing' users. At the same time
- sabotage the p2p networks by setting up a couple hundred servers in the US (and abroad) with their library spread through-out. Each song on their servers would be specially modified after the first thirty- to sixty-seconds by application of special filters to render the remaining content to noise. Servers would log IP addresses of downloaders and other servers would investigate quantity & type of files being 'shared' by the downloader for possible later legal actions.
- introduce legal downloads using non-DRM format (mp3, ogg, etc). Downloads would be priced according to quality of encoding (ie $.25 for "92", $.50 for "128", $.75 for "192", $1 for "256"). Download would be bound by license, with ample 'fair-use' rights, and some FUD against 'sharing' (ie download has been watermarked, we will prosecute if you 'share', etc). After maybe 3 months if the service is popular then the price starts dropping by $.10 every 6-9 months.
These are examples of what I would do if I were in charge of the RIAA. If anybody at the RIAA is reading - please feel free to use these ideas.
Isn't that a bit hard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright vs. Copyleft (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time you get pissed the RIAA is going after some college student, imagine Bill Gates is personally inserting your code into the next version of Windows, and you have to think of a way to counter it... Would you just let it slide? Probably not...
And yet 75% of slashdot posters seem think that that RIAA shouldn't enforce their copyrights. Why is that?
Because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is about protecting your work. I don't think most slashdotters feel copyrights are a bad thing, just the ones that are backed by lack of value. The RIAA has been ripping us off and price gauging us for a long time, so there isn't a belief that "stealing"
GOODNIGHT EVERYONE (Score:3, Interesting)
If you all need me, I'll be on one of those "free independent music" sites downloading music made by people who are concerned about making good music rather than creating overexaggerated legal cases that cost them more money than any revenue they may have lost from a few college kids buying their worthless crap only to have it not work in their brand new cd players they spent two week's worth of food allowance on.
Alas, what happened to the gold old days? (Score:3, Interesting)
WMA is the culprit (Score:5, Interesting)
I am here to tell you that I recieved a threatening letter from the RIAA, accompanied by a "comply or we'll cut you off" letter from my ISP, Comcast. And I know exactly why
I don't have any illegal shared files in my limewire shared folder. what I do have there is a number of original tracks that I have recorded over the last year, for people to check out. I was innocently poking around on limewire, when i found a small (50k or so) WMA or ASF file ( i just know it was an MS format) titled "must have - hilarious.WMA" so i clicked, and downloaded, when i opened the file, Windows media player fired up my browser, and directed me to a website telling me that the RIAA caught me, and my isp had been notified. it had my IP address and some file names (the ones it chose to display were some tracks from my single "the family guy", which i guess they think should be incriminating evidence.
what i do know is that they even admitted that they copied files from my computer. hear me now, RIAA: Immediately delete my files, get your hands off of my hard drive, and you better believe i will be watching you for derivative works.
The Crime is Sharing, not Stealing? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a problem, though, in that people do not realize that the digital format that makes sharing music so easy is exactly what makes it protected material, and that's what makes anyone who downloads it potentially vulnerable to being charged for criminal conduct. It isn't likely to get you or me simply because there is no money in going after individual downloaders. However, there can be loads of money in going after kids running even small warez servers... Where one CD can cost as much as $600 (and more, depending on the product), allowing multiple downloads of multiple files could quickly result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal copies.
Of couse, if one CD didn't cost $600 in the first place, it wouldn't be such a problem. College professors assume that everyone on the planet uses Microsoft Office, but they fail to consider how many of us use a pirated copy. Even better, how many of us use pirated software specifically because we must have it for school or work and can not afford to buy it? The problem, in this case, is that some schools literally will not tolerate other software, and some inane professors actually require students to use particular software.
Software piracy is a problem... Piracy is a result of expensive alternatives, and the alternatives' prices increase because of piracy. What do we do? Well, we can only move in one of two directions:
As technology becomes more advanced, I can hardly imagine restricting information any more without morphing the United States into a sort of prison-state where no move can be made without Big Brother's watchful eye carefully monitoring your every move. Is that what we want? Or would we rather have the freedom to trust each other?
I choose choice.
Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
They might stop people from downloading. They're also helping to not sell albums.
This may be a stupid question, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the RIAA is the rights holders to a song, and they put the song on a public P2P share for the world to download, what is illegal about downloading it? By putting the file where they did, they are essentially granting permission for P2P users to copy the song.
How is this different from, say, the RIAA setting up a table at the local mall (a place where their market gathers) and handing out free CDs, and then accusing the people they gave the CDs to that they 'stole' that music because they did not pay for it?
It seems to me that these 'honeypot' P2P traps are on tenuous legal ground for this reason.
Not ALL Record Company Profits are falling... (Score:5, Informative)
The clear and obvious conclusion: Folkies and indie listeners are less prone to dastardly thieving music piracy than, say, Metallica listeners. Of course, the other explanation, that some labels are actually carrying acts people WANT to listen to as opposed to pushing mass-produced synthetic sound-alike cardboard cutout bands and buying air play for them, THAT explanation is too preposterous to consider...
I love the RIAA (Score:3)
The usual reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Please note, this is a civil action, not a criminal prosecution. The standard of evidence required is "balance of probability", not "beyond all reasonable doubt".
If you are running a service on your machine that is responding to a file sharing protocol and choosing to advertise that you have a 5MB file called Metallica-Enter-Sandman.mp3, what is the balance of probability. Is it more probable that this is a copy of that song that you are offering to make further copies of, or is it more probable that it's your 2 million word magnus opus that you just happen to have given that name?
OK, no doubt you (dear reader) consider yourself a special case. No doubt you deliberately keep piles of misnamed files around, or perhaps just have a hacked client that responds to any searches with "Sure, here it is", just to troll the RIAA. Fine, keep telling yourself that a court will believe you. But look at it another way; if files like that were on 100 Joe Filesharers' hard drives, how many of them would you expect to be copies of copyrighted songs, and how many renamed benign or random content? 1? 5? 10?
If it's fewer than 50 (and it is, if we're being honest) then the balance of probability is that any given file found advertised on a filesharing network does exist, is the content that it says that it is, and is available for duplication in violation of copyright law.
That's all that the RIAA have to show. They don't need to send in the Gestapo to kick down your door and sieze your machine (although they will if they can). They just have to convince a court that you probably duplicated content in violation of copyright law.
Thank you for your attention. Normal service of shrieking about first amendments and absolute proof may now resume.
Pirate Who? (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't even know the RIAA had an album out.
This would be the same RIAA..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What so special (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cost fo C&D letters (Score:4, Insightful)
... or maybe we can convince them to use p2p to distribute their c&d letters, in which case we can argue that p2p has a legit use :-)
On a more serious note, a previous poster claimed that distribution of copyright materials is illegal. It's only illegal if the copyright holder limits said distribution. Look at Linux - copyright Linus Torvalds, yet freely distributable :-)
Re:What so special (Score:5, Funny)
I think they plan to save a lot of money by using bulk mail and address everything to "Resident". :-)
Re:What so special (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly right. When the RIAA went after Napster, everyone was all for going after individual users and leaving Napster alone. Well, it's too late for Napster, but now a judge that isn't smoking crack has agreed that Grokster and Morpheus aren't responsible for the copyright violations, and the RIAA is now forced to go after individual users who are breaking the law.
Is it a bad law, one that no longer applies to the world we live in? Maybe. But it's still the law.
This the way it should be enforced.
Re:What so special (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Send them thretening letters.
3. Make Crappy Music. Release it on "crippled" CDs
4. ?????
5. Profit!!
What I know about this whole situation is if I were sent a letter I would probably oblige and never download another file ever again. But I already know I will never buy another CD again.
C'mon RIAA, keep it up, keep hitting the customer (not consumer, consumer assumes that your customers will actually buy your crap) with a bigger and bigger stick, I'm sure they'll come around and give you your money.
Re:What so special (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What so special (Score:5, Insightful)
Apologies if I rambled.
Re:What so special (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What so special (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing is that no one would want to share content like that voluntarily.
Re:lol (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't haave to punish everyone, just enough so that the majority are scared of punishment. And you have to mean business.
There is a story of Sun Wu (Sun Tzu Wu of The Art of War), who is demonstrating the effectiveness of his strategies and rules. He give an order (turn tight I think), and the soldiers (actually a group of the king's concubines) gig
Re:lol (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if I download music over the net and get a letter from the RIAA, the only thing I would really have to do is delete some files and destroy some burned CDs. I do not have to buy their stuff.
Only through the granting of the right to do so by the king could Sun Tzu kill the concubines. Sun also says that the king must grant his generals this type of control.
There is nothing in market