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


Forgot your password?
Music Media Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

RIAA Sues 261 Major P2P Offenders 1076

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Sues 261 Major P2P Offenders

Comments Filter:
  • The case is clear (Score:2, Informative)

    by Brahmastra ( 685988 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @01:25PM (#6901338)
    All the people sued in this case have been sharing more than 1000 songs. It is clear that their intent was piracy. Whether the RIAA is scum or not is irrevelent. These users took a major risk and are now paying for it.
  • Re:Why the vow? (Score:3, Informative)

    by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @01:31PM (#6901442) Journal

    It takes away a number of defenses you could use if they sue you for a future infraction. You can't claim that you have no history of this sort of thing (if you do, you've perjured yourself and could be imprisoned for that). It also could be introduced as evidence of your character in the trial.

  • Re:Suing? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08, 2003 @01:35PM (#6901497)
    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.
  • Freenet! (Score:2, Informative)

    by magoolsu ( 661313 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @01:36PM (#6901530)
    This would be a good time to move to freenet []. It might be slow but as more people use it the faster it will get and the less (almost no chance) of a chance that you will get one of those pesky little letters from the RIAA.

    Support freenet and end the RIAA's little game!
  • Re:Suing? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mikeytsi ( 186271 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @01:41PM (#6901602) Journal
    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:I think (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08, 2003 @01:45PM (#6901662)
    Even if you own every song, you're still guilty since you don't have the right to distribute it to whomever wants a copy.
  • Re:Why the vow? (Score:2, Informative)

    by PainKilleR-CE ( 597083 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @01:52PM (#6901770)
    It also makes it a willful offense, which is an important distinction in civil copyright infringement suits.

    In other words, you give up a chance at a small(er) fine and possibly even an out, for a chance to get royally screwed if you ever do it again.
  • by Hell O'World ( 88678 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @01:56PM (#6901819)
    Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads [] 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 [] right now.
  • Re:I think (Score:3, Informative)

    by OrenWolf ( 140914 ) * <> on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:00PM (#6901882) Homepage
    That's wrong in Canada.

    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.

    In other words, you download from me, it's legal in Canada.

    I upload to your FTP site, I've broken the law.
  • by saddino ( 183491 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:01PM (#6901902)
    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.
  • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <> on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:01PM (#6901905) Homepage
    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.
  • by MichaelCrawford ( 610140 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:02PM (#6901911) Homepage Journal
    On the front page today at Kuro5hin []: my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads [].

    You don't need to worry about getting sued by the Recording Industry Assocation of America [] 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 [], Oliver Brown [] and Rick Walker's Loop.pooL [].

    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 [] has particularly simple markup to enable easier copying.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:05PM (#6901961)
    "EFF does not log user information. At EFF we respect your privacy and the last thing we'd want to do is create a treasure trove of information about you that could itself be subpoenaed by the RIAA or anyone else. IP addresses are not logged anywhere on the EFF website. In addition, we are not logging any searches to this database. We think that free speech requires privacy and anonymity -- whether you're researching a medical problem or trying to find out if you're about to be sued. So rest easy about searching here -- if the RIAA comes knocking on our door, we will have no identifying information to give them about you or anyone else. We recommend similar privacy-protective policies to ISPs."
  • Re:I think (Score:5, Informative)

    by stwrtpj ( 518864 ) <> on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:10PM (#6902043) Journal
    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.

  • by jandrese ( 485 ) * <> on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:10PM (#6902044) Homepage Journal
    If you go into a BestBuy or something, there are two distinct types of CDr media. "Data" CDrs which are US$0.05 each and "Music" CDrs that are US$0.50 each. The Music discs have a few bits burned on them that lets them be used in those standalone CD duplictators, but are otherwise identical. Perhaps this is what they're talking about?
  • Re:I think (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dr Caleb ( 121505 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:11PM (#6902058) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by DavidBrown ( 177261 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:13PM (#6902093) Journal 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.

  • Re:Suing? (Score:4, Informative)

    by cK-Gunslinger ( 443452 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:17PM (#6902136) Journal
    Ok, after a little bit of research [], I see that I had some misconceptions about copyright law. Feel free to mod parent "-1 Wrong."
  • Re:Suing? (Score:2, Informative)

    by 3terrabyte ( 693824 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:18PM (#6902154) Journal
    I think it's because of procedure. It's already been mentioned that in Civil suits, you only have to show probable evidence. And that the defendant must prove his/her innocence. In the case of Criminal Suits, you are innocent until proven guilty. To be convicted, there has to be "beyond a doubt" that you are guilty. Much more work on the prosecutors side.

    Not only that, but in a criminal suit, if you are unable to afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you. In a civil suit.... you must pay!

    Also, as pointed out by the Department of Justice slashdot article last month, for the DOJ to get involved, there are a long list of things that must incur. I do not believe that simple, non-profit file sharing has been proven to be criminal in court yet.

  • by Fulkkari ( 603331 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:23PM (#6902220)

    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!

  • by Wooo ( 613477 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:25PM (#6902257)
    Amazingly enough, this [] allows you to rip streaming audio onto your hard drive. I just tune in to shoutcast [] and streamripper rips each song using the meta data in the stream.

    Separates each song and writes id3 information for each track. It may not be cd quality, but works great for any portable media player.
  • Here;s an idea (Score:3, Informative)

    by captainclever ( 568610 ) <rj.audioscrobbler@com> on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:26PM (#6902273) Homepage

    you could check out

    a free radio station that streams you personalised content and has a LOT of non-mainstream stuff

  • Re:EFF Action Center (Score:3, Informative)

    by PhxBlue ( 562201 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:31PM (#6902334) Homepage Journal

    Angry but well-reasoned. :) Senator Schlamiel isn't likely to read an incoherent rant.

  • Hi. You're a liar. (Score:4, Informative)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:32PM (#6902360) Journal

    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 []

  • Re:Suing? (Score:2, Informative)

    by cbiltcliffe ( 186293 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:42PM (#6902468) Homepage Journal
    The issue is people are stealing music online, and that is bad, whatever way you look at it.

    Copying music is not stealing.
    Copyright is exactly what it says: the right to copy.
    The owner of a copyright has the right to copy and distribute the work as they see fit. Anyone else has fair use rights, guaranteed by law, and any other rights the copyright holder has given them.
    If someone who doesn't own the copyright distributes a work in violation of that copyright, they haven't stolen it....they've infringed the copyright.
    Stealing means the rightful owner is deprived of something that belongs to them.
    Infringing copyright means you have copied something when you had no legal right to do so.

    Contrary to what the RIAA would have you believe, P2P filesharing is not even remotely like stealing a CD from a music store. The two situations are covered under completely different laws, and nothing from one law applies to the other situation.
    Stealing the CD is not a copyright infringement, because you haven't copied it.
    P2P sharing the track isn't stealing, because you haven't stolen anything.
  • Re:Suing? (Score:3, Informative)

    by fenix down ( 206580 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:47PM (#6902533)
    Well, it's not so much every single one of Bush's nominations as it is 3 out of 100 or so of Bush's nominations. Close, though.
  • WRONG (Score:1, Informative)

    by Kevin_Peters ( 698630 ) <kevin.peters@gma ... inus threevowels> on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:52PM (#6902589)
    You arae not allowed to make copies of recorded music, PERIOD! Read the disclosure on any disc you buy. You do not own something that you paid for, you only own the right to listen to it. "Warning: All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws." I'm a musician of 22 years, and I STILL find this unacceptable. Music is meant to be shared. If it wasn't, there would be no radio. You can hear the songs for free on the radio, but you can't make your own copy. The artist is the one that owns the song, and do you know what the royalties are they get off each disc? Try 4.5 CENTS off of a $17.99 cd. I say rip off the industry as much as possible. When the artists start to see more money, then we can think a little more on this topic.
  • Defense Strategies (Score:5, Informative)

    by cribcage ( 205308 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:53PM (#6902593) Homepage Journal

    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 [], 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
  • 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 [] 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.

  • Re:I think (Score:2, Informative)

    by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @03:18PM (#6902865)
    Good point, but one problem:

    There's no property involved. Copywritten material is not property. Copyright holders do not 'own' their ideas; the are simply given a limited monopoly over coping that idea.

    If copyrights were property, then they would last forever, like an other property. They do not. Disney is trying to change this; unfortunately they have been quite successful so far.

    Nowhere in US copright, patent or trademark law is the idea, invention, or trademark regarded as 'property'.

    Copyright grants a temporary monopoly over the right to make copies of the copywritten material. It does not give a monopoly over the distribution of that material; if it did, the record companies would be able to prevent you from selling a CD.

    With filesharing, it is not the distribution that is illegal but the copying. When you download a copywritten track, you are making an unauthorized track and are guilty of copyright infringement.

    No property is involved at all, and therefore there can be no theft.

    Copywritten material is not propety; neither are patents or trademarks. Thus, the phrase "Intellectual Property" is a misnomer. The RIAA wants you to think that ideas can be property. They use words like "steal" and "theft" and "intellectual property" to reinforce that idea. But ideas are *not* property.

    Downloading tracks off the 'net illegally is copyright infringement, not theft.
  • by Vantage13 ( 207635 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @03:21PM (#6902887) Homepage
    RIAA President Cary Sherman in a teleconference today characterized the people who were sued as "major offenders" who distributed about 1,000 copyrighted music files on average.

    She later clarified that statement by saying, "In some cases it was only one song, but on a really, really, fast connection"

  • by gordgekko ( 574109 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @03:34PM (#6903022) Homepage
    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?

  • Share Offline (Score:3, Informative)

    by DanielRavenNest ( 107550 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @04:05PM (#6903339)
    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

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08, 2003 @04:06PM (#6903351)
    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.

    No kidding. And if it was the other way around, with Republicans blocking a Hispanic judge, the Democrats would have been screaming racism.

  • by thejuggler ( 610249 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @04:45PM (#6903753) Homepage Journal
    The Republicans never filibustered a judicial nominee. The Democrats created this tactic. Also, anyone thinking Estrada was not qualified is just wrong. He was more than qualified during the Clinton years to work under the Clinton administration. The Dems are just pissed that a Democrat did not nominate the first Hispanic to the Federal Bench. Besides, they know Estrada is a law abiding person that won't create legislation from the bench.

    I like statistics. Just remember 'The Figures never lie, but liars always Figure'.
  • by felonious ( 636719 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @05:32PM (#6904256) Journal
    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...
  • Re:My theory... (Score:3, Informative)

    by fucksl4shd0t ( 630000 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @05:57PM (#6904511) Homepage Journal

    Could you provide links to substantiate your claims of increased music sales linked to P2P piracy? Thanks.

    Here's a start []

    More on the Ipso-Reid study [] covered here []. The original study isn't available through their website, unless you look a lot harder than I did.

    Here's more on the Jupiter study []

    Still more []

    Liebowitz writes about it [], but his only purpose was to conclude that filesharing doesn't hurt the music business.

    ZDNet reports on what is probably the same Jupiter study []

    This article [] sits right in the middle of the issue, but certainly hints at an Odyssey study supporting my point.

    Here's a study about studies []

    This came out during the height of the Metallica fight against Napster []

    You can google for more if you're not satisfied with these. :)

  • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <> on Monday September 08, 2003 @05:58PM (#6904513) Homepage
    That is the fine difference between laws in the US and Canada my friend. I'm not saying that we don't have our own problems up here with idiots trying to screw us over now(read corps and pollies actually they are much much worse), a new orgaization called the CRIA(sounds familiar doesn't it?), is trying to push for exactly the same laws up here that you have in the US but leave the levy intact.

    Sharers right now are free, leechers are free for the time being to carry out what they want because of the media levy we have up here. Until they change copyright law up here, things are good, but the sneaky way that government works in Canada; they can change it before we know what hits us. And unless you pay very close attention to Canadian politics they'll slip it in as a "maintenance bill" or some other crud, in truth it's more of a "screw you up the ass, and watch us reap the profits bill".

    I've lived in both countries and I know the laws of the US fairly well. We pay a levy and a tax, and a tax on the levy. Up here you pay out the ass for what you get, and if your going to get raped by the government, trust me the majority of the people will do what they can to reap from it.

  • Re:Don't get Amnesty (Score:3, Informative)

    by Stormie ( 708 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @07:47PM (#6905420) Homepage

    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.

    Just out of curiosity, on what grounds do you think a person "with balls enough to fight" is going to win the case?

    I mean, we're talking people who are sharing thousands of copyrighted songs. I think we can assume it likely that they are real songs, not cleverly renamed mp3's of white noise intended to honeypot the RIAA's searchers. So the defendents are going to be in a situation where (a) they have actually broken the law, and (b) they are being sued by the sort of lawyers the RIAA can afford to pay, i.e. experienced and aggressive ones.

    How do you think they're going to win? I know you all think the RIAA is evil and the laws are unreasonable, and I agree with you. But I say this with absolute confidence: if any of these 261 people being sued stands up and fights tool and nail in the courtroom, they will lose, and they will be crucified.

  • by elflord ( 9269 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @10:38PM (#6906448) Homepage
    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.

    In both cases, you'd need to appeal to the "fair use" doctrine. In the case of the Sunflower, the appeal is more compelling, because you could argue that you're doing it for "educational purposes", and the extent of the copying is rather small.

    A more analogous case to the sunflower example would be that you transcribed the song and made your own recording for your own personal use.

    I think in your rough-recording example, the low quality of the recording could be part of a fair use argument, but you'd need to appeal to other factors as well.

"An organization dries up if you don't challenge it with growth." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments