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."
The case is clear (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why the vow? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Freenet! (Score:2, Informative)
Support freenet and end the RIAA's little game!
Re:Suing? (Score:5, Informative)
Another thing to keep in mind, the Executive appoints the members of the Supreme court.
Re:I think (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Why the vow? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Alternatives: Kuro5hin front page story (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Legally bound to my arse (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Links to Legal Downloads at Kuro5hin (Score:3, Informative)
Re:is your username subpoenaed? it is now... (Score:1, Informative)
"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)
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.
Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think (Score:5, Informative)
Not correct. You can give him a copy. You cannot sell him a copy.
The Ultimate Solution to RIAA... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:Suing? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:is your username subpoenaed? it is now... (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Re:Sources for free legal RIAA music (Score:3, Informative)
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)
you could check out http://www.last.fm
a free radio station that streams you personalised content and has a LOT of non-mainstream stuff
Re:EFF Action Center (Score:3, Informative)
Angry but well-reasoned. :) Senator Schlamiel isn't likely to read an incoherent rant.
Hi. You're a liar. (Score:4, Informative)
Unless the Democrats decide they don't like those appointments, which is why they've been delaying every single one of Bush's nominations to the federal courts.
I don't know what wingnut propaganda outlet you get your news from, but it's obviously rotted your mind. To date, Bush has had 117 federal judicial nominees approved by the Senate. This is completely in line with historical norms. Reagan had 293 appointments over his two terms, Bush Sr. had 150 appointments, and Clinton had 306 over his two terms.
So I fail to see where you see evidence that the Democrats are delaying appointments. If there were any delaying going on whatsoever these numbers would be much lower.
Source [judicialselection.org]
Re:Suing? (Score:2, Informative)
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)
WRONG (Score:1, Informative)
Defense Strategies (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
forget the RIAA, download OTHER music (Score:4, Informative)
Kuro5hin has a recent article [kuro5hin.org] which explains the issue, including pointers to archives with about 40,000 music titles that are legal to download.
Boycott the RIAA, and start downloading / buying music that isn't theirs. Support artists who make good music and don't have access to the RIAA's media juggernaut.
Re:I think (Score:2, Informative)
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.
How many songs was that? (Score:2, Informative)
She later clarified that statement by saying, "In some cases it was only one song, but on a really, really, fast connection"
Re:Hi. You're a liar. (Score:5, Informative)
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)
friends and combine your mp3 collections.
Burn a CD spindle or two full of mp3s and
pass it around some more. Ask your co-workers
to borrow their CD collection a little at a
time.
These methods are a little more work than
downloading from KaZaa, but the RIAA can't
spy on you as easily, either.
Re:Hi. You're a liar. (Score:0, Informative)
No kidding. And if it was the other way around, with Republicans blocking a Hispanic judge, the Democrats would have been screaming racism.
Re:Hi. You're a liar. (Score:1, Informative)
I like statistics. Just remember 'The Figures never lie, but liars always Figure'.
A war on many fronts:Misinformation and the lot (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Could you provide links to substantiate your claims of increased music sales linked to P2P piracy? Thanks.
Here's a start [cdfreaks.com]
More on the Ipso-Reid study [mp3newswire.net] covered here [slashdot.org]. 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 [cbsnews.com]
Still more [newsfactor.com]
Liebowitz writes about it [cato.org], 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 [zdnet.com.au]
This article [internet.com] sits right in the middle of the issue, but certainly hints at an Odyssey study supporting my point.
Here's a study about studies [digitalcutuplounge.com]
This came out during the height of the Metallica fight against Napster [ecommercetimes.com]
You can google for more if you're not satisfied with these. :)
Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:Legalities of fuzzy recordings (Score:2, Informative)
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.