Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


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

RIAA Files 531 More Lawsuits 84

Posted by timothy from the big-music dept.
nuclear305 writes "CNN is reporting that the RIAA has filed 531 'John Doe' lawsuits against defendants in Atlanta; Philadelphia; Orlando, Florida; and Trenton, New Jersey. Of course, once these thugs find out who you are, you can pay them off for the small fee averaging $3,000."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Files 531 More Lawsuits More

RIAA Files 531 More Lawsuits

Comments Filter:

  • MS going after innocent P2P users as well (Score:5, Offtopic)

    by Mr. Darl McBride ( 704524 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:13PM (#8312080)
    I submitted this story and it got rejected, but it affects some of you, who may have been targeted by Microsoft for using a P2P service when you weren't even downloading Microsoft material.

    The rejected story:

    Last week, Slashdot published the story that Microsoft source code had been leaked for Windows 2000 and Windows NT4. Immediately, curious geeks began to look for sources for this code. Never one to miss a chance at a bit of good fun, I replied to the story,
    posting a link [slashdot.org] my Linux 2.6.2 kernel torrent, proclaiming "Kernel source here!" Microsoft's response? They went on the offensive, promptly trying to plug this "leak."

    This morning, my ISP account was suspended, and I received a notification declaring that I had allegedly violated Microsoft's copyright. Violated Microsoft's copyright with a Linux kernel? Their complaint was filed two days after posting the torrent. In this time, they had apparently downloaded the torrent, but failed to verify that the contents were actually infringing. (I understand. .bz2 files confused me the first time I saw them, too.)

    I checked the torrent tracker logs, and it seems that MS is still sitting on the torrent, presumably collecting IPs from would-be Linux downloaders. Of course, I removed the .torrent file so nobody else is inconvenienced by Microsoft legal's lack of dilligence. A good joke is one thing, but enabling Microsoft to continue harassing users is another.

    For the curious and the irate alike, I've included Microsoft's complaint below:

    J.K. Weston

    Microsoft Corporation
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA 98052
    jkweston@microsoft.com
    Tel: (425) 703-5529

    14 Feb 2004

    URGENT/IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED
    VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

    (My ISP)

    Re: NOTICE OF POTENTIAL UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF MICROSOFT SOURCE CODE AT: (My IP) Date of Infringement: Detail below.

    Dear (ISP):

    We have received information that one of your users as identified above by the SITE/URL (My IP) may have engaged in the unlawful distribution of Microsoft's source code for Windows 2000, and/or Windows NT4, by distributing and offering for download these source code files via a peer-to-peer network.

    Since you own this IP address, we request that you take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement.

    We also kindly request that you forward this notice promptly to the user of the IP address listed above at the time and date stated.

    To the user at (My IP):

    The unauthorized copying and distribution of Microsoft's protected source code is a violation of both civil and criminal copyright and trade secret laws. If you have downloaded and are making the source code available for downloading by others, you are violating Microsoft's rights, and could be subject to severe civil and criminal penalties.

    Microsoft demands that you immediately (1) cease making Microsoft's source code available or otherwise distributing it, (2) destroy any and all copies you may have in your possession, and (3) provide us any and all information about how you came into possession of this code.

    Microsoft takes these issues very seriously, and will pursue legal action against individuals who take part in the proliferation of it source code. We look forward to your prompt cooperation. Should you need to contact me, I can be reached at the address above or at jkweston@microsoft.com.

    Very truly yours,

    By
    J.K. Weston

    How did I come across this source? Microsoft, I went to kernel.org.

    Looks the RIAA's found a little competition in the puppy-kicking department.

    That's the story that didn't get posted, but if any of you got a nastygram from your ISP, you deserve to know about this. Point your ISP to the Slashdot posting with the torrent and demand that they reinstate your account, and more to it: demand an apology from Microsoft. There are plenty of comments from others about this being the Linux 2.6.2 kerenl. MS is having ISPs shut off accounts for downloading Linux!

    • Re:MS going after innocent P2P users as well (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      this post is off topic!!! the story is about a big company going after p2p users who are often innocent, not about a big company going after p2p users who are... oops. the troll actually said something useful
    • In the tradition of the classic acronym many a slashdot denizen has used in composing their often insightful and interesting posts, IANAL. Even though such is the case (and until I am contradicted by someone who can truthfully say "IAAL"), it is clear to me that you probably have a very strong legal case against Microsoft right now; granted, it might only warrant small claims court, but it's still a case against them, and if you can get a guilty(?) verdict out of it, you have granted the lawyers of the EFF and other such foundations a tool with which to defend your fellow innocent file-sharers.

      Go for it, man, if not for the your own rights and those same rights held by others online, then to strike a blow against that oft-belligerent corporation, Microsoft, or at least, so as to appeal to your baser desires, for the money. Don't tell me that such an award would be but a drop in the bucket and therefore not worth the effort for you (because if you do, I'll be asking for a donation to the "Put Undefined Parameter Through College Fund ;-) ).

      Viva la revolucion!

      ~UP
      • First I'd love to hear of any others who got knocked off their ISPs. They went after the torrent client IP, not the tracker IP or the system hosting the .torrent file. This means that they may have sat collecting all client IPs and made false claims against about a thousand other Linux kernel downloaders.
        • Precisely! If they've already served a 'cease and desist, or else!' letter to you and your ISP, it is likely that they've served similar letters to each of those who downloaded from you. The fact that they sent a letter to your ISP in the first place is proof enough that they are not, in fact, checking the files to see if they are, in fact, files for the leaked Microsoft source code. That they collected the information may be taken as proof that they are pursuing similar legal action against those who downloaded that linux source code from you while they were gathering client information.

          This is indeed something to be angry and appalled at, an action which is both needless and malicious to innocent individuals. A nice, swift legal slap to the face might make them at least consider a change in the manner they pursue the illegal leaks, hostings, and downloadings.

          ~UP

      • I agree with the sentiments, but if you read the letter carefully, Microsoft's wording is "may" have engaged.....

        In that case, it's really up to the ISP to decide what to do.

        If they decide to investigate thoroughly or summarily close someone's account without investigation, it's their decision. Microsoft can argue that it's the ISP's fault the account was canceled. They only advised the ISP of the possibility that some wrongdoing might be taking place and what to do if it was taking place.

        But I sympathi

    • The recent Verizon decision says ISPs have no responsibility under the DMCA safe harbor to monitor or control access related to P2P activity, anyway.

      Thus, your ISP should have told microsoft to pound sand rather than suspending your account. Even if you had been distributing the MS source rather than Linux.

      See the court's deicion [eff.org] (the relevant text begins on bottom half of page 7 and especially on page 10.

    • Actually, this is what's supposed to be going on.

      1) MS sends a letter to the ISP notifying them of alleged infringement.

      2) The ISP notifies you.

      3) You should inform the ISP that you were not infringing.
      If you do so within a certain time frame, your ISP is off the hook and they can reinstate your account (if it got suspended).
      Otherwise, they are legally obligated to cut you off.

      I am sure that others, more knowledgeable in this field, will be able to point you to the exact wording that you should be using

  • Me?!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:13PM (#8312082)
    Of course, once these thugs find out who you are, you can pay them off for the small fee averaging $3,000 You mean, once these thugs find out who my neighbor with the unencrypted 802.11b Access Point is, he can pay them off... provided they can prove it was actually him, and not any one of his neighbors that made copyrighted material available without authorization...
    • Perhaps that's a valid reason to invest in wireless access points...hopefully it's a good defense as used in court. Anyone know of any such cases? 1. Buy wireless access point 2. ??? 3. Avoid lawsuit

      • Re:Me?!? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Your_Mom ( 94238 ) <slashdot@in n i s m i r.net> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:35PM (#8312227) Homepage
        no no No No NO!!!

        You are in charge of your Internet connection, you signed the EULA, you pay the bills, you answer the lawsuit. It doesn't need to be beyond a reasonable doubt, it merely needs to be proved.

        Sorry to burst your bubble.

        • Re:Me?!? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by El ( 94934 )
          The question is whether or not you are regarded as a common carrier, and thus not liable for any of the traffic through your node. I'd love to see this go to court, but I don't want to be the one that takes it there!
        • A EULA is just a contract between you an your internet carrier. Your ISP could use it against you if they were involved, but how on earth would a third party use it against you?
          • It probably says "I'm responsible for all traffic that comes out of my connection", and your ISP is usually involved, as they need to clear their hands of wrongdoing. So, the easiest way of doing that is to pin it on you.
        • It doesn't need to be beyond a reasonable doubt, it merely needs to be proved.
          Huh? To me, "proved beyond a reasonable doubt" is a weaker standard than an unqualified "proved", which ordinarily means irrefutably true.
        • It doesn't need to be beyond a reasonable doubt, it merely needs to be proved.

          One of the most egregious statements ever made in this venerable forum. There is such depth - and humour - in it that it stands firmly on its own.

  • Thugs or not, they have the right to do so (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:19PM (#8312115) Homepage Journal
    Yes, the RIAA is out of control and really should stop to think about what they are doing to their reputation by suing all these people. That is a given.

    However, they are well within their rights to be doing what they are doing. It is the music traders who decided that copyright did not apply to them who took the first step in breaking the law, and it is they who ultimately hold responsibility for their actions.

    I remember back when the RIAA started out shutting down P2P sites like Napster that people were screaming about how Napster wasn't at fault, it was the individual members of the file sharing community who were responsible for violating copyrights. The thought went, "if the RIAA wants to sue anyone it should be those users individually, and it would be unfeasible for the RIAA to do such a thing because how much could they really gain by suing kids in their basements? Happy days!" Well, now the RIAA is doing exactly that. It's kind of ironic how those users who thought they could hide in anonymity behind the crowds of file sharers are now finding that there is no hiding because the RIAA is just going to catch everyone with a wide net.

    I don't think the RIAA is going about this the right way, but I can't see how they are overstepping their legal bounds.
    • Does the RIAA need a reputation? They don't sell anything to the consumer and won't be influenced based on projected reputation to them. Sure, lots of /. user's don't buy RIAA music but they are still making millions and millions more dollars without us. Napster has died and the public may or may not have been truly outraged. RIAA memebers still make money. The bottom line is the RIAA doesn't care what the hell we think about them; like the parent said the RIAA is just excercising their rights.
    • Agreed: unpleasant business though it is, they are well within their rights to sue copyright violators. It is, in fact, what they ought to have been doing all along.

      However -- and this is a big however -- they are completely outisde their rights using the powers the DMCA has given them to bring about these suits. Under the bill of rights, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure, and deprivation of property without due process of law, the RIAA would have to get a warrant issued to be able to
      • Maybe I'm missing something. The article said the RIAA requested contact information for the given IP addresses. After that they plan to seek a settlement before going to court. Once in court, the normal rules of court seem to apply. Is the RIAA just ignoring these powers you speak of, or is there another article I should be reading?
        • Last time I checked, people where actually being locked out of their accounts due to the RIAA contacting their ISP (not due to a warrant being issued).

          You're right though: as phrased, the article in question doesn't make it clear that they're using this power at the moment. Perhaps they've decided to ignore the law they went to so much trouble to pass, because they are nice people! We can all hope. :)
          • That just sounds like the ISPs are acting like idiots. I used to run a movie fan site, and was contacted about copyrighted material being on my site (I had pictures of the inside of Spielberg's house from Architectural Digest. After someone broke into his house and tried to rape him, I was asked to take the pictures down.) I was pretty far outside fair use, and was happy to take them down. But when Dreamworks contacted my web host (geocities at the time) to get my number, Dreamworks had to argue with Ge
            • That just sounds like the ISPs are acting like idiots.

              It's not just that: the DMCA gives copyright holders rights in this situation they ought not to have. If an ISP sticks up for its customers, then bravo to them -- but they're going out on a legal limb to do it. And if they don't, well, their "acting like idiots" may actually be more "acting like people who are scared of legal reprecussions."

              It may not be the same case here, but I don't trust most service providers any more than I trust the RIAA.

              I
    • Civil disobedience. The practice of this ideology and method of protest begun many decades ago, but it has changed from protesting government actions (or inactions, whichever the case may be) to protesting government, corporate, and/or organizational practices. It may not occur to you, but it may be that some these illegal file-sharers are only breaking the law in protest of exploitation and high prices. Alternatively, if you wish to view civil disobedience as pertaining only to governmental practices, you could see the participation in such civil disobediance as protesting the lack of government action to stop such disservices to the community.

      I cannot say I speak for file-sharers, but we all must take into account the culture of rebellion, especially against lawyer groups and corporations, in analysing the file-sharing movement and practice.

      (The RIAA does not need to operate the way it does today. It could, for example, simply apply itself as a marketing, CD manufacturing, and distribution service, still garner substantial profit margins, and NOT take the copyright of the artist and cheat the artist of his/her/their proper compensation in practicing that business model. Things could be made better in this regard, for this subject, and there are people, plebs if you will, who are making the demand for change; the actions those individuals take in stating their demands are not necessarily organized or nonagressive in nature.)

      ~UP

      • Re:I Have But Two Words for You, Sir: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Civil disobedience. The practice of this ideology and method of protest begun many decades ago, but it has changed from protesting government actions (or inactions, whichever the case may be) to protesting government, corporate, and/or organizational practices. It may not occur to you, but it may be that some these illegal file-sharers are only breaking the law in protest of exploitation and high prices.

        I always laugh when I see this analogy. Yeah, civil disobediance. The thousands of people who have

        • Your reply quite clearly communicates the fact that you (whoever you are, you Anonymous Coward, you...!) have made an ignorant assumption. Your assumption is that all file-sharers are practicing illegally, or with unprovoked malicious intent, and it is ignorant because by its very nature it ignores the fact that are thousands of file-sharing service users use that capability to legally exchange files (like the Linux kernel source code, as mentioned in the case above).

          Those who protest may not do so out in
      • some these illegal file-sharers are only breaking the law in protest of exploitation and high prices.

        It's only civil disobedience if you disobey an unjust law to protest that unjust law. The appropriate way to protest exploitation and high prices is a boycott.
        • 1. Geeks, through some miracle, all agree to boycott RIAA labels.
          2. RIAA notices that profits are down!
          3. RIAA Buys more bad laws -- "See, we're losing more money to those Evil Content Pirates(tm)".

          [and for those who really need it...]
          4. Profit!
      • So in other words the RIAA is King George?

        Then who is Henry David Thoreau?

      • If you want to call this civil disobedience, then you have to follow the principle and be prepared to suffer any consequences of your action. The concept of civil disobience mandates that you be WILLING to serve a jail term or suffer any other punishment that may come as a result of your actions. THat's the whole point. You can't call it civil disobedience on one hand and then complain and moan about getting caught and look for ways to hide your identity. For this to actually be c.d. then you must be wi
    • but I can't see how they are overstepping their legal bounds

      Well how could you, when every time you blink they're busily forcing the government to extend the laws so that their actions are always Within The Bounds.

  • They're not being "thugs" today (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:19PM (#8312117) Journal
    "CNN is reporting that the RIAA has filed 531 'John Doe' lawsuits against defendants in Atlanta; Philadelphia; Orlando, Florida; and Trenton, New Jersey. Of course, once these thugs find out who you are, you can pay them off for the small fee averaging $3,000."

    I think that many of the RIAA's tactics are heavy handed and will ultimately be detrimental to the RIAA. I think that the penalties for copyright violation under U.S. law are unduly harsh.

    Its use of the DMCA to get subpoenas without judicial review was a threat to liberty.

    But the RIAA does represent copyright holders, and 'John Doe' suits against alleged copyright violators are entirely appropriate. It's by means of such law suits, rather than additional legislation calling for mandatory DRM or special police powers for copyright holders, that the RIAA can protect its rights without infringing ours.

    So labelling the RIAA "thugs" in this case is entirely inappropriate.

    Or would you also label the Free Software Foundation "thugs" if it attempted to enforce the provisions of the GPL against a company using GPL'd source in a released product without also releasing the source code?

  • Be smart. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by readpunk ( 683053 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:35PM (#8312230) Journal
    If you only download music, it is your fault if you get a lawsuit or get busted.

    Reason being is you are listening to bad music. Stop supporting or even ripping off the RIAA and wake up to the fact that any music that is associated with them is terrible.

    • Re:Be smart. (Score:3, Informative)

      by BrookHarty ( 9119 )
      I've been wondering about this, searching for Trance/Psy-Goa/Techno, I have to search online to listen. Only some online radio, and no local stations play this type of music.

      I'd love to be able to search Itunes or Napster2 and find the music I like, but other than using itunes to look popular songs, and using napster to download music videos, the online selection is rather limited.

      I find more music just searching with the terms on a p2p network, all kinds of music I never heard. In fact, I found some 1200

  • To sum this all up (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:48PM (#8312307) Homepage Journal
    YAWN

  • Willing to pay for music, video, etc. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:49PM (#8312313) Homepage Journal
    I'm willing to pay for music, video on demand, etc., but I'm not rich.

    I'd be willing to pay
    • as much as $0.025 (2.5 cents) per song
    for the right to have 256-bit mp3's of the top 10,000 songs of all time. That translates to 10000 * .01 = $250. That would be a reasonably complete music collection, and by my count, it would be about 100 GB of storage, not unreasonable at all given today's hard drive sizes.

    But, what I'd really like to do is pay that directly to the artists involved. Or, I'm willing to pay the copyright owners, as long as that's not a firm that's rampantly cheating the artists out of their fair share.

    I say, let someone accumulate enough distribution rights, and I'll be willing to purchase some music online. Until then, I'm sticking to my old LP's, some CD's I have received as gifts, and what I hear off the air. I don't like being a criminal, but I also don't like being price-gouged (or a party to price-gouging of recording artists who aren't really that wealthy either).
    • I'd be willing to pay as much as $0.025 (2.5 cents) per song for the right to have 256-bit mp3's of the top 10,000 songs of all time.

      Holy bejeezus!! If a song is 3 minutes on average, that's 30,000 minutes = 500 hours of NON-REPEATING music. If you're paying $250, that's 50 cents an hour if you listen to each song only once, 25 cents an hour if you listen to each song only twice, etc.

      25 cents an hour for entertainment? You can hardly find ANY entertainment worth 25 cents an hour these days. At least not
    • Perhaps I'm idealistic, but this is how I would set the pricing structure:
      $0.99: No DRM, lossless (FLAC/ZIP)
      $0.50: No DRM, good lossy (MP3# VBR 192$0.25: DRM, lossy (I-Tunes)
      $0.005: Pay per play, crummy quality.
      I honestly don't see a good reason to pay greater than eight or nine dollars for tracks, when I can own most of the CDs I want for that price. And they generally have more than nine tracks anyway.
      • I like your price scale; though I'd agree to pay .99 even for good lossy.
        As to paying 8-9 for a CD and getting more tracks, that's true with some of the music I like (and I thus buy the CDs) but certainly not for "one hit wonders"; it is for these that pay-per-track is attractive.
        If my local music store could burn me a CD with my selections (no DRM of course), I'd happily pay a buck a song.

  • Let them sue me... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eWarz ( 610883 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:24PM (#8312535)
    I wish they'd try to sue me! They'd be in for a _really_ nasty surprise. I own all the music i download, i'm just too lazy to rip the songs from cd. I have 250 cds in my collection, it takes an average of 2 minutes a song to download a 192kbps copy, vs 10 minutes a song to rip/encode. I also have company lawyers that bite. Hard.
    • Are you sharing the songs that you downloaded? I was under the impression the RIAA is mostly going after people that are sharing music rather than the leaches.

      • Re:Let them sue me... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hawkbug ( 94280 )
        Yes... but what if you share it and the person you share it with also has the CD? Nothing illegal is happening here. I'd like to see somebody prove this in court. Granted, there a lot of people who don't own the discs that download, but still, somebody is going to have to prove something along the line here.

        • Re:Let them sue me... (Score:2, Interesting)

          by torpor ( 458 )
          The whole point of taking someone to court is to prove, or not, whether they are, or not, doing something illegal.

          If you've got legal copies of your CD's, and you're sharing the mp3 files with your friends, who also have legal copies of those CD's, YOU'RE STILL A TARGET FOR A LAWSUIT!

          Its just that, in the course of that lawsuit, the truth will be revealed.

          That's something that people just don't seem to 'get' about these RIAA suits. They're not actually saying that something illegal is going on - only t
    • The last CD I ripped took about six minutes. That's ripping from CD and encoding to MP3 on the fly. I think it's been a while since you've ripped/encoded ;)

      • Using lame with Easy CD-DA extractor on my 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4 processor, and a 40x CD-rom I still can't encode faster than 5x.

        Sure, if I encoded using Xing, I could encode 32x realtime from cd on my old 800 Mhz, but you get what you pay for. That goes for time as well.

        The MP3's I get from lame (usally preset: extreme) beats the hell out of the ones I gett from Xing at any bitrate. You know... Like multipass videoencoding takes alot more time, but results in a better quality/bit-rate.

        And... yes. Wit

  • Lawsuits are our friends! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BillyBlaze ( 746775 ) <tomfelker@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:42PM (#8312672)
    I do not pirate music, and though I feel copyright law needs serious reform, I respect it. But I still hate the RIAA because of the underhanded things they do. They've lobbied for the DMCA and even stricter laws, they are trying to close open computing architectures against us, and they are trying to centralize and destroy the very fabric of the Internet. Oh, and they sue people. They do these things simply to protect themselves. Suing people is the lesser of these evils.

    Most people infringe copyright because:

    1. People want music.
    2. Copyright infringement is currently easier than buying the works.
    3. People don't fear getting caught.

    Obviously, the industry wants people to want music, so they can't mess with 1.

    There are two ways to eliminate problem 2. The most damaging way is to make copyright infringement harder, because that involves destroying the Internet. The non-destructive way to eliminate problem 2 is to offer cheap, non-DRM music downloads to as many people as possible (minors included), but this is only easy when the problem 3 is dealt with.

    The only real way to eliminate problem 3 is suing people. It doesn't take many people getting in trouble to scare the general public away from copyright infringement, especially if there are easier alternatives (see above). I think it's great that they're doing this, because it allows them to offer cheap unencumbered music downloads, which is much better than their current policy of corrupting our government and destroying the Internet.

    • Re:Lawsuits are our friends! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @11:20PM (#8312913) Homepage Journal
      Interesting comment, except that you're missing an extremely significant portion of the issue here.

      The RIAA and friends want to have their cake and eat it too
      • they do their best to prevent illegal copying
      • and they charge a MEDIA TAX (eg in Canada) to recoup losses from copying
      Aside from the blatant implication that anyone who uses CDR media is BREAKING THE LAW , I also resent the fact that people are expected to PAY the costs of a crime without actually having committed one.

      IF they were only interested in preventing copyright violations, then there would NOT be a "blanket" fee imposed on CDR media, irrespective of its use.

      They're nothing more than a brain dead business who cannot see past the tip of their own nose. They need to change their business model to keep pace with the world, not start taxing every man-woman-and-child for doing something which has NOTHING inherently to do with EITHER music OR copyright violation.
      • I buy 100 pack of CDR Media
      • I use it to backup my HDD (mostly my own original digital photography)
      In what way is that violating anyones copyright or depriving "the RIAAs of the world" of income they have every right to collect?

      in no way whatsoever

      Yet if I was in Canada I'd be paying them FEES, simply because I'm backing up to CDR.
      • In Europe there is a simple way to avoid paying these fees. Simply import the media from a neighboring country that does not charge the fees. This may apply to Canada as well.

      • Those same recording media fees are charged here in the USA, too (on blank cassettes and "Music" CD-Rs). This was made law at the same time as suits against consumers for making copies were prohibited!

        I keep wondering how they are suing noncommerical infringers considering that the law says they can't sue them.

        Title 17, Chapter 10 [copyright.gov] "1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distri

        • Well, you're partly right, but you also haven't read the very important 17 USC 1001, which defines some of those terms used in the section you quoted. They don't always mean what you think they mean.
          • I did in fact read them. The most relevant term is 'digital audio recording device' (which I specifically mention in my post).

            A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use

            which in

            • the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of

              That's not true of general purpose computers. This was discussed in the Diamond v. RIAA case a few years back with regards to portable mp3 players.
              • It's not true of general purpose computers, but it is true of a digital audio recording and playing program incorporated therein.

                A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals,

                whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use

                I'll h

    • Translation please:

      Years ago, people said 'hey that's a great record, can I borrow it?' Years ago, people responded 'I can make you a tape.'

      This is years ago. The RIAA has been doing nicely all along, thank you. They're still in business, and they're still fat.

      Now, however, we have a world global community, thanks to the Internet, so the means of communication have changed.

      But the idea is the same. 'Listen to this.' 'Cool, can I borrow it?' 'I can make you a copy.'

      People want to discuss and exchange mu
  • that Bugs Bunny cartoon where the plane is in the nose dive for what seems like forever and stops right before it hits the ground because it ran out of gas. In this case though, the plane isn't gonna stop.

    BOOM.

    Bye bye RIAA.
  • Since most of us have already stolen $3,000 from them anyway in CD's we saved money on...er, almost forgot, no-one was going to buy 214CDs this year, and there is no such thing as property rights in non-scarce goods anyways. Oh yea, that's right, copyrights are just an artificially State-created monopoly with no moral authority, and no-more legal authority than the dictates of a mafia organization.
  • I'm interested to know how soon they will reprosecute you after they have caught you. If this is effectively a license to download music for 10 years or so, then I think it's worth it (I'd pay $300 a year to download unlimited music). Even better would if we started a P2P union and everyone paid $5 a year and everyone's fines was taken out of that pot. To stop the RIAA from demanding a list of the union's members, you could encrypt members details as they joined, so that the union itself didn't know who
    • Wouldn't it be easier to just storm their offices with pitchforks and torches? Why deal with them at all? The RIAA is a has been just like SCO.

    • Interesting idea. Though wouldn't it work better if the funds went to pay musicians for creating and releasing music under a free license? If you used independants (not pop 40 divas), you could pay for a lot of music. Much more than RIAA companies could ever make. They spend most of their money on marketing, not music. Not only would you have music free of legal problems, but you'd also put the "recording industry" and their marketing drones out of business.

      Oh, and I'm sure they can sue you a second time

  • If you're sick of the RIAA!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisumNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @04:33AM (#8314125) Homepage Journal
    Then stop using them. They'll go away.

    Looking for new and interesting music?

    The AMPFEA.ORG Files Repository [ampfea.org] contains a signficant daily portion of new music which has been released on the 'net by independent artists.

    The new-music mailing list is a handy, moderated list for new music announcements from fresh artists around the glob. [ampfea.org]

    Go here if you've got music of your own online that you want to announce to the new-music list ... [ampfea.org]

    You don't *NEED* record companies any more, in order to find good music. You only need them to make you feel good about belonging to a society...
  • I love how the RIAA spokespeople keep claiming that p2p filetrading is a threat to the future of music itself...as if music didn't exist and prosper before the RIAA got a hold of it...Seriously, does anybody really think that the RIAA, and mass commercialism of music has actually done anything to improve music?
  • You know, and this is only vaguely related to the "Friday Apple Fun" story, can the RIAA really claim to own silence?

    What if I make a bunch of MP3s, with appropriate lengths, filesizes, and ID3 tags, and put them up for share? The catch is, there's no music in them. Just total silence. Granted, I'll piss off everyone who tries to download them, but what happens when the RIAA goes to sue me? Did I infringe their copyright simply by giving the files the same names as song titles?

    • Re:Does the RIAA own silence? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, the artist name is copyrightable :). It just doesn't come up very often.
      • Ah, I see.

        Well then, I offer up my collection of songs by Corn, Deaf Leopard, and Outcast.

        You know, after reading those names again, suddenly it's kinda funny.

        Now if only I had a direct connection to the internet....
  • They're suing people who make copyrighted materials available for other people to download. I could go to a store, buy a bunch of cd's, rip them, and make them available on kazaa. The fact that most of the music people are making available was downloaded from someone else doesn't make a difference.

    Yes, the RIAA is an evil cartel of music labels forcing out good music for cheap glitter at high prices, but they are within their legal rights to sue. They want to go back to the way things were, they charge
  • 203 - are from Comcast 27 - from an Orlando ISP Still leaves 301 unknowns
  • Not that I condone p2p downloading, I mean hell I'd rather spend $15 on a non-RIAA affiliated artist than help these scum bags in anyway, and certainly not through legal relief. However, Comcast has over 5 million members, I am sure 203 of them are not the only ones uploading and downloading. You also have to ask yourselves something, I guess, they have only gone after east coast based ISP's none of the West Coast or Mid West giants (SBC, Charter, ect.) have been served, so makes me wonder if this little

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close