Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Warns Individual Swappers
Joey Patterson writes "CNET News.com reports that the RIAA has sent cease-and-desist letters to four individuals for allegedly pirating its music on P2P networks." They have yet to publicly release the names of who they have contacted, but 4 of the 5 were Verizon subscribers involved with their previous high profile case.
I've had enough of paying twenty bucks for a CD so some lazy kid doesn't have to get a job.
Hello.
Desist? I wonder if they will go further than that, since it's going to be hard to prove anything beyond something appearing in a log somewhere. Is downloading music illegal, or just posession? If this was a criminal trial, they'd be a long way from a burden of proof, but again, this is probably a civil matter...
Wow actually going against people who broke the law? I didn't like that the RIAA was going after all these middle men who provided sharing services and software but the file swapers actually broke copy right law. I think this is a much fairer tactic. They also started with warning letters instead of a bagillion dollar lawsuit. I think this is the way they should handle copyright infringement.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
Yes, but Verizon today, Road Runner tomorrow.
The RIAA (and anyone else) can simply point to the Verizon lawsuit as presidence in any future case where they want the names of "pirates".
Personally, I'd like to see the C&D letters the RIAAs henchmen sent out. I'd bet Hillary Rosen's soul (assuming she actually has one) that they're demanding payment for "infringing" on the "artitst's rights".
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
There's no question that thousands of people pirate music, and have tons of it stored illegally on their computer. We know the whole thing is just a scare tactic by the RIAA. They could never prosecute 10% of who pirate music. It's like speeding. They'll catch whoever they can to deter everyone else.
The only thing is you have much better chance at getting caught going 90 in 60 than you do with 40 GB of mp3s on your hard drive. So they've got 9 people so far. 9 lucky winnners of the RIAA lawsuit lottery! I'm pretty sure this will stop just about no from 'buying their tickets.' (i.e. pirating)
They can't take *everyone* to court. They'll make an example out of these few and it'll stop some of the people, but the majority of p2p file shareing of music and movies and such will continue as usual because users will be secure in the knowledge that RIAA/MPAA can't spend a gazillion dollars chasing everyone down. It's like trying to kill all the mosquitos in the forest with a fly swatter.
My journal has hot
And people stay with them.... why?
I mean, isnt it time to get a new provider? If everyone left, then maybe they'd fight the fight again...
I seem to remember Verizon refusing to turn over the subscriber names to the RIAA and fighting a court battle for their privacy. Only after losing that fight and being ordered by the courts to turn over the information did they finally consent. And even then they waited until the imposed deadline. Now you are advocating that everyone leave a provider that resisted and fought the RIAA? Just because they ultimately lost in court? Good luck finding many with the balls to challenge the RIAA. I've never used Verizon for any service, but I'd hardly fault them for this.
"The more you tighten your grasp, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Because the best way to generate business is to treat your customers like criminals.
If you notice from the article, it says 4 out of 5 were from verizon.
The fifth was from Earthlink, who turned over the account name due to Verizon loosing its court case.
Yes, but this one dictates that they already have taken action, not that they are about to take action. This story should scare and offend you.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
You don't haave to punish everyone, just enough so that the majority are scared of punishment. And you have to mean business.
There is a story of Sun Wu (Sun Tzu Wu of The Art of War), who is demonstrating the effectiveness of his strategies and rules. He give an order (turn tight I think), and the soldiers (actually a group of the king's concubines) giggle. He says that if the troops do not follow orders because they are not clear and well spoken, it is the generals fault. He then gives other orders (turn left). They giggle again. He says that if the ordes are spoken clearly, but not followed, it is the officers fauult. he then order the two lead women killed. After some argument with the kin, they are killed. The next orders he gives are followed.
It's a similar concept, except that RIAA is going after the followers, instead of the leaders, which breeds resentment, not respect.
Two Rules For Success:
1) Never tell people everything you know.
Everybody knows it's illegal to distrube copyrighted material? If it's p2p or ftp or http or ...
This is exactly right. When the RIAA went after Napster, everyone was all for going after individual users and leaving Napster alone. Well, it's too late for Napster, but now a judge that isn't smoking crack has agreed that Grokster and Morpheus aren't responsible for the copyright violations, and the RIAA is now forced to go after individual users who are breaking the law.
Is it a bad law, one that no longer applies to the world we live in? Maybe. But it's still the law.
This the way it should be enforced.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
I'm no lawyer, but aren't there laws regarding selective enforcement? How were these people chosen over the rest of their p2p buddies?
Visualize the world of wine
I completely disagree with your reasoning on this one, but that point is made by other people's replies already.
To go beyond your question. Why are people still buying CD's, DVD's, Tivo, etc... if they truly dislike the products' restrictions???? I know this has been said over and over but in a capitalistic economy it is *easy* for a large group of current consumers to alter the behavior of a company!
Please be patient, I'm a work in progress! --Alan Jackson
Generally oranizations pursue legal tactics when they have no clue about their own business models or how to evolve them when times change.
How much does all this legal bullcrap add to the overpriced cost of music?
I kinda get the impression that the only reason they do this is to facilitate RIAA's own existance so they can say "see look what we are doing for artists?" What I say to artists is this... take a look at Janis Ian's website http://www.janisian.com/ she effectively uses the web to to keep her fans in tune to her music long after the recording companies (RIAA) found her to be "unprofitable".
I've said it before and I'll say it again... RIAA and the Record Companies do not make artists into stars, their Fans do.
RIAA bite my dingleberry-crusted ass, i'd rather sit in the dark and hum to myself rather than deal with your crap, that's why your sales have been lagging recently.
Stop hiding behind your lawyers and start listing to the Fans/Customers, peace = contentment, you want peace in the music bus make your customers content. Here's a little clue your attorneys are not the answer, didn't you get the memo?
I love every bone in her body, especially mine!
... or maybe we can convince them to use p2p to distribute their c&d letters, in which case we can argue that p2p has a legit use :-)
On a more serious note, a previous poster claimed that distribution of copyright materials is illegal. It's only illegal if the copyright holder limits said distribution. Look at Linux - copyright Linus Torvalds, yet freely distributable :-)
True it is but you need some sort of organistation/leadership other wise people think 'What can one person do'
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
It's kinda hard to be an "individual swapper". Isn't that a bit like ftp'ing to 127.0.0.1?
What's tough to swallow after reading all these posts is the amazing dichtomy of opinions regarding violation of copyright vs. violation of copyleft. Break copyright by downloading gigs of copyrighted songs, and you're a hero for the common man. Break copyleft by incorporating code into a "for-profit" product and you're the reincarnation of Satan come to barbeque every newborn on the planet with some green peppers and steak sauce.
Every time you get pissed the RIAA is going after some college student, imagine Bill Gates is personally inserting your code into the next version of Windows, and you have to think of a way to counter it... Would you just let it slide? Probably not...
And yet 75% of slashdot posters seem think that that RIAA shouldn't enforce their copyrights. Why is that?
re #3... if the music is so crappy, why is everybody sharing so much of it? RIAA members have a monopoly on music now? You can't go to the store and buy your own instruments, write and perform your own music? This isn't like the frivolous lawsuits against Negativland, who were arguably using other's music in a Fair Use context. This is a legitimate use of the law and in perfect keeping with the common lament on Slashdot that the RIAA should go after individual users rather than the service providers.
I do not have a signature
Copyleft is about freedom. Copyleft authors are donating to you and there is perceived value in that. Since virtually everything copyleft is code, most slashdotters understand the time, blood, sweat and tears invested in the product and empathize.
Copyright is about protecting your work. I don't think most slashdotters feel copyrights are a bad thing, just the ones that are backed by lack of value. The RIAA has been ripping us off and price gauging us for a long time, so there isn't a belief that "stealing" the songs is anything more than getting what's due.
Surely everyone would agree that stealing is wrong. But many probably feel that price fixing CDs when you have a virtual monopoly is "wronger," and therefore, downloading music is somehow fair.
They might stop people from downloading. They're also helping to not sell albums.
If Windows is so crappy, why do people keep using it? Same reason they listen to the crap music. It's there, it's what's pushed on them, it's what they see on MTV. It's *everything* they know. Most of us capable of finding alternatives prefer those, wether it's indie bands or Linux or whatever. The mainstream is content with what they have because it's good enough for them. Of course, "Fear is the mind killer." When I first got into Linux, I was afraid. I had no idea what I was doing or what needed to be done. I didn't know which programs were good and which were to be avoided. The same thing happens with indie groups. People don't hear them in commercials or on music videos, and while it's not exactly the same thing, many are afriad to try new things. That, I believe, is the reason why so much RIAA music is being shared.
Apologies if I rambled.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
If these were the only choices for changing a law in the United States - the South would still be segregated, women would not have the vote, and we'd still be slogging through the jungles of Vietnam. You forget that mass civil disobedience to unjust laws has also proven to be an effective tool of change. Plus, it gives us all a chance to work on the side of the angels.
If the RIAA is the rights holders to a song, and they put the song on a public P2P share for the world to download, what is illegal about downloading it? By putting the file where they did, they are essentially granting permission for P2P users to copy the song.
How is this different from, say, the RIAA setting up a table at the local mall (a place where their market gathers) and handing out free CDs, and then accusing the people they gave the CDs to that they 'stole' that music because they did not pay for it?
It seems to me that these 'honeypot' P2P traps are on tenuous legal ground for this reason.
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
Please note, this is a civil action, not a criminal prosecution. The standard of evidence required is "balance of probability", not "beyond all reasonable doubt".
If you are running a service on your machine that is responding to a file sharing protocol and choosing to advertise that you have a 5MB file called Metallica-Enter-Sandman.mp3, what is the balance of probability. Is it more probable that this is a copy of that song that you are offering to make further copies of, or is it more probable that it's your 2 million word magnus opus that you just happen to have given that name?
OK, no doubt you (dear reader) consider yourself a special case. No doubt you deliberately keep piles of misnamed files around, or perhaps just have a hacked client that responds to any searches with "Sure, here it is", just to troll the RIAA. Fine, keep telling yourself that a court will believe you. But look at it another way; if files like that were on 100 Joe Filesharers' hard drives, how many of them would you expect to be copies of copyrighted songs, and how many renamed benign or random content? 1? 5? 10?
If it's fewer than 50 (and it is, if we're being honest) then the balance of probability is that any given file found advertised on a filesharing network does exist, is the content that it says that it is, and is available for duplication in violation of copyright law.
That's all that the RIAA have to show. They don't need to send in the Gestapo to kick down your door and sieze your machine (although they will if they can). They just have to convince a court that you probably duplicated content in violation of copyright law.
Thank you for your attention. Normal service of shrieking about first amendments and absolute proof may now resume.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"...four individuals for allegedly pirating its music on P2P networks..."
I didn't even know the RIAA had an album out.