Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Obtains Subpoenas Against File Swappers
SniperPuppy writes "Fox News is reporting that the RIAA has secured 871 subpoenas against suspected file swappers, with 75 more being approved each day. Between this, and the latest versions of FreeNet and Kazaa Lite being released, will technology be able to keep traders away from court?" Apparently, just suing the "major offenders" wasn't enough of a warning shot, so now they're going after people who share as few as eight songs. Wait until the RIAA discovers all the stuff that gets posted to Usenet!
Sounds like they took a page from DirectTV's playbook. And why not? It appears to be working. But how are they going to stop international users?
Is it okay to download mp3's of songs that I legitimately own on CD? Can I claim fair use if I own the CD? Can I counter sue?
-B
I'm sure they already know about Usenet and IRC and (insert other less prominent distribution methods here). It seems they are more concerned about scaring away the average person (who doesn't even know what Usenet is, or how to operate an IRC client) but just runs Kazaa or another easy to use Windows p2p client.
It's clear that all piracy can not be stopped - the intent few will always pirate through more obscure networks regardless of the level of litigation, this is just a question of going after the most prominent network with the least tech savvy users.
For all you guys saying IRC is where you'll make your trades, you should know it won't scale and they do monitor it. My buddy received a warning from his ISP that someone had asked he be tracked down due to file sharing on an IRC channel. The kicker is he was sharing and didn't know it, someone had taken over his win 2k box and was running a bot on it to share movies. It's been almost a year so I don't remember the name of the kit but It took about 10 seconds of hunting on google to get info about it once we located it.
On a related note, I've been running Freenet for awhile, and the new version is pretty good. Although the flood of new people thanks to the slashdot post did slow things down for awhile, it's faster then ever now.
This is probably true. But if RIAA can trot enough "criminals" through a legal mill, then they'll be able to justify a bigger surcharge on recordings, blank media, or even internet access. Like the "recording surcharge" already on blank tapes & CDRs, it would go straight to the RIAA coffers.
And all these surcharges are exactly why folks are downloading instead of buying. Or to quote my 16 yr old daughter, "If new CDs cost five bucks, I'd buy them."
As for me, if Columbia Records (to use a specific sig-related example) would let me purchase an annual subscription to download Bob Dylan concert recordings on a next day basis, I'd be sending 'em my money today!
The real problem that the recording industry faces today isn't downloading, it's lack of imagination.
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
Dear god I hope that somebody indicted will be a congresman's son or daughter off at college. That's exactly what it'll take for these senators and representatives to call for an "Inquiry" into the legality of filing all these lawsuits and hopefully get some of them overturned.
My prediction for the future of file swapping? It'll still be big, perhaps even bigger than now. If a company wants to make money then the first step is NOT to piss off people who are already appreciating the fruits of their labor. All people do then is get an even more renegade attitude about it and keep swapping away, anonomously this time
I knew this would happen months ago. :P The great shakedown starts. If they want to stop P2P, they should destroy particular users. But no, since it's not about the P2P, but about the shakedown, they'll stick to a few thousand bucks per year. Increasing as people refuse to stop P2P.
If it pisses you off. Never give them money again.This is not a "boycott" which has the overtones of people who are willing to go back to buying once the companies clean up their acts. This is a "lifestyle change" where you realize that they will lie and fuck you over so you never give them money ever again. No matter how much they protest that they've "cleaned up" down the road.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
You simply don't get it. Your time is OVER. People like me now boycott buying CDs altogether because we see that YOU are the biggest crooks in this picture.
The ONLY people we care about are the artists, and while your endless speeches talk about how music pirates are hurting artists, we KNOW that the only people we are hurting are the labels.
You, the labels, are the fucking hypocrite here. You shamelessly abuse the people we actually DO care about (the artists) and then sue US for hurting the artists??? Maybe you have forgotten, but WE ARE YOUR ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME.
Enjoy your BMWs and Mercedes while you have them, because the second there's a way to cut you and your friends out of this picture, we will do it, and I will then start buying music again because I, unlike you, actually DO care about the artists.
Rot in hell in the meantime.
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
It always amazes me when the recording industry sets up a shell game to hide where they get their money. They most certainly don't get their money from the people that they're suing. They must love the publicity that they're getting by trashing students and taking their life savings. In reality, these overpaid, overstuffed and overcredited group of lawyers are paid by companies like Sony, Universal and others on the basis that they are entitled to compensation for the rights of use of their properties. These companies are paid by us every time that we buy a CD or watch or listen to something with their music assets on it.
Perhaps we should threaten the RIAA's monetary revenue stream by cutting off revenues to the upstream source. Well, it would seem to me that the music listeners and the music creators needs to get together using the internet as a transport tool. About the only way to do that is to setup a website and distribution network that allowed the music listeners to interact with and support the artists. Musicians have been complaining for years that the studios screw them over on a regular basis. Music listeners have been complaining for years that their choices for music have remained unavailable. If a non-profit, public-benefit, independant-reviewed, regularly audited company were to spring into existance, it would change the face of music forever.
Consider this, musicians need to have a way to connect with their listeners. They do this by creating songs and going on tour to play for their listeners. So, if this non-profit company were to contract with every single artist on the planet to provide this valuable service to their listeners, the RIAA would then be obsolete. Granted, songs created prior to the date that the company signs the artists would still remain in the RIAA's evil graps however, any new songs would remain in the public's hands. In that case, it would remain in the best interest of the public for the music to remain free. We could use the tools that are already available, such as GPL, shareware and freeware to develop the legal structure of the system. In addition, music listeners would be able to interact directly with the artists via the usual internet communication methods of email, forums and chatrooms. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying a subscription to a service that paid the artist directly so that I could listen to the music I wanted and get the new stuff the day it is published by the artist.
I don't think that the traditional music industry will ever understand what the music listeners are really desiring. They will continue to provide a facless entity that continues to destroy our right to support and interact with our musicians and artists. It is in their best financial interests to do so. The only way to resolve this difference between our interest in listening to music that we like and the musicians interests in creating that music is to provide a system that directly connects the two. This way, our support of the music doesn't pass through a pile of greedy hands, including the RIAA.
Once a system like this is in place, the court system can then go back to going after real criminals, such as bin Laden, instead of John and Jane Q. Public, whose only crime in life was really liking their favorite musicians. Musicians would have a huge venue through which they can publish their music. And we would have the richness in art that we deserve.
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
Use meetup.com (or an equivalent) to host local CD-ripping parties on a monthly basis. Let's see the RIAA stop that.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
I mean, I just don't understand this mentality
Okay. They're going after the users, not the toolmakers. This is good. However, I'm still outraged for a few main reasons.
1. The max penalty is $150,000 per song. Had you stolen a CD from a store, would you be charged $2,250,000 (assuming that there are fifteen tracks on a CD, not unreasonable)? Any store would be laughed out of court if they wanted 2 and a quarter million dollars in damages for a single CD. However, the RIAA gets away with it.
2. The use of the DMCA outrages me. It's a violation of basic constitutional rights, like due process. They can subpoena you without a court order. They can force an injunction merely by notifying you -- they don't need to prove you guilty of something, merely suppose it. That's damned dangerous.
3. There are legitimate uses for P2P. If, indeed, I've performed "copyright infringement," by downloading music, then that means that I've violated a license to listen to that music. That means that buying a CD isn't buying a specially pressed piece of plastic -- it's buying a license to listen to certain music. That means I'm legally justified in downloading MP3s of the songs I own on CD. And often times, I misplace CDs. So I feel totally fine about downloading MP3s of those CDs. However, if the RIAA saw me doing this, they'd slap me with a lawsuit. And then I'd have to waste thousands of dollars on legal fees proving that what I was doing wasn't illegal. And that unnerves me. I mean, you steal a CD from a music store, and lights flash, alarms go off, etc. It's pretty clear-cut as to who's stealing music and who's walking away with it legitimately. But the possibility for false positives on illegality for P2P makes it far less justified to just "shotgun" off lawsuits, especially to only casual users.
4. A democracy is made up of the general will of the populace. MILLIONS of people in the country share files (lets save the debate about whether it's sharing or theft or whatever for another time. It's just the verb I'm using). Most of these people are college students and people in their twenties. These are the future of America. The RIAA is what, two hundred 50-year-old lawyers with a giant bank account?
The government should be responding to how people act en masse. Copyright is a civil granted right -- it's not a natural right. That means the people can revoke it. (As opposed to your right to life, to not be beaten up on the street, etc.) And if millions of private citizens are acting in concert in a manner contradictory to how current copyright law acts, well, it's time to change the law.
5. No one has gone to jail or ever will for sharing non-copyrighted materials
Tell that to Dmitri Sklyarov.
There were no subpoenas on file sent to AOL Time Warner Inc., the nation's largest Internet provider and also parent company of Warner Music Group. Earthlink Inc., another of the largest Internet providers, said it has received only three new subpoenas.
Doesn't it strike anyone else as *amazing* that the LARGEST Internet Service Provider in the nation does not have ANY subscribers being sued?????
HOW are they deciding which filesharers to sue? Surely there must be several thousand AOL'ers sharing mp3 files. Are they overlooked because they share through IM or what???
My paranoia is telling me the RIAA is being used an an underhanded strongarm technique to consolidate ISP's. Chase away one ISP's customers by suing them, and likely they will change ISP's as well.....
*mumbles* gotta stop watching too much TV....
blue
Here's another one. Don't break the law.
RIAA is after money, and whatever you are doing will become illegal unless you do something about it..
Sad but true ..
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc