RIAA Now Targets Pirates' Parents

cecil36 writes "In a follow-up to the subpoena silliness by the RIAA, the Associated Press is now reporting that the RIAA is now issuing subpoenas to family members of suspected online music swappers."

Comments

Of course

[aridhol]

The subpoenas are going to the owners of the computers, as these are the ones who can be found. From the article:

Since Boggs used her roommates' Internet account, the roommates' name and address were being turned over to music industry lawyers.

Your computer belongs to you. What happens with that computer is your responsibility. It should be apparent, but for some reason it isn't to most people.

Re:Of course

[BoomerSooner]

Sure, you let a friend use your handgun for target practice and he shoots the cashier. Why wouldn't you be guilty. Oh wait, you wouldn't.

Re:Of course

[aridhol]

If nothing else, the investigation would land on your doorstep when they discovered that the weapon belongs to you. They'd subpoena your weapon, and it would be up to you to show evidence that you didn't kill the cashier, 'cause they already have evidence that you did.

Re:Of course

[josephgrossberg]

Except if your friend is a minor. Then your arse is most certainly on the line.

Re:Of course

[Quixadhal]

Yup, just like if someone breaks into your house and uses your (legally registered) gun to kill your family, you should go to jail since you are responsible for the firearm.

IANAL, but I think there's a lesser crime involving negligence, with which you should be charged... not the multiple murder raps the person doing the killing should get. Likewise, the RIAA shouldn't be able to sue you if someone else uses your computer to break the law... but since you are an unknowing accomplise, perhaps you should get a (smaller!) fine of some time?

Re:Of course

[el-spectre]

No, they have evidence that the gun killed the cashier, that's it. While it is more likely that you did it than the other 6 billion people on the planet, this isn't enough evidence to arrest, much less convict.

Also, it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence, in a legal sense (in the U.S., excluding military trials)

Re:Of course

[pbox]

But of course you should. If you demand the right to own a firearm, please note that it should come with very heavy penalties for letting it out of your control. You should be automatically found a compliance and be forced to stand trial along with your murderous buddy.

We don't need gun control, but we need to extend the circle of repsonsibility and impose severe punishements for gun mishanding. This would be a better way, me thinks.

Re:Of course

[arf_barf]

What about this: my computer gets infected with this brand new trojan/proxy server for P2P network due to remote exploit in Windows. Am I or MS guilty of a copyright infringment?

Re:Of course

[aridhol]

it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence

If there is enough evidence that says you did it, you have to prove that the evidence is incorrect. Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty, but enough circumstantial evidence can prove guilt incorrectly.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is enough evidence that says you did it, you have to prove that the evidence is incorrect.

In that situation you only need to refute the evidence. You still do not have to prove that you did NOT commit the crime, just find flaws in the argument that claims you definitely did.

Re:Of course

[gantzm]

Be very carefull where you go with this line of reasoning. If someone stole your car and ran over 14 young innocent children in the playground, should you be held responsible for not "securing" your car?

If someone steals your cell phone and calls in a bomb threat to the whitehouse, are you responsible?

If you answer 'no' the above questions, then why are firearms any different?

Re:Of course

[mrtrumbe]

Not in all cases. Giving a hand gun to a minor with no supervision is not a good idea. You'd likely be prosecuted for neglegence.

But if you give that minor a pair of scissors or a car and they commit a crime, the neglegence claim melts away. A parent/gaurdian/adult can't be responsible for every illegal action which could be committed by a minor in their care. Especially not when the parent has few warning that the crime could be committed or it would be impossible to predict that crime being committed.

Their are many uses for a toothpick. I'm sure one of the possible uses is stabbing a person in the jugular. If I give a kid a toothpick and he stabs a friend in the neck, killing him, would I be responsible? No, because I have no way of predicting such an action. (Unless, of course, the kid I give a toothpick to is a violent psychotic. But not in normal circumstances.)

Taft

Re:Of course

[M$ Mole]

Also, it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence

Ah, how cute...they're so cute before reality hits.

Re:Of course

[Nagatzhul]

No, it should come with heavy penalties for misuse (Oh yeah, it already does!). Things that are not in your control are not your responsibility. That includes the actions of other people. A stolen firearm is not your responsibility, if you did your best to keep it secure.

Owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege. It does not have to be demanded, it already exists. Just because immature people are frightened of people who own and use firearms, does not mean we are responsible for your feelings. Our "circle of responsibility" does not extend that far, nor should it.

Re:Of course

[DarthWiggle]

Actually, you might not be guilty of the criminal act of murder, but you might very well be civilly liable for negligent supervision or some other negligence with respect to control and operation of the firearm.

Torts primer:

All torts have five elements, a duty owed, a breach of the duty, causation between duty and harm, any harm caused, and any defenses.

A parent who owns a computer might have a duty to supervise her children to ensure that the child doesn't cause a harm (copyright infringement, harassment, etc.), in the same way that a parent who owns a gun might have a duty to superviser her children to ensure that they don't shoot someone in the face.

Now, where things get screwy is in the damages caused. If the negligently supervised kid shoots someone in the face, the survivors ("heirs", though that's not the right term) of the deceased might be able to sue for that negligence. Maybe they'd win $1,000,000 out of the negligent parent's homeowners insurance policy, or something of the sort. The problem is that even if you can show that the parent has a duty to the RIAA to ensure that the child doesn't use the instrumentality (computer) to cause harm, that the parent failed to do so, and that the failure to supervise then CAUSED (very important word) some quantifiable harm to the company/organization, it's hard for me to understand the dollar amounts attached to these lawsuits.

But that argument's been rehashed a thousand times. I just wanted to give a little primer on how the parents could be implicated in the wrongful acts of their children.

(IANAL...Y) (figure it out)

Re:Of course

[dbthaw]

First - I do agree with the concept that there should be a lesser sanction imposed upon the owner (I'm paraphrasing here) as you discuss.

From a legal standpoint, however, there are not (at least that I'm aware of - please feel free to correct me on this, I'd actually like to know if I'm missing something) any laws that specifically cover such issues in electronic communications. Thus the determination falls back to remaining generally applicable laws, in this case, contractual law.

With just about every ISP, a part of a user's "Acceptible Use Policy" (or whatever the contract is called) requires that the user assume full legal responsibility for all traffic/transactions occurring through that connection. Remember, the RIAA is using IP addresses to track users (not MAC addresses, at least as far as I've read). (For those unfamiliar with network topology) an IP address is nothing more than a single internet connection - a single machine may have multiple IP addresses, and a single IP address - via NAT - may have multiple machines that "use" it).

The bottom line of all this is that it's not the owner of the machine per se that is being "tracked", but rather, the owner of the internet connection.

This is, unfortunately, a problem that I do not believe will be resolved in the near future (as least through legislation). It may have to be tackled by the courts and some degree of case law may result, but I suspect that at least for the next year or so this issue will remain uncharted legal territory.

Re:Of course

[KKin8or]

Yes, and what if the owner of the account is a coffee shop with a wireless access point? The sharing could be done by some guy who stops by to sip some coffee and check his email.

If the account holder (and not the perpetrator) is held accountable for all uses of the account, could this not potentially shut down public wireless hot spots for fear of liability? I suppose they could just close off the standard ports for filesharing, to cover their asses. But it would set a disturbing precedent, and likely kill unsupervised/unrestricted public access.

Re:Of course

[DarthWiggle]

And in a civil case, you just have to show liability ("guilt") by a preponderance of the evidence, which means, roughly, a better than 50/50 chance that your side is right.

Re:Of course

[pbox]

With right comes responsibilities. You want one you get the other one. Simple.

It is your responsibility of locking up your guns, so that your kid does not take it to school and shoots the teacher. (Yes, this has happened)

It is your responsibility to report stolen firearms, after which you will be relived of your responsibility.

It is your responsibility to get trigger locks installed on your gun, and store them without bullets.

I am not opposed (nor frightened) you you owning and using a gun. But I am terribly oppesed to your lack of gun safety and really extremely frightened of stupid people with guns.

If you get a gun, educate yourself and know how to keep it safe. I would even support measures, where you would have to demonstrate such ability BEFORE you are allowed to own a gun.

Re:Of course

[DJ Rubbie]

Of course, the evidence. This is what happens when someone innocent is framed for violating IP rights if DRM and government big brother monitoring becomes successful. Although it is old (2001), it is a good read and strangely fits into this event.

I actually attached this link to the parent article, but I think it fits here better.

Re:Of course

[scovetta]

Except in the case of the DMCA/RIAA. Then we're all guilty as sin. Period.

Re:Of course

[josephgrossberg]

Ethically: Of course not, that's asinine.

Legally: We'll find out soon enough. The RIAA has gotten a lot farther than I thought they would.

Re:Of course

[Gaijin42]

You have the responsibility to rescue the woman if you are the owner of the pool, or the lifeguard. If you aren't there are no must-assist laws in the US, so you can be a shmuck and watch her drown.

Actually, even the owner doesnt have the responsability to rescue. They just have to try. There is some assumption of risk on the part of the user.

Negligence generally gives weight to who can avoid the risk most easily. Also taken into account are cost to eliminate risk, vs damage if risk happens.

Therefore if it costs $1M to clean up my ice patch, but only $1K if someone slips, I am not negligent, even if I could have cleaned it up.

Of course, the opposite is true, it costs $5 to clean the patch, and $100k if someone slips, so in fact I am negligent.

Re:Of course

[pbox]

If I let my friend use my car, and he runs over 14 children I will be sued. I will lose. I will have my life ruined. Select your friends, and let them borrow your car only if needed.

If your car is stolen, it is your responsibility to report it stolen. Your cellpone as well (you can even get it cancelled, when you report it). This argument stands even more so for guns. If you don't know where your gun is, why do you have it the first place. Install trigger locks, and keep the key separately. Store them in locked cabinets, not under the sofa. Keep them out of reach of your kids, etc. This should be a mandatory curriculum for prospective gun owners.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

IAAL - so for the 500th time I will mention here - this is civil law versus criminal. Here RIAA is filing lawsuits for violation of copyright. And it is called deep pockets - if I am a typical filthy trial lawyer, I sue everyone, knowing that even if say the infringer is 90% guilty, but the computer owner is 10% guilty, I can enforce the entire judgement against the owner. That is the state of law today.

That's why you see these huge lawsuits in cases like drunk driving for example. They'll sue the driver, and the bar and car maker and anyone else. Then using the obvious guilt of the driver, they get a jury to find him 90% liable, and toss the bar and car maker in at 5% each. But opps - the driver is a broke drunk asshole. Guess what, in many cases and in most jurisdictions, they can enforce the whole judgement against the guys who are only 10% liable.

This is the fun, much trial lawyer loved doctrine of joint and several liability. It leads to great stuff like the driver intentionally sabotaging his case, having made an under the table agreement with the plaintiff that they will not try to pursue the judgement against him.

Or the very common case where the supposedly evil insurance company pays as required for the scumbags defense, and he tanks his own case having made an agreement with the plaintiff that they will only pursue whatever part of the judgement is owed by the insurance company. The trial lawyers love doing that one against the homeowner's insurance companies. In fact, I bet that will be a big line of attack for the RIAA - going after the homeowner's policy of parents whose kids are downloading.

In light of this, please give generously to John Edwards campaign - over 60% of his current contributions have come from trial lawyers. That's where "The Common Man" John made his millions of dollars.

Re:Of course

[Mysticalfruit]

I was just thinking the same thing! My local library just had a bunch of new PC's donated with nice CD-RW drives.

So, if I go and download a bunch of songs, burn them to CD and then delete them off the machine.

If it's a truely anonymous system. Aka, no camera's, no logging in, no sign in at the desk, how do they know who did the downloading?

Tragically I think the answer is that they'll have to take the anonymous access away or limit access to content to protect themselves from liability.

Re:Of course

[mazesoft]

In a legal sense, for Criminal cases, you are innocent until proven guilty.

In a civil case, such as DRM and copyright cases, the case is brought because they already have circumstantial evidence, and both sides are equally required to prove/disprove said evidence.

Re:Of course

[fucksl4shd0t]

If there is enough evidence that says you did it, you have to prove that the evidence is incorrect. Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty, but enough circumstantial evidence can prove guilt incorrectly.

Technical differences make all the difference here.

To be convicted, iirc, a jury has to vote unanimously that you are guilty. In order to do that, every jurist is required to vote guilty only when they have absolutely no doubts that you did it. If they have any doubt at all, they are required to vote innocent.

Therefore, your defense only has to cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror. You do not have to prove innocence, you only have to show that there are other people who may be just as guilty with the same evidence, or something like that.

It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that (because you loaned your weapon to someone during the time in question, even if they can't prove he did it), then you are acquitted.

Re:Of course

[LynchMan]

it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence, in a legal sense (in the U.S., excluding military trials)

Apparently you are not familiar with the US judicial system. Since when does the US practice what it preaches?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, wouldn't Microsoft be responsible for all of the damages caused by computers that are h4x0rd into becoming DOS zombies?

MS was negligent for not creating secure software and they still own the software... you've only purchased the rights to use it.

Re:Of course

[psxndc]

liability is more closely defined as "at fault" or "responsible", not "guilt". If I slip on your sidewalk, you are liable for damages incurred to me. You are not guilty of them, but they are your fault/you are responsible for them.

From dictionary.com:

liable \Li"a*ble\ (l[imac]"[.a]*b'l), a. [From F. lier to bind, L. ligare. Cf. Ally, v. t., Ligature.] 1. Bound or obliged in law or equity; responsible; answerable; as, the surety is liable for the debt of his principal.

-psxndc

Re:Of course

[gunix]

Well, I'd say, arrest all parents for not giving the children a proper childhood!

Re:Of course

[Anonym1ty]

Who needs to be proven guilty or liable when they can be tied up in pointless litigation?

What difference does it make if your guilty and pay $100,000 in fines and $100,000 in legal fees or if you are innocent and pay $200,000 in legal fees? The RIAA's point is still made.

Re:Of course

[el-spectre]

Well, physics kill them, but I'm not gonna drag Sire Newton into this too :)

Re:Of course

[lord_dragonsfyre]

In order to do that, every jurist is required to vote guilty only when they have absolutely no doubts that you did it. If they have any doubt at all, they are required to vote innocent.

Not actually true. IANAL, but as I recall it, the burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt". Cases have been won or lost on the strength of circumstantial evidence, although direct evidence is, of course, considered good.

Incidentally, I seem to recall civil cases (like copyright infringement) having a lower burden of proof referred to as "preponderance of the evidence".

James.

Re:Of course

[Jboy_24]

It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that (because you loaned your weapon to someone during the time in question, even if they can't prove he did it), then you are acquitted.

This is really a red herring, if the person who was killed was in some way related to you, if you were seen threatening the person .. etc etc etc, then even though you gave your gun to someone else, you still could found guilty if they don't belive that you gave it away.

But,moving closer to the RIAA situation, the closest analogy would be the murder victim's family sueing you for wrongful death, because they're going to try and prove that you should have known that the person you gave a gun to was going to go out and kill someone. OR a procescutor may try to get you for conspiracy to commit murder or acomplice to the fact, if they can prove that you knowningly supplied the weapon.

Re:Of course

[pthisis]

The standard for arrest is probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. "More likely that you did it than the other 6 billion people on the planet" is an acceptable working definition of probable cause.

No it isn't. e.g. if my roommate is found murdered, it's more likely that I killed him than one of the random 6 billion people who _don't_ live with him, but that's pretty damned far from being sufficient cause to get an arrest warrant.

Probable cause is not just a greater possibility that someone could have committed a crime--e.g Lectlaw says "The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm

Sumner

Re:Of course

[efaust93]

That's not correct. My co-worker's pistol was stolen from his household by his child's friend. The friend was involved in drugs and used it in multiple hold-ups.

My co-worker reported it stolen. The police took the report and did not give him any problems.

They eventually found the kid with the pistol and arrested him. He had held up 3 different places with the weapon and was suspected of murder on an individual with the weapon. He went to Jail.

BUT

In the time they took to find the kid, my co-worker was issued a big insurance check for the pistol (the pistol was a rather rare pistol). So, he was able to get another pistol. The police kept the rare pistol.

My co-worker never was a suspect nor was he held in the crime.

Don't let people think that just because you are a gun owner, you are a suspect. If you are honest and a gun owner, you have nothing to fear.

Re:Of course

[Blue Stone]

In the UK just recently two young men walked free from court when the prosecution could not prove which one of them was at the wheel, when the car they were in struck and killed a pedestrian. Both individuals claimed the other was driving at the time of the incident.

Re:Of course

[some damn guy]

You should be automatically found a compliance and be forced to stand trial along with your murderous buddy.

I suppose that would go for attempted murder too. It would sure be nice to have a law like that pass... and then have someone break into my house and nearly kill me with my own gun.

That would just be my luck.

Re:Of course

[DarthStrydre]

That's one thing I have not understood in the RIAA's rage against the listener... Why are they prosecuting those _sharing_ the music... Instead of those "stealing" the music.

Lets say ping pong balls are a very hot commodity, and i find a way to duplicate them below sale price (for free lets say). I decide to put all my ping pong balls on my front lawn for people to see. Besides the aesthetic disaster of a front lawn covered in ping pong balls, what crime is committed by me? Isn't the crime committed by those that take my ping pong balls? Why is prosecution not focused on people who download the music?

Re:Of course

[Abm0raz]

What difference does it make if your guilty and pay $100,000 in fines and $100,000 in legal fees or if you are innocent and pay $200,000 in legal fees? The RIAA's point is still made.

It's called counter-suing for legal fees and damages from false accusation. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure if you successfully defend a civil case, the accusers can be held liable for (some of?) your legal fees, lost wages, etc ...

Can someone who is a lawyer confirm?

-Ab

My take on this...

[Jack Wagner]

Great article.

As a law-abiding citizen and one who not only supports IP, but who makes a living off of it, I think this is a great idea. It's fairly well documented that most adolescents have little regard for the law and perhaps if enough of them are forced to move into the YMCA, homeless and hungry, where they will be at high risk of forced sodomy and other vile disgusting acts, all because their parents are imprisoned, well, this might be just the ticket to wake all these kids up.

I've gone as far as to build back doors into some of my networking products that gather and track information straight from the level II socket upstream layer and although I've yet to use this information in any way, it would be real easy for me to bring some lawsuits against some of the largest Fortune 500 companies in the US. You guys would be shocked by the amount of IP theft that goes on by large multi billion dollar companies.

It's a shame that most of these kids can't see that if they were out there busting their hump and trying to make a living on their own and millions of people were stealing their IP they would be as angry as Metallica or any of the other people who back the RIAA.

Warmest regards,
--Jack

Re:My take on this...

[kevin_conaway]

Remind me not to hire you for anything. Building backdoors into your code to monitor what is going on? You sir, should be the one imprisoned.

Re:My take on this...

[AKAImBatman]

Nice job on replying to yourself "Mr. Wagner". Too bad you're a troll. WagnerConsulting.com doesn't exist nor does the "special plutionium[sic] core" that you "recommended" to Kiro5hin.

What do you trolls get out of this stuff, anyway?

The family that shares together stays together...

[Anonymous Coward]

IN JAIL.

Don't make your kids angry...

[Burlynerd]

What an excellent way for a rotten, rebellious brat to get his parents in trouble for spanking him!

Re:Don't make your kids angry...

[Anonymous Coward]

What an excellent way to punish the stupid negligent parents of an obnoxious teenage brat.

SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued?

[HanzoSan]

What happens when the RIAA sues Laura Bush and its on national TV? Or will they try to cover it up and keep it quite while applogizing and begging for forgiveness?

I'm just waiting for them to sue that wrong person, or that wrong kid and find out they sued Bill Gates daughter or something.

Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued?

[jedidiah]

Nevermind Laura Bush.

What happens when the RIAA tries to sue a relative of some crime family? Someone wake up next to a decapitated horses head.

Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued?

[nlvp]

To be fair to the Bushes, when she got caught drinking underage, the secret service didn't get in the way of the police, and her dad let her take her punishment (community service as I recall) without intervening.

Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued?

[ChadN]

Which is more than can be said for George W. Bush when he was caught drinking and driving.

Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued?

[Lord_Dweomer]

"What happens when the RIAA sues Laura Bush and its on national TV?"

Its simple, they won't. They would have their lawyers do the research and find out who the people being subpoened (sp?) were and if it comes up as GW, guess what, they won't say a damned thing about it.

For this attack plan to be a big success for them, they need to either have these people settle, or take them to court and destroy them. The LAST thing they want is some politcally/legally connected child/family to be dragged into this because it complicates the matter and would make the other people they're taking action against think otherwise.

Business-wise, the RIAA are morons, but PR-wise, they are wise beyond belief and you can be DAMN SURE they are aware of this possibility and are doing everything in their power to avoid it.

How about a CD party?

[HanzoSan]

We can throw our CDs into the habor!

Re:How about a CD party?

[Telastyn]

or better yet, the microwave!

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bluebeard:

[Anonymous Coward]

Please turn over the doubloons previously designated as the "college fund."

It don't mean a thing...

[sharky611aol.com]

...if it don't bling-bling.

This just goes to show you that this has nothing to do with "intellectual property" and everything to do with money. Of course they can't go after kids, so they're going to go after their parents, who, in most cases, have no idea what their kids are doing on the Internet.

I'll offer up my family as an example. My parents are fairly clueless when it comes to anything remotely technological. My youngest sister, on the other hand, can find damned near any song she wants online. (Note: I'm not implying that this equals any level of computer competency, but not bad for a nine-year-old).

Last time I went home, my lil' sis had about 500 songs shared on Kazaa til I un-sharified them. I can guaran-damn-tee you that my parents have absolutely no idea about this, and now the R*AA is going to be suing folks like my parents?

Let the backlash begin. We'll be the whip.

Re:It don't mean a thing...

[nlvp]

I suppose the legal argument is that as a 9-year-old, she is under the supervision of her parents, cannot be sued individually, and so ultimately her legal guardians are responsible for "losses" she caused.

The political reality is that this is legal harassment by the RIAA, but it's "legal" legal harassment, if you get my meaning, and while it may cost them a fair bit of money to get going, that (a) goes to show how much money they must believe they are losing, and (b) is probably going to be quite effective in stopping many of the filesharers (IMO).

Re:It don't mean a thing...

[Dutchmaan]

Mom: (Blank stare)

Dad: (Slightly blanker stare)

Lawyer: "I'm sorry, it means your daughter is a terrorist... and will be shipped off to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as a Digital Combatant.

We'll be sending you the bill for our settlement and fees.

Re:It don't mean a thing...

[0111 1110]

Only buy used CDs. It's true that you are in some way helping those evil RIAA customers, but OTOH you haven't increased RIAA sales any. And don't forget to burn the used CD and resell it again to make sure that plenty of used CDs are always available for purchase. Someone needs to start a CD rental store. That would be cool. You pay like $1.00 to rent the CD just long enough to burn it.

This is predicted in fictional writing

[DJ Rubbie]

Although this is fictional, the events of this story is already happening now.

Re:Question.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot:

(e) Copyright is meaningless to me at this point.

Nothing created during my lifetime will ever be in the public domain. That public domain is MINE and YOURS! The media companies have stolen it from us with their hired guns (congress) and society as a whole is lessened because of it.

Due to that, I have no respect for copyright law anymore.

With apologies to Spaceballs

[Matey-O]

RIAA: You're my father's Brother's Uncle's Sister's Roommate's Cousin.

Dude: What's that make me?

RIAA: Nothing, but we're suing you anyway.

3 Things

[teamhasnoi]

The recording industry said Pate's daughter was offering songs by Billy Idol, Missy Elliot, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and other artists. Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he does not videotape movies off cable television channels.

First of all, Pate is fully within his rights to videotape movies off cable! It's called Fair Use!

The fact that he 'zealously respects copyrights' only means that he is misinformed, and most likely has been taken in by **IA propaganda that would lead you to believe that there is no Fair Use.

Secondly, I am looking forward to several things: The death of CD sales and painful realization of the RIAA that they are going down. The explosion of indi artists and methods of distribution, and no more focus-group artists!

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, let the 80's die a noble quick death, not a lingering bedridden death like the 70's. Ironic that I would say that, as I played in a 80's cover band, friends don't let friends share Def Leppard.

Many Parents are Pirates

[sulli]

you insensitive clod!

Re:Question.

[josephgrossberg]

(e) Because a consumer should have the right to do whatever they want with their property, including sharing it with others.

Suggestion for action...

[NanoGator]

The RIAA is demonstrating it's power, right? I think the consumers should demonstrate back. Here's what you do:

- Pick a day.

- On that day, everybody buys a CD. Doesn't matter which, though a newly released highly publiscized CD would be preferable. (Like the newest Spears album or something.)

- DO NOT OPEN THE CD.

- On the following day, return the CDs for a refund. Assuming the store will take back unopened CDs.

If a significant number of money is passed and then refunded, it'd be hard for the retailers not to take notice. I'd be surprised if that info didn't bubble up to the RIAA. If enough money moves, the RIAA will have a pretty good idea that this type of action will cause them to endure losses.

I personally have $100 I'd be willing to pump into this right now this second if I knew other people would be participating too.

Re:Suggestion for action...

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Wouldn't it just be easier to not buy any CDs in the first place? Or am i missing something?"

When people don't buy CDs, then the RIAA chalks it up to piracy. They won't even consider the idea that the people who give them money are angry at them. I think NG has a point, if they get $100,000 in revenue one day and then -$100,000 the next day, then they'll notice.

Re:Suggestion for action...

[timmyd]

ducman said: how do I make sure the CD I want to buy is from someone not represented by the RIAA?

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp

You could always buy korean music on yesasia.com! (I'm guessing most of it isn't covered by the RIAA)

Re:Suggestion for action...

[anubi]

This is what I would do if I owned a music store and people started doing this...

I would turn it into profit. Pure profit.

Sure, I would gladly sell them any CD in the store they wanted. Thousands of them if they want. Let 'em clean me out if they want to to prove their point. I'll gladly take their cash, Visa, Master Card, whatever.

I will gladly refund their money the next day... in store credit. That way, I have their money! And I have locked them into eventually purchasing something from me later at least the value of what they returned, as I can simply refuse to refund cash. Its my store. I make the rules. Thats the way business is. Ever seen a customer present a form to sign or an agreement to a retailer? They simply won't do it. But anything business wants, they just slip it in the form they demand the customer sign before the sale will consumate. Thats the neat thing about business. You can ask for anything and most sheeple will sign it. They may not like it and grouse, but they will pay.

Let 'em protest all they want, I have their money invested now in my accounts. Drawing interest.

And, if I am a big enough guy, I hire little minimum-wage minions to take the flak from the irritated public while I enjoy my luau in Hawaii.

Re:Suggestion for action...

[Theaetetus]

Sorry to be a pescimist, but it'd never work. If the stores saw that a huge volume of product was intended for return (bad for a store because they have to reclaim a commission from the cashier when something is returned), they'd stop accepting returns immediatly.

Can't... Simply purchase on a credit card. Return unopened product to store. Insist on refund to your credit card. When store refuses, whip out cell phone and call in fraudulent charge on your credit card against the store since you have purchased nothing from them.

In spite of what they want you to believe, there are a few consumer protection laws around. :)

...This needs to be done NOW. I'm already boycotting the RIAA. If there's a CD i really want, I get a list of the songs, and I download it.

RIAA: You see, members of Congress, the huge drop we had in sales during this period. Also, look at the thousands of statements made on bulletin boards online about how people just 'download their music now'. Obviously file sharing is an even bigger problem than we thought. We need criminal laws to prevent this now.

Bad move, eh?

Instead, buy CDs, but buy them from indie artists, or buy them from the Apple Music Store (which will soon have indie artists on there). Show the RIAA that there IS a market there, and that money is being spent - and they're not just getting a share. If the RIAA has a $50 million drop in sales, they can claim a $50 million drop due to piracy... unless the indies can claim a $50 million increase in sales.

-T -T

Re:Suggestion for action...

[RiffRafff]

"DO NOT OPEN THE CD."

Better yet, OPEN the CD. Take it back and exchange it. Repeat. Loop.

Not only does this show a high rate of returns, it removes the CD from circulation, COSTING them money.

I plan on using this strategy if I ever end up with a copyprotected (unrippable) CD. If I ever buy another CD.

War On Piracy?

[PontifexPrimus]

Over the coming months this may be the Internet's equivalent of shock and awe, the stunning discovery by music fans across America that copyright lawyers can pierce the presumed anonymity of file-sharing, even for computer users hiding behind nicknames such as "hottdude0587" or "bluemonkey13."
Does this mean there will be heavy civilian casualties, lots of property damage an eventually guerilla warfare with nothing much gained?

Re:War On Piracy?

[El]

And in the end, no Weapons of Music Distribution will be found?

sounding familiar

[stagl]

why does sound so much like the infamous (not for positive reasons) "war on drugs".

i feel like this will never end, and there will never be any resolution with the current approach at stopping file sharing.

what's the classic line? "the tighter you grip the more that slips through your fingers"

any wifi owners contacted?

[Comsn]

i'd love to see what happens when an unsecured wifi network owner gets a letter.

"Well gee, I just got this set up. Whats kazaa?"

Re:any wifi owners contacted?

[the idoru]

when my neighbor gets his letter, i'll let you know.

Re:Question.

[Squidgee]

How about:

e) I download, but I also pay for CDs when an artist is worth it; in fact, I'll often download a few songs, and then pay up for the CD. That is, until the RIAA started to wage warfare on P2P.

they've got it all wrong.

[Ashetos]

Nothing original, I concede, but the obvious should be restated. often:

Sharing is the best way to stimulate a market, if I like a piece of music, I want to tell others about it. It enriches them and raises my social status (or at least sense of worth). This is what "tape trading" used to be all about and it is exactly what file trading is now about. Sucky music doesn't stay in my shared directory for very long.

The truth is that the RIAA is fighting against the very essence of civilized culture, they are doing their best to defend their short term interests while ignoring the fact that without an enthusiastic audience they will be the first to loose. When no one is willing to pay money for the next one hit wonder's overproduced album, and the record companies slowly starve there will still be a million independent artists working hard for our attention, they do know how to use the current technology and they will be the ones benefiting the most from all this.

If you ask me, this issue has already been won. All they can to is try to intimidate anyone they can. This attempt to get parents to "police" their children will only reinforce the idea that "sharing is cool." It makes sharing, and resisting the media conglomerate's influence immediately anti-authority and anti-establishment, forbidden fruit, therefore immensely cool. It's over.

Ack!

[fluxrad]

The recording industry said Pate's daughter was offering songs by Billy Idol, Missy Elliot, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and other artists

She shouldn't be fined for pirating music. She should be fined for her taste in music.

*sigh* I give up on RIAA music for good

[eclectic4]

I would suggest listening to other music. Indie lables and the like.

I'll be honest, it's gotten to the point where the alternative labels are putting out better music anyway.

I remember when music was fun. When music was an entertainment "entity". We made cassette tapes for each other profusely, and we loved it. We went to concerts, bought tapes by the trunk load, watched MTV, etc... it was pure entertainment... fun. It was as if the record companies knew that this was just "how it is". I bought more music during my Napster days that I had in the previous 7 years. It was like a re-introduction to the music "thang", the music "culture" if you will that seemed to become far less fun over the years

And then... *sigh*. The DMCA, the RIAA, attacking customers, bringing them to court, etc... I don't know about you, but to think this helps business you would have to be one of two things:

1. Completely disconnected with your customer base and what makes your business flourish, and will never entertain that the problems are due to their own shortcomings (bad music, horrible radio payoffs for even worse music, realizing that attacking your own customers is bad (sheesh, do I even have to say that?) etc...) or

2. A minion that is just giving us another example of greed run amok, plain to see by it's customers.

In either case, I think they are literally only going to make it worse for themselves.

Insensitive clods.

Re:*sigh* I give up on RIAA music for good

[Petronius]

Well, HERE (Google Cache)'s the list from the RIAA's website. I'm sorry to see that 4AD which is an indie label (or at least used to be: Breeders, Belly, Pixies, Cocteau Twins) is at the top of the list.

1500 Records
333 Music
4AD Records
4th & Broadway
5 Minute Walk
510 Records
550 Music
550/Fox
57 Records
A Vision/Teldec
A&E Latin Music
(...rest cut to avoid lameness filter...)

so exactly, what is an indie label? Maybe they should start putting stickers on CDs that say: "NO RIAAA INSIDE"?

Re:Question.

[arbitrary nickname]

(b) I'm not really 'stealing' it because it's still 'there' after I have taken it;

Exactly! Copyright infringement IS NOT 'THEFT' under most legal systems. Copying a piece of digital media does not deprive the original owner of it. Unfortunately, the penalties for this 'virtual theft' seem worse than those for real and often violent robbery, burglary etc...

(d) Everyone else is doing it, normal people who don't shoplift or anything, so it must be okay.

When vast numbers of people break the law, maybe the law needs changing. See 'prohibition'. Also 'speeding'... :(

Once again, this shows that...

[Faeton]

... nothing is more powerful than "I'm gonna tell your dad!" - Chris Rock

Re:Question.

[Kapsar]

E) all of the above. The RIAA is ruining music by turning it into a machine. They found a formula they think works, plug in a new artist use the same shit as before and bam they got a new hit. The only people who are getting hurt are the musicians who are just starting out. they don't have any record sales and don't have many gigs, these artists need support, but the Pop crap out there, who cares about it. Must musicians get their money from the tours they go on, not record sales.

Missing quotes

[verloren]

A couple of choice quotes:

A father of a file-sharer said "I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."

They missed the rest of the quote "...without paying anyone for it, just, you know, for free, like when I go shopping at Target without paying. That's not illegal, right?"

"In Charleston, W.Va., college student Amy Boggs said she quickly deleted more than 1,400 music files on her computer after the AP told her she was the target of a subpoena. Boggs said she sometimes downloaded dozens of songs on any given day, including ones by Fleetwood Mac, Blondie, Incubus and Busta Rhymes."

missing the bit where she said "...But you won't tell anyone about that, right? Or that I was born on July 24th, 1981, OK?"

Cheers, Paul

A sad, sad site ...

[slagdogg]

Wow, the effects have been brutal ... I snapped a pic of one of those affected at lunch today:

Click Here

Re:Question.

[Jucius Maximus]

" (a) the RIAA/MPAA is ripping off the artists anyway, so I should just steal it anyway and they both can burn for all I care;"

They are certainly ripping off the artists but it does not make getting unpaid or bootleg copies legal. "(b) I'm not really 'stealing' it because it's still 'there' after I have taken it;"

You're not really stealing because copyright infringement != theft regardless of what the thought police try to coerce you into believing.

"(c) Music and movies suck nowadays anyway so I should be able to get them free;"

Even if it sucks, it is intellectual property and you've gotta pay the owner for it. The RIAA owns the music if its signed artists. If it sucks, why do you want to get it in the first place?!?

"(d) Everyone else is doing it, normal people who don't shoplift or anything, so it must be okay."

If the United States was a democratic country where the majority's word is law as opposed to a 'communist' state ruled by cartels and monopolies where people all play the same games under their rules, this would be true. Too bad it is not true. Whomever you vote for come January '05, the cartels that control what you see, hear, think and believe will not be thrown 'out of office.'

Some serious questions about the RIAA's laws...

[StevenMaurer]

I have been following this story with some interest, and I am still wondering how much of this story is real, and how much is so much legal FUD.

Consider: Even assuming that the RIAA proves some kid (or even his parents) has made one of their copyrighted songs available for download, how do they prove that anyone other than the copyright holder actually downloaded it?

Even assuming that they did, how do they then go show that the person who downloaded it actually turned the song into a sailable format? (MP3s are not the same quality as WAVs - how would this substandard quality be factored in?)

Even if someone did, presumably at most they'd be liable for the proportional cost of the song off the CD. Would the Judge give them credit for anyone who downloaded the song and then decided to buy the CD?

Understand that I am perfectly aware that the present U.S. political system has a strongly plutocratic component (e.g. the rich get to buy the laws they want), but I still think there are a lot more hurdles the RIAA most cross before they can start collecting that absurd "$15,000 per song" that's being bandied about in the articles about this.

Re:Some serious questions about the RIAA's laws...

[SmallFurryCreature]

Since some people have mentioned the war on drugs I am going to do the same.

When the police do a sting operation with an undercover agent doing a buy, they do not have to prove that any sale was made to a non-police agent. The single sale is enough.

Neither do they care about the purity of drugs. It could be 99% ground glass. The copyinng of copyrighted music is forbidden, nothing said about the quality. Imagine of this held for other crimes. Yes youre honor I stole that car, but it was a piece of shit.

I am afraid that from there on youre arguments go into fantasy land. Courts are not nice places in wich you can ask the judge to play nice. Do they care that a drug dealer uses his earnings to support his family? No. Same with this. Amy arguments about the harms of filesharing must ultimatly made in two places, the supreme courts who would check it against the constitution or with the lawmakers who can change the laws.

BTW I am not at all behind the RIAA, I would like to see them killed by some crazy guntoting yanks but I feel it is important for people to face reality as it is now.

If they do sue you

[Evets]

then you have the right to subpoena any of the artists that you are accused of sharing. Put them on the stand and ask them if they support the RIAA's suing of their customers. Ask them how much money they have lost because of file sharing. Ask them every question under the sun. Take up as much time as possible for each artist. If each Metallica member has to spend 2 days in court for every person they sue, then maybe they'll just shut their pie holes and be grateful for what their fans have given them.

Re:If they do sue you

[geekee]

" then you have the right to subpoena any of the artists that you are accused of sharing. Put them on the stand and ask them if they support the RIAA's suing of their customers. Ask them how much money they have lost because of file sharing. Ask them every question under the sun. Take up as much time as possible for each artist. If each Metallica member has to spend 2 days in court for every person they sue, then maybe they'll just shut their pie holes and be grateful for what their fans have given them."

First, the artists aren't the copyright holders. The labels are. If you put a record exec on the stand, he'll say he supports the RIAA's action, that's what he pays them for. Second, it's doubtful you can convince a judge that it's necessary to force these witnesses to appear in court in the 1st place, since they have no relevant testimony to the case.

Piracy?

[Chihuahuabot]

Yeah, people didn't share music prior to peer to peer networks.... not online (FTP and binaries newsgroups) and definately not back in the old days (cassette tape).

It's all about who is going to control the distribution of music. The RIAA doesn't want artists to be able cut the middlemen (recording labels) from the process.

In order to presever the status quo, the RIAA labals are suing their own customers. This will only hasten the inevitable. I do feel sorry for the people that are being harrassed. It's sad and wrong and does nothing for those that actually create the music.

The "I Don't Know" Defense?

[Bob9113]

Could you show up for the subpoena, say, "Anyone who wants to can use my IP address. I don't keep track of who and when. I do not pirate music, and I do not know who was using my IP address at the time the music was pirated. I will be happy to remove any offending files and software I can find on my computer (if indeed the IP address was being used by my computer at the time), and I will continue to let anyone use my IP address. This time I'm going to be nice and not sue you for this blatantly false allegation. Next time I won't be so friendly, so please be sure to identify the human, not the IP address that is breaking the law, and have credible witnesses."

Are you allowed to withhold evidence that would implicate another person in a civil trial? If the RIAA asked you, while you were on the stand, for a list of all the people who have been in your house in the past month, could you say, "blow me."? It would seem that these facts do not directly relate to the charge that you did or did not pirate the songs. Can you be forced to testify in a civil trial or only in criminal trials?

Thank God It's Not What I Thought

[Nom du Keyboard]

Father: What's that on your computer, son?

17-year-old-son: Some movies of barely legal teens doing everything with barnyard animals that I downloaded off the Internet.

Father: Thank God it's not MP3s. For a moment I'd thought you'd really gotten us in trouble there.

Check this site out

[OverlordQ]

Alot of people have idea's that they should 'boycott' the RIAA buy not buying CD's or buying them and returning them, or even buying from indie artists, but they all ask the same question: Who are RIAA members? Well I'd like to point you you this page which gives you a nice list of all the labels.

Re:Check this site out

[GoodNicsTken]

Pongo,

Since the RIAA doesn't make a dime off of used CD sales, it's OK to buy used RIAA members music. Go to a local store or secondspin.com. However, we really recomend you check out things like cdbaby.com or dmusic.com and discover INDE music. There really is some good stuff out there.

Re:Suggestion for action...COPY PROTECTION

[Nom du Keyboard]

everybody buys a CD...DO NOT OPEN THE CD...On the following day, return the CDs for a refund.

Try your best to do this with a copy protected CD and maybe kill two birds with one stone in the process.

Read the article

[nochops]

First of all the RIAA did not target people's parents. The RIAA is targetting the ISP's account holders, which is perfectly logical.

Second of all, the parent who was notified that their child was subpoened was NOT notified by the RIAA. They were notified by the Associated Press.

It says right there in the article that the RIAA didn't even know that people like the AP could get hold of that type of information.

So yeah, the RIAA is bad and evil, and so is Microsoft, and SCO and the other flavors of the month, but at least read the article before you comment, so you can get your facts right.

What does RIAA want as the outcome of this?

[GreenCrackBaby]

If I was holding shares in one or more RIAA companies, I'd be livid right now!

How does it make business sense to sue music downloaders (let alone their parents or roomates). One would assume that they are downloading music because they would like to hear the songs. Do you suppose they still would be so eager to hear the music once it has cost them $15,000 in fines?

The internet is a possible gold mine for the RIAA and the MPAA. iTunes has proven that, unlike the lies currently spread by RIAA, there are thousands of people eagerly awaiting a chance to legally download digital songs over the internet, and to pay for them to boot! Of course these people are going to turn to illegal methods to get what they want if there's no other way TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.

Here's a little business tip for the RIAA member companies:

-- millions of people are downloading songs you hold the copyright to

-- most of them realize this is illegal

-- they want these songs bad enough that they are willing to overlook the illegality of what they are doing

-- they have shown that, when offered with reasonable alternatives (i.e. terms of use offered through iTunes), they are willing to shell out money to get what they are currently getting for free

GIVE THE CUSTOMERS WHAT THEY WANT!!

Instead, what do they do? Sue the users. Bravo.

One word sums it all up...

[JacobD]

Extortion.

I bet if I could make money off of lobby for an unconstitutional law and be able to pull off legal extortion, I'd have no problem scaring people like the RIAA.

I will download whatever I want and feel that no one person or group can stop me from it.

The RIAA and Warcraft 3: the college relation

[phloydphreak]

The relation: Strategy. The RIAA has realized that most individuals over the age of 50 are ignorant of the filesharing ideology; we can relate that to a nice bunch of peasants. Now, how does one scare peasants? With a firestorm/blizzard combination. The Blizzard consists of subpoenas of, say, 600 people (probably college kids). Everyone saw this one coming, its an old strat. The parents' thought process went something along these lines, they are only targeting the big distributors, and my college student cannot be downloading that much music. Suddenly the RIAA comes out with the expansion pack and a firestorm insues. Now the parents can be sued, and they will be forced to check into their children's downloading habbits. The entire strategy is to exploit the peasants. All the peasants have to do is to realize that there are only 2 heros in this game, against alot more peasants. The peasants wont mine gold for either side if the combo is used. Because in real life, the peasants realize that they are the only ones who really get screwed. "I used to think" -I could be wrong --Radiohead--

Boycotting CDs?

[scovetta]

I figure that the majority of /. users aren't buying many CDs, but shouldn't someone organize some sort of a protest against the RIAAs actions? Speak to the artists themselves-- Just about every news story has an almost obligatory reference to a possible "backlash" from consumers. Well consumers are cattle, they're not going to think on their own. I haven't bought a CD in probably 2 years or so, but I think a little effort would hit the RIAA pretty hard. Otherwise, we're all just targets, some just a little larger than others. Mike

Re:Boycotting CDs?

[Valafar]

Is there a list of record labels that aren't a member of the RIAA? Much of the music I listen to is on labels like Century Media, Nuclear Blast, etc. It would be helpful to have a definitive list of "RIAA Free" labels. I like to purchase CDs, but I don't want to support those limey bastards...

Re:Hmm...

[Abm0raz]

Well, as much as I hate to admit it, the core credo behind Democracy is "To serve the will of the Majority while protecting the rights of the Minority." It is their copyright, and they have the "right" (sic) to use it as they see fit.

That being said ...
[RANT]
I hate the RIAA. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I haven't bought an album, CD, or tape produced by an RIAA member in over 8 years, and I have no future plans to, either. I have won a few off the radio. Bought some second hand (off of friends or used stores, that way no money of mine goes to them). I buy local bands** and indie bands directly from the band themselves so that the BAND/ARTIST gets the money and not some middle man.

At the end of 2001 I had close to 120,000 Mp3s. I used to DJ with them at Frat parties at college. When I left college, I erased them all. Was I scared of the RIAA or other FUD from file sharing? No. I deleted them cause I wasn't gonna DJ anymore and they're all crap. I kept my indie band CDs. Occasionally I'll grab an Mp3 off of P2P when I'm trying to learn a song on my guitar, but that's about it, then it get's deleted. I wish they'da done this 2 years ago when i had my entire MP3 collection shared (close to 450 Gigs ... gotta love Promise cards and multiple servers). I'd almost look forward to dragging them to court.

I read in another thread someone's idea to have a mass "buy and return" day to tick them off. i suggest we follow another groups tactics, equally absurd as the RIAA's. Let's mimic truth.com and take all of our old CDs/tapes/albums/8-tracks, etc. that we're disappointed in, head out to the RIAA headquarters, and start piling them up at the front door. They've put out enough crap that we could litterally blockade them in with they're own garbage. Then someone could toss a match and the world would be a better place.
[/RANT]

-Ab

** if you are interested in some of the bands I listen to, try Katsu and Axum

How You Can Change the Law

[MichaelCrawford]

Sixty million Americans share files via peer to peer networks. That's more Americans than voted for George Bush. Why don't you just change the law?

Copyright is not a Constitutional right - the Constitution gives Congress the power to create copyright but does not require it to do so. Copyright could be ended tomorrow if Congress just passed a bill that repealed it.

The following are links to sections of my new article that explains the steps you can take to make file sharing legal:

• Change the Law
  • Speak Out
  • Vote
  • Write to Your Elected Representatives
  • Donate Money to Political Campaigns
  • Support Campaign Finance Reform
  • Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Practice Civil Disobedience

If you agree with what I have to say and feel as I do that it's important for others to hear it, please consider linking my article from your weblog or emailing the link to other people who might benefit from it.

Re:How You Can Change the Law

[JKDguy82]

Because most of the people who are sharing these files either/both:

a) don't know that they are sharing the files. My sister didn't know that when she downloaded a file, it is automatically shared; same with my girlfriend. I have a feeling this is the case most of the time.

b) don't know that the RIAA are taking users to court. Again, my sister and girlfriend didn't know this. If 60,000,000 Americans(or parents of them) knew that they were possible targets for litigation, they might just phone up their state/federal representatives.

eh. Just a thought.

Re:How You Can Change the Law

[alienw]

You are horribly deluded if you think it takes merely a few disgruntled geeks to change something. Please remember that politicians in the US get paid by all kinds of lobbying groups, including the RIAA and everyone else. Even your donations won't change one damn thing. Neither will speaking out, voting, or practicing civil disobedience (though the latter one will rightly get you thrown in jail).

Average people (the ones who decide the election) usually don't give a shit about anything other than taxes and other personal interests. Hell, your average person probably doesn't have a clue about what a copyright or a patent is.

Finally, one last fact: the US government is 100% corrupt. Campaign contributions are pretty much legalized bribes -- you donate money and the politician suddenly starts to represent your interests. Businesses interested in strong copyright laws generate billions in these contributions. Unless you have a way of exceeding that, nobody will ever pay attention to your ideas about copyright reform.

If you are still not convinced, remember one simple fact. There is money to be made from strong copyright laws. There is no money to be made from the lack of copyright laws.

Re:HA HA HA!

[Llyr]

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a filesharing network?

Do you want fries with that FUD?

Re:Some crack will mow down members of the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

crack will find out where members of the RIAA live and do a few "Malvo's" on them.

And the penalty would be lighter than for copyright infringment.

Business Plan Time...

[henele]

1) Collect data on kid's music tastes.
2) Send letters to parents with check box mail order system, or maybe a list of local shops which sell the content.
3) Profit?

Smugness Factor

[pongo000]

So there you sit, all smug, shaking your head at these really stupid people who would have the gall to share copyrighted stuff on the net. You don't do P2P, so it's Someone Else's Problem. They deserve what they get.

So think about this the next time you're perusing your favorite porn site, or maybe if you don't do porn, a fan club site. Hell, it doesn't really matter: Any site will do, as long as you are downloading content.

Are you sure that content isn't copyright-protected? Are you sure that the content provider isn't sharing something (lesbo pictures, glamour shots, whatever) that they themselves don't have a right to share? What a surprise it will be when the local constable shows up at your door with a subpoena in hand, listing all the times you accessed www.analdestruction.com, how long you spent on the site, and what your browser downloaded, all courtesy of Comcast or some other ISP provider who really doesn't give a shit about your privacy. How will you explain that one to your wife? Or your buddies at work? Or the judge?

This "rape and plunder" tactic that the RIAA is taking is just the tip of the iceberg. As ISPs get jaded to serving up your IP/MAC information on a routine basis, your surfing habits will become easy prey for anyone with a grudge. Thanks to the RIAA, they are spending all the money necessary to establish legal precedence in this area, and to basically pave the way for anyone to start their own little money-making venture.

If you surf the web, you are vulnerable, because I seriously doubt you check the copyright status of each and every piece of content you download. So wipe that smug smile off your face, because it's just a matter of time before your IP shows up on a federal subpoena.

This isn't an issue of whether or not some morons sharing stuff that isn't theirs deserve what they get. Nor is it Someone Else's Problem. It's your problem, my problem, and everyone's problem. The madness needs to stop.

Re:Smugness Factor

[sanchny]

There's a difference between sharing and providing copyrighted content knowingly on a p2p network, where that's the sole purpose for most people, and downloading content off a website, where you don't knowingly infringe on copyrights, and where the only person who'll get in trouble for providing illegal content is the webmaster.

Isn't the RIAA suing people for sharing and uploading, and not for downloading?

of course lets put..

[linuxislandsucks]

Of course let sput the pople who give an allowance to teenagers to buy our music..from the RIAA is stupdi dept

So what happens when all the music buyers are in jail to RIAA profits?

give u a hint..your in the jungle baby and you're goin' to dieeee....

Just having the song downloadable is enough

[txtracer]

My understanding is, if the song is downloadable, then they assume that someone downloaded it regardless of whether anyone actually did or not. The mere fact that you have offered it means you are guilty of unlawful redistribution and they've got you.

Personally I'm loving this. After they prosecute a few thousand teenagers' clueless parents, you will see a massive downturn in Internet access subscriptions as parents "just get rid of the damn things." Then the ISPs will scream about how the RIAA is hurting their business, computer manufacturers and resellers will moan about their sales dropping, and the RIAA members will have to come up with some other explanation of why their sales didn't rebound after they killed off file sharing.

Let The Backlash Begin

[pickity]

As if music sales aren't getting worse as it is, the RIAA is only hurting itself and its artists with this move.

As the article states:

"If they end up picking on individuals who are perceived to be grandmothers or junior high students who have only downloaded in isolated incidents, they run the risk of a backlash."

Run the risk? I'm sorry, but they just created even more backlash by mearly mentioning the POSSIBILITY of going after these individuals.

How can they possibly go after the parents of children who are downloading music illegally? Most parents have no clue what P2P applications are, what they do, and what kids are using them for. If your son or daughter steals a CD from a store, you don't get fined for it, your child takes the blame. And even then, in most cases, the child involved pays a small fine and are left up to the parent's discipline. Sometimes the penalty can be community service, or juvinial court. At this point it's less risky to steal physical media than it is to steal digital work from the comfort of your own home....

Once again the RIAA is throwing their weight around, and once again the DMCA is burning people who don't deserve the law on their backs. I'm sure this type of action scares some, but it also makes many others want to buy less and share more just to stick it to "the man."

The Revolution is BaaaaaacccCCK

[leoaugust]

written with a little poetic licence - maybe this will be a catharisis, and I will feel much better after all the emotional dump is made ....

I think this is one of the watershed moments of our generation, and these moments seem to come in cycles. A lot of forces are converging that shall give our generation a chance to have a revolution of its own - rather than just reading about the old ones in history or seeing them on TV. We must heed the bugle and assemble of our own accord, to wage a war, and the side we choose shall decide our fate, as the wheels of excess come crashing down on the unreasonable. So, be reasonable, and look at what your side is asking in sacrifice and compare it to what they provide in return.

And when you look at the other side and see the lawmakers and the Corporations lined up against you, don't be surprised. The lawmakers are in the pockets of the corporations that line their pockets. Campaign Donations Sway Lawmakers' Votes So, the adversary is definitely formidable. And there is no other choice but to uproot them completely and totally, for their nexus has corrupted the system down to its core.

Some have already sold their soul, and for them the choice no longer exists. For the millions of others the day to make the choice is approaching soon. For about a 1000 the day of making the choice has approached. Will all of them be divided and individually be chopped to pieces, or will they recognize that providence has brought them together under a single banner - and now they must stick together, serve as the nucleus of this revolution, and even as the coalesce together, pull in together the millions of others who when presented with two choices will choose to join the "1000 Nodes of Light."

If the 1000 start by contributing 10 cents for each song on their harddrive today (instead of the $750 to $150,000 that they may be liable to pay the RIAA some sunny day) I am sure enough money can be collected to buy the materials like server space, paper, printing, postage needed to run their war. Then what is needed is time from volunteers which can be solicited from some in the 1000. If this movement has sticking power, then I am sure people like slashdotters would not mind volunteering. And then if there are enough volunteers, the broader population might even choose to support with their cents and dollars.

The money should be spread out to counterattack all the 12-24 lawyers of the RIAA, and drag them into a battle over the very nature of copyright and how their compensation should be calculated. It just needs a focus of a good case, and I am sure there are some in the 1000 that would just from the odds of it - qualify to be that Test case. And with a broad support of the other 999, and of the (23 million -1) people, some sanity can be injected into this whole issue. What the RIAA is demanding for one song is 150000 times what the song actually costs. Even if I pay 1 dollar a day to listen to the song, it will be 410 years of paying a dollar EVERYDAY, before listening to the song costs me $150,000. What sane mind could deem this arrangement reasonable ? Something is out of whack, and it needs to be whacked back into place.

And I think, just like Bush might have bitten off a little too much in Iraq, RIAA might have bitten off a little too much of the "Illegal" File-Sharers universe. The war has been started based on a deliberate misinterpretation of archaic data, and RIAA's assualt was started based on a jaundiced interpretation of archaic laws. Laws are being twisted to the word, even as the spirit is raped and pillaged. But, the hands of the masses will grasp these lying Boosies and rip them from their priviledged and ivory tower havens, and plunge them in the depths of Dante's inferno. And all this will be done electronically. Communication will be electronic revolution.

... emotional dump over.

It hadn't quite hit home yet...

[Darken_Everseek]

I can only really say one thing to the course of action taken by the RIAA; disgusting.

Music is an art form; it's meant to be shared. The thought that people are going to be fined between $750 and $150,000 for posessing and sharing something they find beautiful is a reheprensible form of censorship.

In a connected story...

[Packet Fish]

In a connected story today, the New York Times is reporting that RIAA attorneys will be issuing warrants for the arrest of anyone found to be aiding and abetting file swappers later this week at a joint press conference. As one of the recording industry attorneys put it:

"...we're seeking anyone who may have given these criminals the tools, skills, or abilities to commit their crimes. This will include the teachers who taught them to read and write, any government road worker responsible for upkeep of roads that allowed these criminals transit to locations where they obtained their equipment, and any doctor involved in their pre-natal, birth, or childhood healthcare."

...film at 11.

responses from file traders

[vonsneerderhooten]

I work in a computer repair shop, and I notice(and subsequently break using ad-aware) some kind of P2P app on about 3 out of 5 computers that come into my shop. When I confront these people, mostly mature adults, about the legality of their actions; there seems to be 3 common responses.

-Play Dumb: "Really?! Thats illegal?!"
-Scapegoat: "Its my damn kids again. Ill give 'em hell for this!"
-Repentitiveness: "Well is there any legal way to download this music?"

The first 2 responses are just a reaction people give instead of showing shame and guilt. It is very rare that someone gives the third response. However when they do I am very helpful. I am very eager to tell people about the many venues (sometimes) free music can be obtained. I'll spare you guys, because you are already aware of iTMS, etc.

My $0.02

-D

Re:responses from file traders

[DanBrusca]

As a matter of interest, do any of your customers tell you to mind your own business and just fix the damn computer?

Re:responses from file traders

[felonious]

This isn't flamebait at all but it's none of your business what a person does in their own time on their personal computer. Absolutely none of your business. If you have a problem with people using P2p then don't service their pc's.

I can't believe you confront them on the legality of it all. If you tried that with me I'd tell you to stfu and mind your own business but I fix my own boxes so I won't be seeing you anytime soon.

I am not ashamed nor do I feel guilty. Most of all I won't repent so save your b.s. for someone who has no backbone or self respect. I can't believe no one has bitch slapped u yet.

Re:responses from file traders

[Zed2K]

Uhhh...its really none of your business what people have on their PC's. Do you open their quicken installs and check their bank acounts to make sure they have money to pay you also? Or check their history for IE to see what porn sites they've visited? How about their documents directories to see what letters they've sent to grandma?

Butt out of other peoples business and just do your damn job! I'd sue your ass if you installed something on my PC without telling me about it and it broke an application that was working when my PC arrived at your shop.

Re:responses from file traders

[AvengerXP]

Just dont forget to back up my porn, fucker.

Re:responses from file traders

[0111 1110]

How do you diagnose a computer that is "behaving erratically"? If their symptoms are not a bit more specific than that what makes you think that disabling spyware is going to do anything at all? A better solution would be to uninstall Windows and install Linux or, better yet, FreeBSD. Now *that* would stop the irratic behavior.

Besides you could have just replaced Kazaa with Kazaa lite, diet Kazaa or some other spyware free version. I think, in the end, they would be happier about that than you disabling an app that they were probably using more than any other.

One of these "targets" has got to be an RIAA plant

[mttlg]

The people who were quoted in this article seem more like stereotypes than actual people. I mean, just take a look at this quote:

[Bob Barnes] said he used the Internet to download hard-to-find recordings of European artists because he was unsatisfied with modern American artists and grew tired of buying CDs without the chance to listen to them first.

"If you don't like it, you can't take it back," said Barnes, who runs a small video production company with his wife from their three-bedroom home. "You have all your little blonde, blue-eyed clones. There's no originality."

So there's your halo-wearing "I only wanted to preview songs or download songs I couldn't buy" downloader, which, if some people around here are to be believed, accounts for roughly 100% of the music downloaders on the internet.

On the other end of the spectrum is Gordon Pate, who seems to be reading from a script provided by Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen:

Pate was wavering whether to call the RIAA to negotiate a settlement. "Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered.

Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he does not videotape movies off cable television channels.

Is this guy for real? And just what does denying yourself your fair use rights have to do with respecting copyrights?

In addition to the "honest downloader" and "Valenti's bitch," we are also shown a model of the RIAA's ideal downloader:

"This scares me so bad I never want to download anything again," said Boggs, who turned 22 on Thursday. "I never thought this would happen. There are millions of people out there doing this."

The only thing missing was the disenfranchised ex-customer, which would look something like this:

"This blows. It's bad enough that most music these days is crap, but now you can get your ass sued for listening to it. That's it, I'm not just going to stop buying music, I'm not listening to it anymore either. Screw those jerks at the record companies, it's comic books for me from here on out."

Get four second-rate washed-up stand-up comics to act out the parts and you'll have a mediocre bit on Tough Crowd with Colin "I used to be funny, really!" Quinn. Add two more and you'll have next week's "What Do You Think?" in The Onion. I sincerely hope the people in that article aren't for real...

Re:Misleading at best

[oni]

the RIAA will probably sue you anyway and you will probably lose. Thier lawyers will be better than yours and no one will believe that you were just playing a trick on them.

What really scares me is that, honestly, there is no defense that anyone will believe. The RIAA could just pick someone at random - someone who never shared any music at all - and present a made up dir list to the court. The person will say "hey, you've made a mistake!" and the judge will say "do you expect me to believe that?" and that'll be the end of you.

That's just one of the many sides to the slippery slope we're on when we insist on making ideas ownable.

RIAA contact info

[Lord Prox]

I read somewhere that the RIAA has a toll free number set up to report piracy and/or get info on the whole subpoena/suit thing. As well as info on the RIAA's stand on related issues or to voice your thoughts and opions.
I agree with the thread that the burden of proof should be on them to prove wrong doing, but knowing that people are not going to do it (en mass) they will just settle out of court rather than forcing the issue to court

here is the number
1 800 223-2328
1 800 bad-beat

Re:RIAA contact info

[Luigi30]

"Welcome to the Springfield Police website. Have you committed a crime?" *Homer clicks no* "You selected no, meaning you committed a crime, but do not want to confess. A paddy wagon has been sent to your home."

Re:RIAA contact info

[krishy]

here is the number
1 800 223-2328
1 800 bad-beat


So now can we do what the Russian minister did yesterday?;)

If you get subpoenaed, buy a few CDs!

[Warlover]

If you get subpoenaed, you should go out and but a few CDs of the artists in your download directory (on top of whatever advice your lawyer gives you). Claim that you bought those CDs only because of their exposure through the P2P format.

Why?
A: You should support the good artists anyway. And you might be telling the honest truth about buying the cds from artists that would otherwise be obscured by a lack of Clear Channel airplay (about 99.998 % of all cool bands are ignored by Clear Channel. Clear Channel sucketh).

B: The prosecutor would then be placed into the embarrassing position of going after a paying customer. Remember that the jury will consist of consumers.

And for God's sake, only buy CDs from *NON* RIAA member labels (like Matador for example). If the prosecutor points out that the CDs you bought were distributed by a non RIAA client, that would further drive home the point that the RIAA does NOT represent all musicians! (And plus, you don't really want to actually give any money to those pigfaces do you?)

Fight for your rights

[felonious]

Some have already sold their soul, and for them the choice no longer exists. For the millions of others the day to make the choice is approaching soon. For about a 1000 the day of making the choice has approached. Will all of them be divided and individually be chopped to pieces, or will they recognize that providence has brought them together under a single banner - and now they must stick together, serve as the nucleus of this revolution, and even as the coalesce together, pull in together the millions of others who when presented with two choices will choose to join the "1000 Nodes of Light."

Although you put this is a nice and beautifully romantic light I can tell you right now that these people will fold like a deck of cards. They will be the equivalent of a "rat" in the mob. When you have companies of this size it comes down to self-preservation and lving to fight another day.

I don't see how joining together will help their cause although some kind of class action suit might be in order as long as the proper angle is chosen.

Speaking for myself I'd fight it but if I couldn't find a great lawyer then it'd be pointless. If I could get a big name lawyer pro-bon then it'd be on and we'd put the whole system on trial.

If you are to fight this battle then it has to be more than a P2P vs RIAA. Is has to stretch into rights guaranteed by the constitution and fair use of purchased products. I'd also mention law makers having a certain industry flooding them with massive amounts of cash. There really is plenty here to debate and go to war about but it's going to take the right set of circumstances to pull it off. I'm down.

This is really a revolution of epic proportion no matter what one thinks. We're not talking P2P only. We're talking about our rights more than anything else here and that's the genesis of the argument IMHFO!

Through the war on terrorism we are giving up certain rights and now with P2P we are giving up further rights. How many rights do we have to give up for people to get it?
Search warrants with no reason?
Subpoenas by the recording association with no judicial oversight?
Email monitoring?

Wake the fuck up people and fight this shit with all you've got or the "big brother" days will be here sooner than you think and then you can forget about the freedoms you used to have.

This goes against fair use liberty

[leeet]

What if other kids installed some software on your Pc to show your own kid how to share files? Who's to blame? The other parents?

What if your own kid went to the neighboor and installed those software? Who's to blame? You? Them? Both?

I think fair use/knowledge is at risk. It's like leaving a shovel in the backyard. If someone takes it and kills someone, who's to blame? You can't ignore the law but can't you defend yourself by saying that it's fair use to leave a shovel in the backyard?

What if your 16 years old kid kills someone while driving? I've never seen any parent go to jail for that. Even cold blooded murder! (well unless there is clearly wrong down from them like leaving an unlocked and loaded weapon).

Let's say I steal something and have it delivered. Will the RIAA go against the postal office because I used that medium to steal something? No.

Why would they go against parents in *that* case?

What about kidnappers, are the kidnapper's parents bothered? Not a single bit. They probably have to move out of state due to shame but that's another story.

Same with a computer. It's fair to have a computer and use it. You can't be responsible for other people's actions to a certain degree. You can setup URL filters and stuff like that but I think the judge will agree that you can't "lock down" a computer and monitor each and every actions.

** Hypocrite **

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck do you think you are to stop people doing what they want with their own PCs, illegal or not? You don't accept that for yourself, so what makes you think this is acceptable for others?

The word for this is hypocracy.

Interesting question

[El]

At what point am I no longer liable for the actions of my computer? The RIAA seems to be implying here that even if your housemate sneaks into your room and uses your computer without your permission, you are still liable. Don't they need to prove intent? Why is it that a spammer can hack into somebody's machine and use it to send out millions of emails, and the owner of the machine has no liability? Does this open up a whole new business model for copyright holders -- create a virus that downloads your IP and the shares it, then sue everybody that falls victim to the virus for copyright infringment? Seems like we've gone way past an "reasonable" criteria at this juncture.

Consider this

[dacarr]

If the kid is a minor, the parents are ultimately responsible for the damages. Kid does arson, parents get the bill. That sort of thing.

Yeah, I know, arson is a poor comparison to music piracy.

The point is that the child is the responsibility of the parents, and it is as such completely up to the parents to take that responsibility. As such, I hate to say it, but RIAA is within rights to do this to the parents of kids.

Needs to be compiled

[Lord_Dweomer]

What someone needs to compile is a semi-short document that details what you should do if the RIAA goes after you. It should give your legal options, how to get legal advice, what information you need to know etc. It should also have a section for parents explaining the situation. This packet should contain yet another section that gives information about why the practices of the RIAA (all of them) are wrong (ethically, morally, legally, you name it). Lets give these people SOMETHING to use.

Reasonable-ness

[bladernr]

People seem to keep getting caught up in technicalities. People that are trying to say "What if I had a virus...." or "What if someone stole my account..." are as bad as the RIAA. They are looking for loopholes and technicalities, not trying to see the spirit of the law and its protections for ALL parties.

The RIAA is trying to find and get relief from misappropriation of protected property (ie, the copyrighted songs) that people neither need (in the survival sense) nor have any intrinsic right to. They are going about it in a very poor way, granted, but, there is nothing wrong with trying to defend your property. After all, at night, if I forget to lock the door on my house, I still don't think anyone has the right to barge in and use it. Its my property, and I get to decide how it is used.

I think everyone knows the spirit of this. The RIAA does not want to sue people who have not infringed their copyrights. If they issue subenpoes for the wrong people, they want it corrected. No purpose is served for any party if the wrong people are punished. Their intention is to only go after people that have actually participated in infringed copyrights.

For that matter, they aren't really after song-swappers or P2P networks, at least in a purist sense. If I record a song (which I won't, becuse, like many very popular singers, I can't sing) and people trade it, the RIAA doesn't care. They only care about trading of songs where the copyright owner does not wish his property to be used in that manner (and, of course, said owner is a member of the RIAA... I doubt they care about non-members).

If you put your "reasonable, common-sense, business-thinking" hat on, I think it is easy to see what the RIAA is doing and why they are doing it. Disagreeing with them is one thing, but trying to pick away on technicalaities is just not a useful excersice.

Oh well, back to stealth mode

[YllabianBitPipe]

My mp3 collection is proudly offline. Never got into the Kazaa thing. However, pretty much everyone I know who has a CD collection, I've been ripping and adding to mine. So, instead of sharing stuff online, I suggest everyone start sharing with people you know off-line. Meaning, bring your HD over to their house, copy the contents, merge your collections. I don't see any way the RIAA will be able to stop THIS kind of sharing, unless they start busting down people's doors and seizing your HD because they saw you carrying a HD into someone else's home ... if they start doing that, then we've got much bigger problems to worry about ...

So I was reading the paper...

[desikage]

And I saw that 2 kids (both 17), who walked into a store, and stole $600 worth of merchandise. They were caught, and the paper was reporting their outcome in court. The fine? $600. But if I "steal" a song off Kazaa, I'm going to jail for 5 years (possibly) and paying millions to the RIAA. Tell me that's fair.

Amazing

[Lochin Rabbar]

Lastly, to those who say the RIAA is 100% pure evil and I should boycott them, don't forget that the RIAA includes a lot of great labels/artists/music in my opinion. I'm not talking about BoyBand Du Jour, but rather Count Baise, John Coltraine, Thelonious Monk, Duke Ellington, Gershwin, Louis Armstrong, Nora Jones, Kurt Elling, Max Roach, Charlie Mingus, pretty much anything from Blue Note Records... You get the idea (and I'm just using Jazz artists as an example). I will continue to support the recording industry as long as they have these artists.

Please tell me how the RIAA has these artists, because to the best of my knowledge most of them are long dead. What the record companies have is the copyrights to recordings that these artists made, in many cases over half a century ago. How many of these artists are seminal musicians, treasures of our musical heritage, most of them. Now think how many of them get any substantial amount of radio play these days, how many of todays kids have even heard the great music they created. The current system is destroying our musical heritage not preserving it nor enriching it, and that is why things must change.

Yes music has value it has a value far greater than can measured in monetary terms. As long as those that control the distribution continue to value music only for the revenue it can generate then the further music will decline

Re:what about...

[the idoru]

seriously, though. i've never heard of the porn industry being up in arms over people pirating their copyrighted material on p2p networks. and i _know_ that there is a lot of porn being shared online. and the porn industry makes gobs (don't giggle at that word) of money. does the porn industry have a cooler head about file sharing or is it that the media wouldn't carry their story anyway?

Pirates Patents Interview..

[rat7307]

RIAA: You son has been stealing Music from our artists

PIRATE DAD: YARR!!! He is such a little scallywag YARRR.... I'll have to make him walk the plank!


Well, thats what I thought when I saw the title.....

Don't get fooled

[mobileskimo]

So you are saying the people who create or make a living from music, movies, games, books, pictures, software, etc. should not have any rights with respect to their works?

I'm sorry. Did you have the misperception that people, like Britney Spears, who "create" music for a living actually own the copyright?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but corporations like the ones represented by the RIAA, are the ones that own the artists, the music, the rights and make the bucks. Let's cut the bullshit. You want realism? I could care less for artists trying to distribute their songs by the millions and want to be driven in limousines. I'd care to pitch a few dollars in return for a CD that might have sold a few hundred or thousand to a struggling artists whose right it is to receive it.

If we were to overturn every attempt the MPAA made at controlling piracy, do you think making movies would become unprofitable for the movie houses to continue? Take a look at box office figures and tell me with a straight face that you expect someone to feel guilty for pirating that movie.

This is all about greed.

The more nails RIAA or MPAA put in the coffin of piracy, the larger their profit. With piracy on the loose, they're still making a profit. Just not as much. I have no problem with RIAA or MPAA chasing profits, its what they do, its what I expect them to do. However, I do mind it when someone tells me I can't view it on my computer because the encoding is now only supported by RIAA approved DVD players (they tried to do this a few months back).

One last question: It was never a problem with cassette tapes. And EVERYONE I know copied cassette tapes. Why CDs? Maybe because people have gotten wise to the fact the cost of CDs are pennies, yet their price is $15? The cost for administration, promotions, contracts, packaging, etc., are not much different than cassettes (infact I'll guess that cassettes are more costly to manufacture), are they?

Don't take this personally, but it is people like you who give the rest of us who want looser restrictions a bad name. We need realism, not extremism.


What are you smoking? ofcourse people take this personally. Keep making those compromises and Charmin will have a buttcheek identification print everytime you wipe your ass. Corporations go for MAXIMUM PROFIT. Extreme greed is what allows these corporations to become as powerful as they are. Bill may have made his windows half-assed, but do you think he was sloppy about his business practices? He went for the throat. And look at him now. On top of the world. With all of us chained to windows (yours truly included).

This is all becoming irrelevant...

[BrokenHalo]

I wonder how long it's going to take for members of the RIAA to realise that there is a growing number of people who are unilaterally refusing to buy any of the CDs they sell. Obviously, there are those who *only* play music they've downloaded via P2P or whatever, but many of us (OK, I) have found it to be more trouble than it's worth for more off-the-beaten-track recordings. Especially since the quality of the MP3s or oggs tends to leave much to be desired.

Anyway, getting back to my point, I know several people who keep a list of RIAA members and make a point of not buying their CDs.

New threat for naughty kids...

[KC7GR]

"Eat all your vegetables, Percy, or we'll tell the RIAA that you've been file-sharing again!"

An open letter to the RIAA

[kien]

Dear antitrust-defying, price-fixing, clueless morons,

We, your customers (aka the people you depend upon for revenue), have spoken. Deal with it or pull the ripcord on your golden parachutes. We're willing to pay for songs, but only for songs that we like. Your exploitation of copyright law is over because we'll route around it until you get a clue. Welcome to the future!

--K.

No Info Available?

[rearden]

I wonder how many of these subpoena's have to be sent to ISP's before they simply stop recording the IP info? Already it has been reported that DePaul University in Chicago is saying that it no longer has the user info for that IP...

Are there any laws that require ISP's to keep track users & IP's? From the laws that I have looked over (without doing any real research) it looks like the law only requires them to turn over any relevant info availble.

With what has to be mounting cost I can imagine that small ISP's are dumping this info so when the request comes in they say- "Got nothing". How much longer before the cost gets to high for the larger ones?

Just a thought

OVerheard in every connected trailer park

[Vampyre_Dark]

I don't know what y'all are talking about, my son is Billy Jim Bob, not GoatLick69.

I was just thinking of this....

[MrEnigma]

I was just thinking of this the other day.

I, probably like many others out there, have a router which enables NAT.

The ISP account is under my name, with my information. So if my roommate downloads something, he could get me in trouble...which isn't good.

Sure I guess I'm supposed to be responsible for that, but, it's like me making sure he doesn't electrocute himself...since that's in my name also.

Bad Analogy, but I think you get the idea.

Bring it on!

[hyrdra]

Hey RIAA!

I have over 100 GB of commercial works by many of the companies you represent on my network. Two computers my roomates use run Kazaa and Winmx non-stop sharing from the network drive. LimeWire runs on the server itself. We share over a cable connection, and I recently had DSL installed. Typically during the day there are thousands of uploads, so many sometimes LimeWire crashes.

And guess what? I have the money to fight you. The fact is folks, that if the information on illegal acts was obtained illegally and unconstitutionally, the evidence cannot be admitted into court and without evidence there is no case. It is unconstitional for private companies to issue subponeas because due process is not observed and there is no legal forward.

Sorry, but I am just begging they come after me. I have the cash ready and I come from a family (yes, it's sad I know) of very sucessful lawyers.

Re:Bring it on!

[Mordaximus]

I don't know if you mean to come off sounding like a spoiled brat, but... you flaunt the fact that your family are a bunch of successful lawyers, you have money (and if you have roommates, it's more likely that you don't, but your parents do), and you are willing to be sued for something you are doing that's illegal (and know damn well it is), because you can win? You're just about everything wrong with the United States all wrapped up in one post.And quite frankly I hope they do come after you.

If you're so damn important and have so much money, why not use it and your successful lawyer family to defend the people that have been issued subpoenas and CAN'T afford to fight?

Let's put things into perspective. Distributing copyrighted material is illegal. Period. They are doing precisely what should have been doing years ago: going after those who illegally distribute.

I remember arguments on Slashdot from a while back, about the DMCA, and how if the **AA would use existing laws to protect their copyrights, they wouldn't need the DMCA.

Now they do just that and people are up in arms. You people are far to confusing.

Generation gap? Not really

[alizard]

RIAA has realized that most individuals over the age of 50 are ignorant of the filesharing ideology; we can relate that to a nice bunch of peasants.

You mean the generation whose recording off the radio on analog tapes and sharing the music with friends turned the Grateful Dead and later Metallica into multiplatinum artists? For us, that was "fair usage".

That's why kids don't grow up thinking that sharing music is piracy or theft.

The only explanation they need is "remember when you used to record off the radio and trade tapes with friends? Do you know that if you do this using your computer to record and the Internet, the RIAA will sue your asses?"

And if they ask "Why, what's the difference?", just tell them the truth, that they bribed a bunch of politicians to make new laws.

Who needs to be a young l337 h4xx0r to get that?

Re:One of these "targets" has got to be an RIAA pl

[ramonanarrow]

Remember that the media does not always report things accurately. What could have been a twenty minutes conversation gets condensed into a few quotes that the reporter thinks support his or her angle.As a friend of the Pate family, I can assure you that Gordon is, in fact, for real and was sincere in his confusion, as his daughter doesn't even live with him but has DSL under his name. To refer to someone you don't know as "Valenti's Bitch" is really kind of mean.

Why the analogs to murder and death?

[backdoorstudent]

There are way too many comparisons of information-sharers to hardened criminals. Don't you think there may be just a slight difference in magnitude? A more appropriate analogy would be looking over someone's shoulder to get the time from their watch without their permission. This is quite a different "crime" than stealing the watch off their hand - or worse, killing them for it.