2191.78 Years for the RIAA to Sue Everyone

At that rate... by mattyohe · 2003-07-29 02:59 · Score: 2, Funny

They probably will sue everyone about 1000 years after the earth crashes into the sun.

--
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!

Re:At that rate... by Mindwarp · 2003-07-29 03:00 · Score: 1, Funny

Wow, there'll be some REALLY rich lawyers living out on Pluto by then!

--
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
Re:At that rate... by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2003-07-29 03:04 · Score: 4, Funny

From the article: 219 years! They'd have to sue our great grand children!

I wouldn't put it past the RIAA. Imagine how much money our grandchildren will have. They can pay it all in damages to the RIAA with interest.

Maybe they will make vague SCO threats against our grandchildren telling them to pay for their grandparents licensing, or face litigation.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Re:At that rate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:07 · Score: 1, Funny

They probably will sue everyone about 1000 years after the earth crashes into the sun.

Wont happen. The Earth is a world without end. Isaiah 45:17, Ephesians 3:21
Re:At that rate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:25 · Score: 0, Insightful

Wont happen. The Earth is a world without end.
Could you provide a reliable source? Perhaps one that doesn't involve mythology.
Re:At that rate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

People have kind of missed that fact that (at present) they are only able to sue American P2P users). As the world stands today, they can't sue everyone.

Many of us outside the USA are increasing what we make available via peer to peer -- out of sheer vindictiveness.
Re:At that rate... by Dodger73 · 2003-07-29 03:44 · Score: 0, Offtopic

out of sheer vindictiveness.

share vindictiveness, you mean?
Re:At that rate... by gilesjuk · 2003-07-29 04:25 · Score: 2

Maybe they'll send a terminator back from the future to take out a branch of the family tree? :)
Re:At that rate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:27 · Score: 0

You, sir, are an asshat. Andy Polley 69:69
Re:At that rate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:02 · Score: 0

Given how the government has been screwing the next generation for a few generations now, our great-grandchildren are going to be poorer than dirt.
Re:At that rate... by evil-osm · 2003-07-29 05:17 · Score: 1

Imagine how much money our grandchildren will have.
Esp if they pirate all their music :)

--

E.

Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
Re:At that rate... by Pieroxy · 2003-07-29 05:55 · Score: 1, Troll

This is the most stupid story/article ever. When they'll have a couple of thousand people in jail or properly fined (red: ruined), others will stop using P2P.

By doing so, they will break the whole thing that makes P2P stand up: The more people, the more music shared.

They are just trying to scare people out of the P2P networks, not to sue them all!!!

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:At that rate... by SuDZ · 2003-07-29 06:12 · Score: 1

Screw the grandkids... I want MP3's now. :)
Re:At that rate... by Izago909 · 2003-07-29 07:03 · Score: 0, Troll

That's pure comedy. You are almost as much fun to play with as the front door spammers that call themselves mormons. God does have a sense of humor, it's called the bible.

1. Make a bunch of rules
2. Set most of them in opposition to each other.
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
Re:At that rate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 07:11 · Score: 0

Corporate kiss-ass.

Potty mouth.
Re:At that rate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 07:38 · Score: 0

That's sooooooooo funny I forgot to laugh
Re:At that rate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 07:41 · Score: 0

And don't you just know that they have hand picked all these poor saps to ensure a victory. ie picked people with no hope of paying for the Dream Team legal defence they need to fend off this assault.

They probably studied, followed and picked the most agregious, unsympathetic "violators", ones who probably burn 5,000+ CDs a year, sell them to children they molest and buy heroin with the money.
Re:At that rate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 08:21 · Score: 0

Potty mouth.
Prude.
Re:At that rate... by vaylen · 2003-07-29 08:38 · Score: 1

Once the victims of the RIAA's legal tantrum finally start to make these lawsuits too lengthy and unprofitable for the RIAA using methods easily obtained online or from a library with law books for their state, the RIAA will not be able to ruin many people before they themselves are driven into bankruptcy faster than P2P file sharing ever would have. Every little step on their quest has to cost them more than its worth.
As far as them scaring people out of using P2P, you don't know very much about human nature. People still speed even though they see people getting tickets all the time. People still cheat on their spouses even though people get caught and lose everything they have all the time. People all believe in one universal truth... "It won't happen to me" (unless they're buying a lottery ticket, then it's reverse myopia)

--
Re:At that rate... by lmahan · 2003-07-29 08:44 · Score: 1

So? Our grandchildren pay for it....what else is new? Our grandchildren will be paying for our lives anyway, what's one more bill!
Re:At that rate... by Pieroxy · 2003-07-29 11:26 · Score: 1

Well, it's always about balance you know...

Don't you think people would drive faster if there was no cop around to give tickets.

Don't you think people would cheat more on their spouses if there was no chance of getting caught?

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:At that rate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 12:38 · Score: 0

so are they going to sue us alphabetically or in order of importance?
Re:At that rate... by Geek+of+Tech · 2003-07-29 16:20 · Score: 1

Well, I just figured it up, and at 2.25% interest for cost of living per year, compounded over time, I believe that every dollar of our great-great grandchildrens would be worth 130.70 dollars now. So if they sue for $1000 now, buy the time our offspring gets to court, it would be the equivilent of about 7 and a half dollars. (Still over half the cost a CD)

--
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Re:At that rate... by Geek+of+Tech · 2003-07-29 16:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

God created all that is, all that has been and all that will be. He knows the past, present and the future. How much more reliable can you get than that?

--
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Re:At that rate... by Geek+of+Tech · 2003-07-29 16:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

If it makes it any easier for you, we could sum all the rules up:
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Proverbs 3:5-6

--
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Re:At that rate... by d34thm0nk3y · 2003-07-29 19:52 · Score: 0, Troll

I tried praying once....got a 404 error.
Re:At that rate... by orasio · 2003-07-30 01:48 · Score: 1

Copyright ingringement might be the next reason to conquer Middle Eastern countries, if the trend continues.

Sounds like a profit model to me... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-07-29 03:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hell one could make a career from dragging out litgation. Look at the folks at Caldera, er, SCO.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually the counting model is flawed. You should also consider the fact that every year new P2P traders will be born and they will start distributing the stuff at about 15 years of age.

Thus the cases RiAA has would to deal with would grow exponentially every year.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-07-29 03:08 · Score: 5, Funny

On the contrary. Humans expire just like copyrights. What are they going to sue, the person's heirs?
No wait, don't answer that...

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by i8urtaco · 2003-07-29 03:09 · Score: 3, Funny

And we had to program in the snow! Uphill! And every five minutes we'd have to give the hamster inside the power supply an electric shock to start his heart, but that was only after we kick started the backup motor!

I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Rhubarb+Crumble · 2003-07-29 03:09 · Score: 5, Funny

Thus the cases RiAA has would to deal with would grow exponentially every year.
And so would the amount of damages they could (potentially) claim.
Which basically means that the RIAA can stop publishing music altogether and just turn itself into a consortium of lawyers. After all, with infinite future income (from damages) guaranteed by Congress and Disney Corp., how can they lose!
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:10 · Score: 0

"Back in my day I had to write games in BASIC, on a 4.7Mhz computer with no hard disk and 128K of RAM. And I was grateful"

Newcomer, eh? How about BASIC on a 1 Mhz machine with no hard disk, no floppy, and 16K of RAM and a tape deck? Or, even further back - Fortran and punch cards?
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:12 · Score: 0

oh! oh! oh! sliderule!! sliderule!!
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:22 · Score: 0

In *MY* day we had to make our own electrons!
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by GrenDel+Fuego · 2003-07-29 03:23 · Score: 1

Well, if they did sue heirs then that would cut down on the number of new lawsuits for newly born people they would need to deal with.

Unless of course they're going to sue people for their infringements on top of their parents.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:24 · Score: 0

Except most of the law suits will be dying (literally) before they get prosecuted. 1 in 20 (or less) sounds like reasonable odds to me.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Divide+By+Zero · 2003-07-29 03:30 · Score: 3, Funny

Humans expire just like copyrights. ...which is to say, not at all. So when I'm about to die, I can be renewed in perpetuity? Cool.

If the RIAA can milk recording artists for money well after the artist is dead, I should be able to, erm, liberate the music well after I'm dead. Not that I will die - I'll have my friends renew me.

--
Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by DickBreath · 2003-07-29 03:33 · Score: 1

>>Sounds like a profit model to me
>Actually the counting model is flawed. You should also consider the fact that every year new P2P traders will be born

It does sound like a profit model.

If the RIAA can sue each individual trader for $185 Million or somesuch figure, then they would end up owning more wealth than is present on the entire earth.

And they deserve it. After all, artists deserve to get paid.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:59 · Score: 0

If they somehow try to push that a person is more genetically inclined to swap music files, then they may try some pre-emptive litigation with your children, etc...
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by red+floyd · 2003-07-29 04:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, but some traders have faster connections, and therefore count as 13 traders.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Tarq666 · 2003-07-29 04:08 · Score: 1

I started out on my highschool's Ohio computer. Kit system built by the science teacher that came with a massive 2k of memory, no sound, no colour and tape deck. Half the case was wooden too. We worked out that a foolscap page of BASIC would use about 1k of memory. Oh the joy when we got the new model that had 4k of memory.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Bigby · 2003-07-29 04:22 · Score: 1

Just that humans expire more quickly than copyrights.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:48 · Score: 0

In my day, if we wanted fancy electrons we'd have to get a jar of quarks from the corner store (which cost a nickel, quite a lot of money at the time) and build the things ourselves.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by ediron2 · 2003-07-29 06:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Luckily for **AA, copyrights will still be in effect for all currently-protected songs even after 2000 years, thanks to the Son-of-SonnyBono Act of 2010, Bono-Back-from-Beyond (2055), I-was-a-teenage-mutant-ninja-Bono Act of 2173, and Bono-until-the-year-2525 Act of 2225.

On the contrary. Humans expire just like copyrights. What are they going to sue, the person's heirs?

No wait, don't answer that...

RIAA: Who says copyrights expire!? Damn liar, step up and be seen!

PS: Has anyone else ever chuckled at the irony of perhaps lobbying for copyright to be extended retroactively forever, just so Mickey Mouse (and Sonny Bono's estate!) could get the bejeebers sued out of him by the estate of the Brothers Grimm, et al? It'd force a reality-check on the lobbyists who are whitewashing congress with this belief that consumers are the only cheap-ass nigglin' thieves who want to use stuff without paying a royalty.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Anonym1ty · 2003-07-29 06:18 · Score: 1

So when I'm about to die, I can be renewed in perpetuity?
Maybe that's what people who had near-death experiences did?

--
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by 1u3hr · 2003-07-29 06:40 · Score: 1

I started on a HP programmable calculator. 50 lines of memory and a few registers. I wrote a program to list out prime numbers, there was a lunar landing game in the manual that seemed exciting at the time...
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-07-29 08:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course the "cheap-ass nigglin' theives" have this habit of voting for said congresspersons...

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by DonGar · 2003-07-29 08:42 · Score: 1

I thought they already HAD stopped publishing music, and turned into a consortium of lawyers.

Oh..... they really think that stuff is music?

--
plus-good, double-plus-good
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Dyolf+Knip · 2003-07-29 11:47 · Score: 1

Ha! Like, "I'm so rich I have more money than everyone else on the planet combined including, and this is the tricky part, myself." Tip o' the hat to Doug Adams.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by einhverfr · 2003-07-29 13:52 · Score: 1

Newcomer, eh? How about BASIC on a 1 Mhz machine with no hard disk, no floppy, and 16K of RAM and a tape deck? Or, even further back - Fortran and punch cards?

By the time I got one, I got a floppy disk drive with my C-64. You were stuck with the tape deck?

Regarding Fortran-- I took a Fortran course in 1992, and was surprised to find out I was the only person in the class who had ever *seen* a punch-card.

Fortran was only really good if you had to use punchcards anyway :-P I did not like that language...

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 14:19 · Score: 0

That's only if you believe in that stuff. I'm sure if I was near death, or clinically dead, I would see a bright light too, but only because that's what I've been taught to expect.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 16:00 · Score: 0

That's a really good trick. Last I checked, electrons weren't made of quarks.
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by Geek+of+Tech · 2003-07-29 17:05 · Score: 1

Wait.......

You mean they published music to begin with!?

--
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by DZign · 2003-07-30 02:54 · Score: 1

I remember the lunar lander game !

my father also had one of those calculators
(we're talking 1975-1980 now) and I remember
typing in the game from the manual a few times
(there no possibility to store it :-(

omg I was a nerd at age 7 ?!

--
Learn about pinball machines on www.flippers.be
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by 1u3hr · 2003-07-30 05:31 · Score: 1

It was 1975. The HP25. There are images and links to a simulator if you feel nostalgic. The lunar landing game is there too. (Correction to my post: it has 49 lines for programs, 8 registers for variables.)
Re:Sounds like a profit model to me... by LostCluster · 2003-07-30 06:00 · Score: 1

RIAA: Who says copyrights expire!? Damn liar, step up and be seen!

I think the RIAA execs have portaits of those people all over their wallets... the founding fathers.

Why even try? by mschoolbus · 2003-07-29 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

As put by Rage Against the Machine:

"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."

Re:Why even try? by KReilly · 2003-07-29 03:05 · Score: 5, Informative

This is assuming that
A) They actually maintain this level of lawsuits, they could easily step up the amount.
B) All file sharers remain online, I read a while back that their has been a dip in kazaa usage since the start of the lawsuits.

They never intended to sue everyone that uses p2p, they are intending to scare everyone out of using p2p.
Put simply, if they sued half, I could almost guarentee the other half would stop. Thus cutting their time to 1 millenia
Re:Why even try? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:06 · Score: 0

Just wait until the RIAA tries to sue you for quoting a band signed to a RIAA label.
Re:Why even try? by M.+Silver · 2003-07-29 03:15 · Score: 2, Informative

A) They actually maintain this level of lawsuits, they could easily step up the amount.

Maybe not... didn't one of the court workers get quoted as saying they had to bring in extra help just to handle the stuff that's being filed now?

--

Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
Re:Why even try? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:19 · Score: 0

>As put by Rage Against the Machine:
>
>"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't
>kill the revolution."

Uh-huh. And which label are *they* on?

Rage against the Machine - New CD and limited edition picture disk available at Woolworths now!
Re:Why even try? by pastpolls · 2003-07-29 03:30 · Score: 1

How ironic, I just downloaded that song from Kazaa. Pastpolls "Karma can be so overrated."
Re:Why even try? by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-29 03:35 · Score: 1

I love that song. I got it off KaZaa, on account of those subversives in Rage Against the Machine recorded with Sony, who wants $17 for each record in their catalogue.

Like this white flag song too...

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Why even try? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:35 · Score: 0

There's been a dip in kazaa-official-spyware-client usage, but a massive rise in next-gen stuff like freenet. The only barrier to further freenet adoption is their assinine choice of latest-sun-spec Java for the official client.
Re:Why even try? by uhhhhhhh · 2003-07-29 03:41 · Score: 1

I prefer

"F$#% you, I won't do what you tell me! F$#% you, I won't do what you tell me! F$#% you, I won't do what you tell me!"
Re:Why even try? by Kneo24 · 2003-07-29 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

The dip that was reported was done over the fourth of july weekend. Of course there's going to be less people online during that time. Just more propaganda to fuel their machine, that's all it was.
Re:Why even try? by RightInTheNeck · 2003-07-29 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

The message is good, although its rumored a revolution can be killed if you cluster bomb all the revolutionaries at once. They all probably shouldnt stand around together in the same place.

On a side note : Dont even get me started on Rage Against the Machine. Its great angry highway driving music but, lets be honest, they broke up because they ran out of shit to bitch about. Plus riding around in limos and living in mansions really killed that whole anti-capitolism message they had huh?
Re:Why even try? by felis_panthera · 2003-07-29 03:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

I read a while back that their has been a dip in kazaa usage since the start of the lawsuits

On the contrary. Although there was a short dip in Kazaa useage after the RIAA announced their new program of suing the pants off of everyone who even looks at copyrighted material, yesterday WinMX came back on-line with a vengeance. Something in the nature of 4000 trillion (is that a quadrillion?) songs went on-line for download over WinMX. My room-mates and I went on a DL/UL spree, filling many gaps in our respective collections (combined total somewhere in the 50 GB range).

As mschoolbus said (quoting Rage, all hail Rage!!): "You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."

--

The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
Re:Why even try? by ahfoo · 2003-07-29 03:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I personally did notice what looked like a dip right after they announced that subpeonas had been served and they started posting screen names. At one point last week my client was showing only about 3.1 million but then this weekend I glanced at the screen and saw 4.3 which is about as high as I've ever seen. I was surprised to see it pop back so fast, but then again not too surprised. I think one thing the RIAA is failing to perceive is the utter lack of attention span amongst the people they're trying to shock.
I think this is a real obvious flaw in their strategy. Their biggest artists are best known for their shock value. Using the "scared straight" tactic on a group of consumers who are specifically self selected as seeking out shock as entertainment is questionable.
Re:Why even try? by carpe_noctem · 2003-07-29 03:54 · Score: 1

Rather ironic words, coming from a band that was responsible for booting napster users for filesharing....

--
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Re:Why even try? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:04 · Score: 0

I do hope you paid your royalty for using those lyrics.

If not, well, our lawyers will be seein' ya.
Re:Why even try? by The+Lynxpro · 2003-07-29 04:10 · Score: 1

...just ask Jesus...

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:Why even try? by BrynM · 2003-07-29 04:20 · Score: 1

The term for it is "Fasionable Rebellion" and it ALWAYS sells, but never solves anything or truly educates.
I know there are some serious Rage fans out there, but if they were really as conscious as they purport to be, they wouldn't work for a major corporation. This one bit of blatant hypocracy makes me discount them outright. Fight the Man! (but make sure he signs your paycheck first and knows you don't really mean it).

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:Why even try? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:28 · Score: 0

If there was a drop in usage, it was probably localized within the US...no one else is being charged with piracy. K-Lite runs 24-7 at my place.
Re:Why even try? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:40 · Score: 1, Informative

They never intended to sue everyone that uses p2p, they are intending to scare everyone out of using p2p. Put simply, if they sued half, I could almost guarentee the other half would stop.
Don't be silly, file sharing isn't going to go away anymore than marijuana and speeding has. They can vilify it all they want, but people will still do it. If the big P2P networks break apart then people will just go back to the good old alternatives like usenet, IRC, and private FTP and HTTP sites. Most people know at least one other person that has thousands of songs, just hook up with him, setup an encrypted network with IPSEC and then setup an FTP server on the network. Require face-to-face meetings or proof that they're trustworthy with anyone you let onto the encrypted network and into the server.
Re:Why even try? by cdrudge · 2003-07-29 05:10 · Score: 1

Yeah. Killing Jesus worked out pretty good. Good thing that he doesn't have any more followers around anymore.
Re:Why even try? by shane_rimmer · 2003-07-29 05:25 · Score: 3, Funny

We're working on it. We just need more lions.
Re:Why even try? by Beatbyte · 2003-07-29 05:46 · Score: 1

"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."

Hey! I just downloaded that MP3 ;-)

Rage against that Zack de la Rocha!

--
Get paid to code OSS
Re:Why even try? by Lemmy+Caution · 2003-07-29 05:59 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm not a RATM fan (forchissakes, I listen to Merzbow and Morton Feldman) but the very link you posted indicates that they didn't approve of the booting of Napster users by their management and that they apologized for their management agency's behaviour.

Implying hypocrisy on their part is deeply unfair.
Re:Why even try? by Jason+Earl · 2003-07-29 07:17 · Score: 1

The point that this article misses is that the RIAA doesn't have to sue every file sharer. In fact, there really isn't much of a case against the folks that simply download music. If they already have a copy of the single on a CD (or other media) then their actions might not even be illegal. However, there is a very good case against those folks that are sharing music. Folks sharing music are distributing copyrighted material without the copyright owners consent, and that's a very cut and dry case. The file sharers who end up in court are going to pay dearly for their actions.
Without folks that are willing to share files, the whole system collapses. The RIAA isn't hoping to stop file sharing completely. They simply want to restrict file sharing to small groups of friends and to the criminal underground. In other words, they want to go back to how things were before Napster. By actively pursuing file sharers they are very likely to do just that. Already people are becoming far more careful about the files that they share. When the news starts filling up with stories of the wrecked lives of those that get prosecuted folks will become even more careful.
IMHO this is good. The media industries are going to get what they want one way or another. If they can stop file sharing by utilizing existing laws, then they are less likely to press for new laws or new technological means of controling their media. I would prefer to avoid having DRM shoved down my throat just because everyone else wants to steal the newest Eminem album.
Re:Why even try? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 07:41 · Score: 0

Maybe the ISPs should start charging a $200 "processing fee" for every subpoena filed. That will make it much more expensive to file them in such bulk.
Re:Why even try? by AaronHorrocks · 2003-07-29 08:07 · Score: 1

Thank god RATM is the way they are! Hopefully they won't ever sue us for listening to their music on the radio or sharing thier music and getting thier message around.
Re:Why even try? by JeanPaulBob · 2003-07-29 08:22 · Score: 1

but then this weekend I glanced at the screen and saw 4.3 [million] which is about as high as I've ever seen.

4.1 million of which were leechers...
Re:Why even try? by johnny_4_president · 2003-07-29 08:31 · Score: 0

ooooh, glad you brought that up.
Sony was responsible for booting the Napster users. it was right after the Renegades album came out, I know because I was one of the users banned. When RATM found out about it (right away) they immediately wrote a lengthy apology on their website, and posted over an album's worth of mp3s, instrumental and live tracks available nowhere else. so in fact they're not the jerks you seem to think they are, in fact, they're pretty cool.

--
disponibile
Re:Why even try? by KReilly · 2003-07-29 09:18 · Score: 1

Yea, but not enough people put the time and effort into IRC/FTP combos to annoy them. The point that they are so pissed at kazaa is not because people like you and I can use it, its the fact that my brother and sister who just recently learned the difference between a monitor and computer can use it. If they break up the easy to use p2p, they effectively win.
Re:Why even try? by FreeForm+Response · 2003-07-29 11:47 · Score: 1

Course, that was why Zach quit the band. He wanted to expand their efforts to inspire thought among their fans, but Tom and the rest voted him down.
Re:Why even try? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 13:10 · Score: 0

So wait for someone to write an IRC client that effectively combines XDCC bots & BitTorrent in a simple interface.

Mix and match a little authentication/crypto.. At the IRC and the Torrent level.

There is the potential to build such an app. Mini-Nap networks would form between groups who know each other.

Open Source is a Critical Mass development model. The itch is there, someone will scratch it sooner or later.
Re:Why even try? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 17:25 · Score: 0

Indeed... It's got to the point now that I deliberately leave my PC on all day so ppl can download my 1000+ songs and movies.

Fuck them and fuck their lawyers. It's the fault of the music industry not to have been half-brained enough to listen to needs/wants of its consumer base. The more they try to litigate, the more I intend to be civilly disobedient.
Re:Why even try? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 17:56 · Score: 0

I love people who's only source of political inspiration is Rage Against the Machine.

I bet you own a Che shirt, too.

Maybe sooner? by gTsiros · 2003-07-29 03:01 · Score: 0, Redundant

What if they hire "High-Speed" Lawyers?

Or the /. favorite:

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of lawyers!

--
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros

When am I gonna get served? by JDark · 2003-07-29 03:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Great.. with my luck I'll be served in the first 200 years.

Article text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:01 · Score: 2, Informative

RIAA will take 2191.78 years to sue everyone

Sum hope

By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 29 July 2003, 10:31
READER MICHAELA STEPHENS says that if the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is right and that 60 million US folk are file sharing, it's going to take the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) a mighty long time to get round to them all.

She said: "I pulled out my calculator to see just how long it would take the RIAA to sue all 60 million P2P music file traders at a rate of 75 a day. 60,000,000/75 = 800,000 days to subpoena each person or 800,000 days/365 days in a year = 2191.78 years to subpoena each person".

Michaela points out that it's unrealistic to suppose that the RIAA will have any money left in 2191 years, and she even wonders whether the trade association will exist then.

Plus, she points out, given the rate of tech advancement, it's likely that we'll have moved on to many different types of music media in even a hundred years.

She continues: " So let us consider more realistic numbers. The RIAA plans to sue thousands of file sharers. Working in increments of 5000: 5,000 people/75 subpoenas a day = 66 days How are they going to keep track of all these lawsuits going on? 10,000 people/75 subpoenas a day = 133 days or about 2/3 of a year.

"Keep in mind suing 10,000 people is still only going to impact only one six thousandth (1/6000) of the file traders out there. And who is getting rich off of this? The lawyers. Betcha not a single musician will see a cent of this money.

"15,000 people/75 subpoenas a day = 200 days (1 out of every 4000 affected) 20,000 people/75 subpoenas a day = 266.6 days (1 out of every 3000 affected)

"When might this actually start affecting us? When 1 out of every 10 is affected? That would mean they'd have to sue six million people. That would take,...(6,000,000/75 = 80,000)... 80,000 days.. or 219 years! They'd have to sue our great grand children!"

Re:Article text by cheeseSource · 2003-07-29 03:43 · Score: 3, Funny

They didn't include the extra day in a leap year in the calculation. That'll shave some time off...

Fuck the RIAA and Mitch Bainwol

--
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Re:Article text by Trevalyx · 2003-07-29 05:00 · Score: 1

F*ck the RIAA and Mitch Bainwol
Heh, that didn't take long at all. We haven't known who this guy is for more than 24 hours and already we hate Mitch. I admit it, my away message for the past half day or so has contained his name and a few of the reasons we shouldn't like him, inspiring those around me to ask questions, and causing them to learn of the situation. Ms. Rosen, our familiar foe, had to work for her hatred, introducing and/or facilitating much of what we fight against today. Mr. Bainwol just gets the hatred automatically.
I'd nearly think about kind of almost feeling a wee bit sorry for the guy if he weren't now my arch-enemy and target of my passionate anti-RIAA discourse.
Re:Article text by cheeseSource · 2003-07-29 06:19 · Score: 1

Fuck does not necessarily mean hate. Although it is easy to take it as it's implied meaning. I would not advocate personal hate towards another but as a representative head of the RIAA I am sure he knows that his position is one of loathing by the masses. That and as I am sure you have read the articles about his background: he was the Chief of Staff for Bill Frist, specifically. So he must not have any problems making tons 'o' money while screwing over the general populace. He has no integrity and will fill Ms. Rosens' shoes quite well.

So lets all welcome Mitchy to his new job with a giant FUCK YOU!

--
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)

if their objective is to sue everyone by civilengineer · 2003-07-29 03:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

then, it will take two millenia. They want to just terrorize the significant majority from sharing MP3 and I guess about an year is enough for this.

--

New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year

Re:if their objective is to sue everyone by LostCluster · 2003-07-29 03:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

P2P networks rely on their network externiality to be effective. That is to say, a P2P network doesn't work very well if there are fewer people on it. So, they don't need to sue everyone... if they just knock out the biggest sharers the network will become useless so that the small people stop using it too.
Re:if their objective is to sue everyone by felis_panthera · 2003-07-29 04:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

I see it as a neverending cycle though. They knock off a huge sharer (say 500 GB of shared, copyrighted material). The next in line is someone with 400 GB, who has most of the same files the 500 GB sharer had. The new big fish downloads like mad until he has 600 GB. He gets sued and the next in line already has 500 GB since she was on a DL spree.

The only thing this will accomplish in the end is a slight and temporary vacuum at the top end of file sharing. No one has managed to stamp out crackers (the guys who break copy protection, not the pasty white people) yet, because for every one at the top that gets knocked off, three more rise up and take their place. For serious file sharers, the ammount you have to share is status, just like 0-day warez.

"You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike." --Mentor's Last Words

--

The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
Re:if their objective is to sue everyone by Eric+Damron · 2003-07-29 07:38 · Score: 1

"if they just knock out the biggest sharers the network will become useless so that the small people stop using it too."

Are you saying that P2P is only used to steal... I mean infringe on other peoples IP?? I'm shocked!

Nailing people who are sharing copyrighted music is the correct response to the illegal actions of many P2P users.

Use P2P in a legal way and there won't be a problem.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Re:if their objective is to sue everyone by Wingnut64 · 2003-07-29 19:22 · Score: 1

Knocking out large nodes will work, assuming that:

+ All large nodes are within US jurisdiction.
+ New nodes are not created
+ ISP's don't destroy records
+ Nobody makes an encrypted P2P app
+ They don't get in legal trouble for wrongfully suing people

Even if they succeed in killing off all large nodes, they will be left with an exponentially larger number of medium size nodes that no number of lawyers can knock out. Laws won't matter much; every high school student has had drivers-ed teachers tell them how dangerous(and illegal) speeding is, yet I'd guess maybe 10% of the population obeys the limit.

--
echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >> /etc/apache2/httpd.conf
Re:if their objective is to sue everyone by LostCluster · 2003-07-30 05:58 · Score: 1

+ Nobody makes an encrypted P2P app

Uhm. A fully encrypted P2P app is impossible. The copyright holders simply need to log onto the network, and then request to download their own work. Any IP address that sends traffic to the copyright holder's computer that is part of the file is offending, and then it's a matter of suing to find out who.

TCP works very poorly when you try to encrypt the IP address.

It's the deterrent, stupid. by LazloToth · 2003-07-29 03:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not about getting them all - - it's about nailing a few and scaring the rest. State highway patrolmen are effective pulling over maybe one of every several thousand cars that pass. Ditto, in principle, for the RIAA.

--

It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.

Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by darien · 2003-07-29 03:04 · Score: 5, Funny

It's not about getting them all - - it's about nailing a few and scaring the rest

Reminds me of my days in that co-ed dorm.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Dutchmaan · 2003-07-29 03:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not about getting them all - - it's about nailing a few and scaring the rest. State highway patrolmen are effective pulling over maybe one of every several thousand cars that pass. Ditto, in principle, for the RIAA.

...and yet people still speed regularly.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by garcia · 2003-07-29 03:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

and amazingly enough it doesn't deter anyone. Have you been on a highway recently? Average speeds are in the low 80s.

Fines are usually in the $150 range for speeding (which could possibly kill someone).

Fines for downloading music are $750 to $150k PER OFFENSE.

That's just wrong.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by 91degrees · 2003-07-29 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

...and yet people still speed regularly.

Whereas if they didn't pull anyone over for speeding, even mnore people would speed, and probably speed a lot more. I know I stick to the speed limit because I don't want a ticket. I don't think I'm the only one.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Bishop923 · 2003-07-29 03:09 · Score: 1

And of course everyone on the road maintains the speed limit at all times...

Highway Patrol might be effective in slowing traffic when they are immediately present, but it doesnt stop someone from slamming on the gas as soon as they are out of sight. Same goes for the RIAA, File trading may slow as long as the lawsuits are publisized(and successful), but the instant the media tires of the story it will pick up again. (Not that it has really slowed, Kazaa still has like 5 Petabytes of data available on average...)
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by LazloToth · 2003-07-29 03:10 · Score: 1

ROFLMAO

--

It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-07-29 03:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually traffic fines are also a significant form of income for small towns. In PA it got so bad they passed a law that forbade anyone but the State Police from using RADAR.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Bonker · 2003-07-29 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Correct. The RIAAs goal here is to make a big deal out of what happens to the file sharers THEY sue.

Lawsuits have been mostly targetted at Verizon users and have been 'mysteriously' targetted away from AOL/Time Warner users. (Hmm... I wonder why?)

The goal here is to create a scare tactic. They want to be able to say 'If you share music, we'll do this to you!'.

Like TheInquirer said, though. Our current legal system just isn't up to prosecuting over a sixth of our population and probably isn't up to prosecuting over a thousandth. The RIAA companies KNOW they can't do anything about the reality of file-sharing. They also know that if they do much more, then they're going to start seriously alienating their customer base. (If they haven't already. I haven't spoken to ANYBODY about the recent lawsuits who didn't say they felt upset about ever buying records or CDs.) The only way they can acheive their goal is to create the peception of a new criminal class, and sadly for the RIAA, it's not working. CNN is running a story this morning more or less martyring Justin Frankel and talking about the bonuses of using WASTE.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/29/privat e.fileshare/index.html

Even the people who are theoretically on the music industry's side-- CNN being yet another AOL/TW company-- are standing against the RIAAs wave of mass stupidity.

--
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by dlur · 2003-07-29 03:13 · Score: 5, Informative

The fines aren't between $750 and $150,000 per offense. These people are being sued for that amount in civil court cases. The vast, vast majority of these cases aren't criminal cases, they're civil. Huge difference. If they were criminal cases you'd pay a fine and go to jail for a while, but you'd also get a court appointed lawyer if you couldn't afford one and have the option of a jury trial.

In a civil case there's not much for a limit on damages and no governmental checks and balances on what those limits are. So basically the RIAA can almost literally sue the pants off you for doing something that doesn't physically hurt anyone and just has minor monetary effects on their being. Isn't America great?

--
Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by paradesign · 2003-07-29 03:13 · Score: 1

no, i just keep up with the flow of traffic! everyone else is doing it, why shouldnt i?

--
I want 2D games back.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Dutchmaan · 2003-07-29 03:13 · Score: 4, Funny

So in essence the RIAA uses tactics of a police state... I'm sure glad they don't have influence in our government! (for the humor impaired that was tongue in cheek)
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by silas_moeckel · 2003-07-29 03:15 · Score: 1

The better question is enforcing a law the hurts nobody make any sence? Granted I'm all for if your speeding and get into an accident it's your fault but otherwise there is no downside outside of some rampant eco complaints.

--
No sir I dont like it.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by 91degrees · 2003-07-29 03:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

To be fair, the police and entire judicial system use the tactics of a police state. "Don't break the law or we punish you". That said, the RIAA seems to relish the idea of absolute domination of the populace.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by jmo_jon · 2003-07-29 03:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fines for downloading music are $750 to $150k PER OFFENSE.
Well, lives aren't worth as much as property. You're allowed to shoot someone for breaking in to your house, even without being threatend.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by tds67 · 2003-07-29 03:20 · Score: 1, Funny

It's not about getting them all - - it's about nailing a few and scaring the rest.
Reminds me of my days in that co-ed dorm.

I was luckier: I scared a few but nailed the rest.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by garcia · 2003-07-29 03:20 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't care if it is civil or criminal court. They are treating you like a criminal and charging up to $150k per song.

Proof is Here
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by deke_2503 · 2003-07-29 03:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Traffic laws and fines were designed not to eliminate speeding, but rather to keep it to a reasonable level. Obviously it is possible to speed, even speed recklessly, and not get caught. However, if one doesn't want to take the chance at at $100+ ticket, they won't speed, or speed as much. If the police wanted to eliminate speeding, they could do a much better (and more expensive job) by either paying a heck of a lot more cops to watch traffic or by autonomously clocking cars and remotely recording their license plate. Give it a few years, and cars will be required to broadcast a unique signal indicating information about it, such as license, driver, driver information, car history, etc, which makes it even easier.
Yeah, it's extreme, it's expensive, and it's not really needed either. The point is that this is what the RIAA both wants and needs to do. Now, I'm not supporting the RIAA, but if you make the analogy to speeding, a $110 ticket every time they catch you downloading something copyrighted is ridiculous. They don't catch everybody, and for some it would actually be cheaper than buying all the CDs individually!
Besides which, the latest copyright laws weren't written to save human lives, but rather because the RIAA bitched enough and tossed around enough money....
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by garcia · 2003-07-29 03:22 · Score: 1

If only the police had to patrol a single building and had easy access to view, store, and sort all the license plates and/or drivers license's that they saw while people robbed this single location.

I was just about to say how easy we are making it for the RIAA to catch us and then I realized that would make us criminals... Oh wait.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:23 · Score: 0

And how many people actually obey the posted limit? Not very many.....
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by civilengineer · 2003-07-29 03:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Traffic fines are lesser because everyone NEEDS to drive to work or wherever, and they may go over speed limit sometimes due to lack of concentration or traffic conditions or whatever. How many people NEED to download music?

--

New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Fishstick · 2003-07-29 03:27 · Score: 1

Yah, and CNN was doing their best to help out this morning.

They interviewed a guy this morning. (Can't find it on cnn.com, though)

He says he is being investigated for the 300 files on his PC that he downloaded a year ago. He says his grandson used his machine a few weeks ago to download a couple songs and he thinks that is why the RIAA is getting ready to send him a subpoena.

This guy didn't have a lawyer and was worried about how much it was going to cost him to defend himself. He said he thought they were just making an example of him to scare others.

--
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by BrynM · 2003-07-29 03:29 · Score: 4, Funny

no, i just keep up with the flow of traffic! everyone else is doing it, why shouldnt i?
You're stealing time! You can call it "saving time" or "being in a hury", but you are outright stealing! How are the county clerks and local legal system going to get fed? Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it moral!
Sorry, someone had to give a mock anti-filesharer response.

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Cyno · 2003-07-29 03:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, here's how I see it. In a democracy the laws are supposed to be by/of/for the people. If everyone wants to speed them what's the point of setting a speed limit? Isn't that against the will of the people?

Similarly with the RIAA. If a majority of the population uses P2P networks then shouldn't the rights and freedom of the public overthrow the rights and freedoms of the corporations? Afterall their actions do not cost the corporations anything, except perhaps forcasted profits, which is impossible to prove in this economy.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by 91degrees · 2003-07-29 03:36 · Score: 1

Because everyone doesn't want everyone else to speed. They know they're safe driving at dangerous speeds. It's everyone else who drives too fast.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Horny+Smurf · 2003-07-29 03:38 · Score: 1

speeding tickets are a huge moneymaker for police departments.

I wonder if the RIAA will be able to cover their laywer costs/other legal fees from any judgements they might collect on.

As a side note, I have a lawyer friend. Quite often, people ask him how they can get out of a speeding ticket. His first question: "Were you speeding?" To which the answer is almost always "Yes, but I don't want to pay the fine."
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Thud457 · 2003-07-29 03:41 · Score: 1

Anything to get that last punch on my card for next Pluterday!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by DarthWiggle · 2003-07-29 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's a pretty big difference between law enforcement enforcing criminal laws and corporations suing civilly to protect marketshare.

The way I see it, filesharing is a tremendous expression of the Market's belief that most music product has no value, or at least not the value that the studios allege. People are voting with their pocketbooks, and since we live in a retail rather than a bartering (or, truly, market) world, it's a zero-sum situation: either the consumer loses by paying more for product than he otherwise would, or the producer loses through the disappearance of revenue as people refuse to buy. It's likewise interesting that you don't see as much classical and jazz on filesharing services, both because fewer people listen to those genres and because people who do listen are probably more willing to spend the money to get the recordings they want.

These lawsuits are the ultimate in frivolity. And this is coming from someone who will be a lawyer soon. Yes, copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property must be protected. But those protections cannot extend to the propping up of broken industries which seek to extract obscene prices that do not reflect the creativity, novelty, or utility of the product they're peddling. Intellectual property protection is supposed to encourage innovation, not ossification and stagnation. It's supposed to DISCOVER markets, not PROTECT them.

If you get sued for this garbage, find me, and I'll try to get you a good lawyer.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by I8TheWorm · 2003-07-29 03:49 · Score: 1

In civil trial you can also ask for a jury trial, which brings into question the idea of jury nullification. If the whole world is trading... er... copying songs, what jury would award damages to the RIAA?

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:50 · Score: 0

No, actually studies have shown people tend to drive the same speed irrespective of the ticketing penalty for that state, or even the posted limit.

i.e.
$100 ticket? 70MPH
$200 ticket? 70MPH
55 speed limit? 70MPH
65 speed limit? 70MPH

Tickets are a fundraising mechanism, nothing more.
I imagine they could push things high enough up to have an effect, but at that point there might be a revolt against the "road tax"
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by rhombic · 2003-07-29 03:54 · Score: 1

No, it's the idiots puttering along going 65 in a 65 mph zone that are dangerous when I whip by them at 90. I get along with the other idiots just fine...

--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by dlur · 2003-07-29 03:56 · Score: 1

IANAL withstanding, but doesn't the proposed damages need to be above X amount before you can request a trial by jury in a civil case? (which of course it would be at $150k per song). Also I _think_ a civil jury trial isn't as strict as a criminal jury trial if I remember correctly in that only a simple majority of the jurors need to see guilt unlike a criminal trial where there needs to be not a single juror with a reasonable doubt in order to be judged as guilty.

--
Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-29 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, there seems to be a lot of evidence that speed limits are not effective in reducing average motorist speed or in reducing accidents. Reduced speed increases survivability but not the likelihood of a crash, so it's a noble goal. But speed limits aren't the way to do it (http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html).

The most effective method of reducing speed is a visible patrol car. People are guaranteed to slow down when being watched. Which is interesting, because many state policeman seem to think that sneaking around is going to slow people down -- around here, they love parking in the shadow of underpasses and the like. Which is silly, because here in NY people flash their beams to indicate "hey, hidden cop ahead." The fastest guys slow down, while the rest of us play it cool.

Average traffic speed around here is 70 MPH. I mean, all three lanes are doing at least 15 MPH over at all times during the day. Only bluehairs drive the limit, and that's not hyperbole -- I bought a beetle with a max speed of about 63 and I get passed by people on the damn offramp. HOWEVER -- when a cop is visible in the U-turn lane, speed drops to about 60 MPH average for at least a mile before and after. Which is good, because during rush hour they lurk in the most dangerous parts of the throughway.

The parable here is this: the RIAA could save a LOT of money by simply sending a letter to people "caught" file sharing that says "Cut it out, or we'll sue you." I think most of us would be sufficiently scared to curb out practices. And those of us sharing legal files (there's got to be somebody else besides me sharing Proj. Gutenberg texts on KaZaa) wouldn't have to worry about some fool legislature BANNING peer to peer.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by I8TheWorm · 2003-07-29 04:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sorry... I just have to say this. Songwriters don't make a dime unless a physical cd sells. So to them it is stealing. Of course the sales model should change, and it appears to be, but I know several songwriters who have had to alter their lifestyles considerably, without having changed the number of cd cuts they get.

Of course, the economy is in the tanker right now too, but who at the RIAA has time to listen to Greenspan when they have all these filesharers to sue?

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by red+floyd · 2003-07-29 04:07 · Score: 1

Have you been on a highway recently? Average speeds are in the low 80s.

You obviously don't live in Los Angeles.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by I8TheWorm · 2003-07-29 04:08 · Score: 1

IANAL either, but am engaged to a cop who used to also bailiff, so maybe I have just a little more insight than the average Joe.

In Texas, you can request a jury trial in civil court for anything outside of small claims court (above $5,000 here). Also, it's not really a question of guilt, but the preponderance of evidence.... who is more believable.

That being said, the idea of jury nullification is pretty simple, and this countries founding fathers believed strongly in it, as well as our supreme court as recently as 1984. The jury, even in a criminal case, can decide that the law is really unfair, and rule outside of the law. "Yes, this person traded/copied files, but the copyright laws pertaining to this case are unjust."

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:09 · Score: 0

I travel above the speed limit pretty much every time I drive on an interstate, and I haven't been ticketed in something like 8 years. I'd be the first to admit that there is a large luck component in this fact, but I also pay attention to the road and I look ahead, and I'm usually the first one to slow down or pull over when either a cop comes up from behind or is lying in a speed trap ahead. There are a lot of stupid people who just don't pay attention when they're driving, and they get most of the tickets.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by red+floyd · 2003-07-29 04:10 · Score: 1

but doesn't the proposed damages need to be above X amount before you can request a trial by jury in a civil case?

Yep, where X amount = $20.

The Seventh Amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

Average speeds are not in the low 80s. That would mean for every person traveling 55, i.e. for every person traveling at the speed limit, there is one traveling 105. The average is probably more like 65. Some people do travel in the 80s and 90s, but undoubtedly not more than 10%.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Drakonian · 2003-07-29 04:18 · Score: 1

Best.... Post.... Ever.

--
Random is the New Order.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:21 · Score: 0

Hell, if it's civil and they sue, just file bankruptcy, and keep on sharing. The ultimate thumbing of the nose.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by theLOUDroom · 2003-07-29 04:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry... I just have to say this. Songwriters don't make a dime unless a physical cd sells. So to them it is stealing.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. CDs aren't the only source of royalties. They aren't even a good one. They are plenty of ways to make a dime without selling CDs. If you really know any songwriters, you should know that.

Most artists would make more money if you mailed them a quarter than if you bought their CD. Many artists have actually lost money by releasing an album.

As far as the songwriters you know, you've already explained why that example is worthless.

Of course maybe the songwriters you know consider copyright infringement to be rape and murder as well. They could possibly be some pretty messed up individuals.

Maybe your friends should get involved in live performance, instead of expecting to do a small amount of work once and get paid for it the rest of their lives.

I perfectly willing to pay $20 to go see an artist I like perform. I am not willing to pay $20 for a CD, of which $19.50 or more will go to a few megacorps which want pass laws I don't like and promote bands which suck.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:29 · Score: 0

"I travel above the speed limit pretty much every time I drive on an interstate"

Is that even a choice? Going the speed limit on an interstate is a good way to get ran over.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:30 · Score: 0

You're allowed to shoot someone for breaking in to your house, even without being threatend.
Where are you from? That is definitely not the case everywhere. In some states, you can't shoot someone in your house if you have a means of escape.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by angle_slam · 2003-07-29 04:30 · Score: 1

Similarly with the RIAA. If a majority of the population uses P2P networks then shouldn't the rights and freedom of the public overthrow the rights and freedoms of the corporations?
So if millions of people decide to walk out of restaurants without paying, it should be made legal?
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by slick_rick · 2003-07-29 04:39 · Score: 1

Sorry... I just have to say this. CDs are incredibly inconvenient. I have several hundred of them at the house, not that they do me any good at work, or in the car, or while on vacation. I had to go through the time-consuming process of "ripping" them just to make them convenient enough to be fairly portable. I do not think many people are arguing that the artists and songwriters shouldn't get paid. I don't think the model we have now where Britney Spears becomes a multi-millionaire is going to survive either however.

Perhaps more artists will be forced to tour constantly to earn a living. Gone will be the good old days when they could just set back, get fat/stoned/whatever off royalty money. It breaks my heart to know that they will have to WORK ON AVERAGE 40 OR MORE HOURS A WEEK 50 WEEKS A YEAR to get by. I mean, that should be criminal. What if we were all forced to do that?!

Perhaps songwriters will be forced to move to a flat fee system instead of getting royalty checks until the cows come home (oh the horror! Only getting payed ONCE for something instead of for the rest of your life! Blasphemy!)

--
apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Fascist+Christ · 2003-07-29 04:40 · Score: 1

In a democracy ... If everyone wants to speed them what's the point of setting a speed limit? Isn't that against the will of the people?
What country do you live in? The United States is not a democracy. According to the CIA the US government is described as a "federal republic; strong democratic tradition."
Granted, this might be one of the closest things to a democracy that we may ever see, but it is still not a democracy.
It's a key difference, and your speeding example can support this. I don't want people zipping by my house at 100mph but there are hundreds of millions of people in this country who could care less about my house.

--
TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Cromac · 2003-07-29 04:42 · Score: 1

You're allowed to shoot someone for breaking in to your house, even without being threatend.
So what? Someone breaks in they're commiting at least one crime and likely breaking several laws. Why should I have to wait until you threaten me before shooting you? My safety and the safety of my family takes precidence over the life of some lowlife breaking into my house. Don't want to get shot? Don't break into someones home.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by BrynM · 2003-07-29 04:43 · Score: 1

CDs aren't the only source of royalties.
Just in case everyone is wondering artists like Moby make millions on licensing deals for commercials and movies. If they used something like a copyleft license (personal use/downloading for free and commercial uses being charged) I don't think we'd see much change in how much an artist can earn long term. Check out this copy of a NYTimes article for more.

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by TamMan2000 · 2003-07-29 04:50 · Score: 1

It's not about getting them all - - it's about nailing a few and scaring the rest.

True, but doing the math and circulating the results (likelyhood of being busted) could work to offset the scare factor...

"yeah, they are sueing people, but the odds of them getting me are tiny..."

--
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by hobbit · 2003-07-29 04:56 · Score: 1

You've been around here for a while, haven't you?

--
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:02 · Score: 0

the bottom line is this:

if you want to get their fast, you speed.
if you are late to an appointment, you speed.
if you have a fast new car, you speed.
if you want a sick new song, you download.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by JaxGator75 · 2003-07-29 05:02 · Score: 1

There's plenty of Classical out there. I stayed home one day and downloaded almost 10 gigs of Classical for my wife. There's more Classical out there than a caffeine-engorged nerd can queue for download in 12-14 hours with a cable modem... (is it Public Domain??? I assumed so, but I didn't really care/check)

--
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-07-29 05:02 · Score: 1

Maybe they'll be able to cover costs, but this is not a money-making opportunity for the RIAA. The people they're suing don't have enough money to be worth suing. This is purely for deterrant effect. Similarly, none of the lawyers are making big bucks on this; they'll get their regular hourly fees, but that's hardly astounding.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by laird · 2003-07-29 05:06 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that the people that the RIAA most want to keep off the p2p networks are also, by definition, the easiest to find on the networks. That is, if you have a broadband connection with 10K popular, copyrighted tracks, you're guaranteed to be highly visible to anyone looking around the p2p network for copyrighted files. So if they can hit 0.1% of the network, but it's the 0.1% that contains the "hardcore" servers, then it'll be far more effective than 0.1%...

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by kneecarrot · 2003-07-29 05:09 · Score: 1

I can't express to you how hard I laughed at this. Excellent, excellent comment. Well done! /mopping coke and sandwich off keyboard and screen

--
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Fascist+Christ · 2003-07-29 05:11 · Score: 1

Have you been on a highway recently? Average speeds are in the low 80s.
Depends on where you are. I've noticed going from one certain state to the next on the same highway with the same speed limit that the next has a faster flow of traffic.
Also, would you go 80mph when the posted speed is 25? What if the posted speed is 80?
Fines are usually in the $150 range for speeding (which could possibly kill someone).
Fines for downloading music are $750 to $150k PER OFFENSE.
That's just wrong.
If you actually killed someone, a $150 fine would be the least of your worries. If you actually obtain, duplicate, or distribute copyrighted material without the copyrightholder's permission, then you are responsible for damages.
To put it simply: that $750-$150k covers the copyrightholder's losses (lost profits / lost oppurtunities). That $150 pays the Government and/or the officer (being simply a penalty).
If the numbers were switched, I'd say it's wrong. I can see it now: I make a jingle and Microsoft steals it, using it as the opening sound to their new Windows OS. Billy says "My bad, here's $150." Or, imagine if you got pulled over for going 1mph over and had to sell your house to pay the ticket. Or if you had your foot chopped off so you will never speed again. All the while your speeding harmed no one.
I'd keep it the way it is.

--
TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by cdrudge · 2003-07-29 05:15 · Score: 1

IANAL, but I watch Law and Order often. Even if the jury nullifies, the judge can set aside the verdict and rule on his own if he finds that they jury disregarded facts.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Frostalicious · 2003-07-29 05:18 · Score: 1

If everyone wants to speed them what's the point of setting a speed limit? Isn't that against the will of the people?

I believe people want there to be a speed limit. They just want it to apply to other people, and not themselves.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by cdrudge · 2003-07-29 05:21 · Score: 1

You don't know averages very well. If the average is 80 MPH, and you have someone going 55 MPH, then you could have 25 people going 81 MPH. I wouldn't agree that the average highway speed is 80 across the country around the clock, but in large urban areas, I could see mid to high 70s at times.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-07-29 05:21 · Score: 1

Why would there be a jury?

In most of these cases, I can't imagine that there would be a contested
issue of fact. Where both parties agree as to the facts of the case, the
judge will likely rule in summary judgment, and there won't be a jury,
even in requested.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by b-baggins · 2003-07-29 05:24 · Score: 1

Heaven help us if we ever do get close to a pure democracy; it's a horrible form of government and the founding fathers knew it.

You want to see what a pure democracy is like, study the history of Athens.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by orb_fan · 2003-07-29 05:25 · Score: 1

How about sending a letter that says, "Hey, you have a lot of music you don't have a licence for - go to this web site (http://riaa.com) and pay a buck per song and we won't sue you."

They would (A) have a revenue source, (B) not look like complete bar-stewards.

Apple have already proved that people are willing to pay for downloadable music.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:32 · Score: 0

Which is interesting, because many state policeman seem to think that sneaking around is going to slow people down -- around here, they love parking in the shadow of underpasses and the like.

You're assuming the policeman's goal is to slow people down -- it's not. His goal is to get through his day and make his ticket quota as easily as possible. If the goal were to slow people down, they'd judge the success of enforcement by the average speed, not by number of tickets issued.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by amRadioHed · 2003-07-29 05:32 · Score: 1

Average speeds are not in the low 80s. That would mean for every person traveling 55, i.e. for every person traveling at the speed limit, there is one traveling 105.
That's not true all. It possible that for every person traveling 55, there are 4 traveling at 90. It seems very possible to me that average speed is 80-85.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by schnell · 2003-07-29 05:37 · Score: 1

Perhaps more artists will be forced to tour constantly to earn a living. Gone will be the good old days when they could just set back, get fat/stoned/whatever off royalty money. It breaks my heart to know that they will have to WORK ON AVERAGE 40 OR MORE HOURS A WEEK 50 WEEKS A YEAR to get by. I mean, that should be criminal. What if we were all forced to do that?!

I think the point you're missing is that it doesn't matter if you don't like the fact that people get royalties on creative works. It is NOT your right to say, "I think these people get paid too much, so I will use their [goods/services/music/whatever] but won't pay for it." If you dislike the way that songwriters, musicians or anyone else gets paid, you have the right to not use their work and not pay them. But you DON'T have the right to use it but just not pay them.

--
"95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:40 · Score: 0

No, it's the idiots puttering along going 65 in a 65 mph zone that are dangerous when I whip by them at 90. I get along with the other idiots just fine...

No, its jackasses like you that are a danger to everyone else. Speed limits are there for a reason. They are there so that you can react to an unexpected situation fast enough. When someone with better brakes (motorcycles being the common ones) quickly slows down for whatever reason (to make a turn, because their tire blew out, etc), your sorry ass is going to slam right into them.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-29 05:43 · Score: 1

Nice idea. But this state doesn't have quotas. So back to the ole' drawing board.

(Not too far, though...handing out tickets is a nice revenue stream for many small municipalities through which run heavily travelled highways. So even though there are no hard quotas, state police are expected to hand out tickets at a fairly constant rate)

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by TaliesinWI · 2003-07-29 05:56 · Score: 1

The only problem I have with the visible patrol car thing is that many times the true idiots who were already under the speed limit will slow down even more. And don't get me started about how many times I've seen a cop doing 52 in the right lane of a 55 zone and there's a cluster of cars behind him too terrified to pass...

But otherwise, I'm down with visible cops keeping everyone honest rather than a hidden cop nailing someone and then everyone else screaming past the pulled over cars doing 15+ over.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by cptgrudge · 2003-07-29 06:02 · Score: 1

So people get radar detectors, or radar jammers, or faster cars (which is stupid because you can't outrun the radio), or whatever else comes along. It's a similar concept; they'll keep finding ways around the system with technology so they don't get caught. The police respond with laser speed detectors. The process begins anew.

--
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Arker · 2003-07-29 06:05 · Score: 1

Someone breaks into your home while you're there and you don't think you're being threatened? Please.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by slick_rick · 2003-07-29 06:08 · Score: 1

Odd, I don't see the part of my post where I say I think music is overpriced or that I think I have the right not to pay them.

What I did say is that I personally think the model we have now (CD sales) is dying and I hinted that a new model will likely have to evolve.

All the music I have bought over the last year or so has been from small independant labels (from "working class bands"). I do download music on occasion, but only from MP3.com where it is freely available and distributed legitimately (guess where I found the small working class bands whos CDs I purchased?).

I don't think the existing model will survive, but that doesn't automatically make me a Napsterhead. I think drug laws are stupid too, but I don't personally choose to indulge in heroin.

Any more straw-men you need knocked down?

--
apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by mOdQuArK! · 2003-07-29 06:18 · Score: 1

If a majority of the population decides that it isn't "right" to pay for food, then the minority is not going to be able to force them to pay for the food, no matter how "right" the minority thinks it is.

Of course, the majority will then have to deal with the situation that they will have to prepare all their food for themselves, since not many people will prepare food for them for free. With a reality check like that, the majority may change its mind without the need for force - but it will be because the majority sees that it is in its own best interest to change its mind, not because it was forced to
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by xThinkx · 2003-07-29 06:19 · Score: 1

That's what following distance and fast reflexes are for. 90 is perfectly reasonable on most highways, it's jackasses like you who slow everyone else down.

Speed Limits are there for a reason, because licensing requirements are WAY too lenient

--
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by mOdQuArK! · 2003-07-29 06:24 · Score: 1

Interesting; I wonder how that gets allowed?

My impression of the whole reason for the "jury-by-peer" system is to make sure that decisions by laws are actually made because common members of the public agreed with them (the law makes sense to a group of "typical" individuals), and that it was actually a duty of the jury to deliberately ignore a law (jury nullification) if they think it is unreasonable in a particular instance.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by xThinkx · 2003-07-29 06:36 · Score: 1

IANAL either, and I watch Law and Order too, but I also know that if a judge sets aside the verdict you can appeal the decision, and most often will. I also know that if a judge sets aside the verdict on a controversial case such as this, it will be seen as disregarding the people, and it will be PR hell, and since judges are elected...

--
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Stone316 · 2003-07-29 06:42 · Score: 1

I routinely drive 20km/h over the speed limit and on a 4 lane road, I always see people passing me doing at least 40km/h over the speed limit. (This is a 100km/h zone.)
In order for traffic enforcement to become affective again they have to bump up the fines. When people break the law, most smart ones way the consequences. If the consequence is a small fine then they will risk speeding.
Speed traps are ineffective. After travelling a certain route for a period of time you learn where the speed traps are. In my area, they are in the same spots everytime. Traffic slows down before they get to these areas and speed up after.
The only time I see people driving the speed limit is when there is a patrol car going the same direction.

--
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by cdrudge · 2003-07-29 06:42 · Score: 1

Not all judges are elected. Some are appointed.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Suidae · 2003-07-29 06:44 · Score: 1

Heres a question. If they take you to court and win a multi-thousand dollar judgement against you, how do they get your money?

I know the state can arrage for your employer to send the money directly to them (like child support payments), but the RIAA is not a state agency, can they force your employer or the state to make you pay?

What if I'm a freelance programmer and I don't have an employer?

What if I'm a lazy git and I make enough doing lawnwork for cash to get by but I don't report any income?
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by angle_slam · 2003-07-29 06:46 · Score: 1

So now 3 to 4 million people trading on Kazaa is a "majority of the country"?
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by BrynM · 2003-07-29 06:55 · Score: 1

I can see it now: I make a jingle and Microsoft steals it, using it as the opening sound to their new Windows OS. Billy says "My bad, here's $150."
This portion of your argument is flawed. Downloaders are not doing it for direct financial/promotional gain. You may, in turn, argue that the $15 they save off the CD is some financial gain, but most of them only want a track or two, so reduce that to about $5 to $10 at most. Microsoft could make Billion$$$$ from using your music in a commercial or as a "feature" (sparkly sounds are features). M$ would also be tying themselves to the music permenantly in the minds of others, which is another type of litigation. Definitely not the same situation and useless for comparison.

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Politburo · 2003-07-29 07:22 · Score: 1

In order for traffic enforcement to become affective again they have to bump up the fines. When people break the law, most smart ones way the consequences. If the consequence is a small fine then they will risk speeding.

In some states in the US, the true fines aren't small. For most speeding offenses in New Jersey, the base fine is ~100$ (fines are doubled in 65mph and construction zones). This sounds low, but for a 1-15mph offense, you recieve 2 points on your licence (15-30, 4 points, 30+, 5 points). The state does not bother you for having points unless you get over 12, in which case your licence is suspended. On the other hand, insurance companies love licence points. It gives them an excuse to raise your rates. If you recieve a 4+ point offense, the insurance company can add a surcharge of up to $250 per point per year, for up to 3 years after the offense. Points bleed off your licence at 3 per year without an offense, and you can take a defensive driving course to immediately remove 2 points. The course can only be taken once every 5 years. If you do the math, you see that the insurance companies can charge you for points that have been wiped off your record.

For offenses under 4 points, the insurance companies generally do not charge the same type of fees, but legally they still can.

NJ is widely regarded as one of the worst states for auto insurance in the nation. Insurers are lined up at the regulatory offices attempting to leave the state, wishing to just drop their current customers. The companies that are staying don't want any new customers, and laws had to be enacted to force insurers to take customers with clean driving records. Of course, the most minor driving offense in the past 3 years, even if you have no points, makes an "unclean" record.

I, for one, would love to see the points system tossed out the window (or disallow the insurance companies to charge based on it), and have traffic fines be ~300-500$. It would make getting a ticket much easier, as once you paid the fine, you wouldn't be hit 6 months later when the insurance bill comes. It would also free up municipal courts because many people will attend court to plea to a lesser charge. Until recently, there was a blanket law that allowed prosecutors to charge large fines (~$300) with no points. This guaranteed the money went to the state/municipality and not the insurance companies. The insurance lobby had this law repealed so that almost all convicted moving violations would be guaranteed points.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Versiphextyralus · 2003-07-29 07:34 · Score: 1

Madonna and Metallica need more money right?
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Stone316 · 2003-07-29 07:34 · Score: 1

We have a points system up here in Canada as well but I guess its true human nature. We don't care unless were affected directly. I'm sure someone that has been hit with a couple hundred dollar fine, some points and insurance won't be speeding in the near future but the rest of us will be.
I guess the only way to force people to drive the speed limit is to bring in some rediculus fines (ie, a couple of grand for a minor offense) or some draconian measures. (Devices installed in each car or photo radar everywhere.)
But seeing how that will never happen I guess we'll have to put up with it. Personally, I drive with the flow, regardless of the speed limit.
I'm not sure about cities down in the states but up here in Ottawa, Canada they have 3 and all-way stops everywhere you turn. In order to get to my house, in a stretch of about 1km I have to stop at 6 all way stops. IMHO, there should only be 3 at most, the others aren't required and have sprouted up over the past couple of years. The only reason I can think of is the houses in those intersections kicked up a fuss for them.
All-way stops, out of sync lights and other annoyances on the road contribute to speeding if you ask me.

--
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Jason+Earl · 2003-07-29 07:44 · Score: 1

Actually, most habitual speeders get caught on a regular basis. Show me a guy with a new fangled radar detector and a penchant for speeding and I will show you a guy that probably has several speeding tickets and who pays far more for his auto insurance than I do. People that make a habit of driving more than 10 miles over the speed limit (give or take, it depends somewhat on the area) almost certainly have several speeding convictions no matter what sort of gadgets they own.
More importantly, the fact that they are consequences for speeding means that the vast majority of drivers are at least conscious of their current speed (which is the desired result).
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by pixel_bc · 2003-07-29 07:48 · Score: 1

> I perfectly willing to pay $20 to go see an artist I like perform.

You clearly aren't aware of how much Ticketmaster takes of that, are you? :)
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by ryanwright · 2003-07-29 07:58 · Score: 1

Anyone with a judgement against you can:

1. Garnish your wages (they get taken right out of your paycheck)

2. Place a lien on any real estate you own.

It's easy enough to get around this: Don't own real estate, or don't put it in your name, and don't have a job. Or, better yet, simply make sure the people going after you don't have your social security number. You can move from job to job, or hide out at a single job, and it can take them years to find you - if ever.

I should know. I have a judgement against some asshat who ran me off the road, but it's completely worthless to me. He doesn't own real estate and who in the hell knows where the guy works. I don't have his social so I can't track him down that way. I could hire a PI, but who knows whether that would get results, and it would cost a nice chunk of change.

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by ryanwright · 2003-07-29 08:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

You're allowed to shoot someone for breaking in to your house, even without being threatend.

Not in most states you aren't. They can break into your home and if they don't have a weapon, you can't harm them. I shit you not. The family can come back and sue you: "Oh, he was just drunk, or stoned, or lost and confused. He didn't know where he was. He thought he was in his own house, and then the defendent shot him!" And if the police report doesn't show that the guy had a weapon, you're SOL.

This is why most cops will tell you: Shoot the bastard, and if he doesn't have a weapon, grab a knife or whatever from your kitchen and put it in his hand. If he crawls out of your house after you shoot him, drag him back in.

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-29 08:05 · Score: 1

Actually, when fines go up that usually isn't a deterrant. They're doubled in work zones and people routinely violate the limit regardless. The road near my house has been under construction for roughly two years, speed limit 45, average speed 70. It's just as dangerous to slow down as it is to go fast...just ask the guy who hit my car in a work zone three weeks ago (please do -- he hasn't called me back yet). I was doing 45...traffic stopped completely in less than 100 feet (the assholes were throwing cones accross traffic instead of to the side of the road that was closed...$1200 damage to my car so they could save a few minutes when laying down the pattern tomorrow).

To be honest, nothing is "effective" at slowing people down along the entire highway except constant surveilance and zero tolerance fines. Who wants that? Placing cops in dangerous areas to ensure people don't blast around curves at 120 MPH is about as good as we're going to get without going all Orwellian.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by brre · 2003-07-29 08:11 · Score: 1

Exactly.
At the present rate, we'll catch all the drunk drivers, oh, never.
So, does that mean we should stop trying?
Of course not. Enforcement deters a certain amount of drunk driving that would otherwise be added to the problem. By problem I mean carnage.
It's all about deterrence. It's a well understood model.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 08:28 · Score: 0

Yeahhh, if you break into my house, I'm not going to wait around and see if you're going to try to rape and kill my child or if you just wanted to stop in and say hi. I'm going to put two in your chest and one in your head.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 08:53 · Score: 0

That's what following distance and fast reflexes are for. 90 is perfectly reasonable on most highways, it's jackasses like you who slow everyone else down.

(I assume if you're going to be going 90, you're on an interstate. If you're driving 90 in the city you're fucking crazy.)

This is what slow lane vs fast lane is for. If you're hauling ass at 90 you better stay in the fast lane, rather than weaving in and out of traffic like a jackass (and people are supposed to get out of your way). The rest of us driving a normal speed should stay in the slow lane. I stay in the slow lane when I'm going slow and I don't slow anyone else down. But this is the interstate, so I can understand speeding, as long as proper interstate ettiquite is followed. But the problem with going high speeds, your car just has to barely touch another car to cause a serious accident.

For city driving speed limits make even more sense. The timing of lights even takes it into account. If you're going 15-20 mph over, you will find in some situations you will have a hard time with yellow lights because you are either slamming on the breaks or going through a red light. There are all the unexpected occurances in city driving where going the speed limit might save you from wrecking.

When your tire blows out and you're going 90 mph, good luck. I've actually been in a car with the guy driving 95 mph and his tire blew out. Not cool, we were lucky to survive. Also, good luck trying to stop when you go over that hill and find everyone is stopped on the interstate (following distances won't help you there). I hope you have good breaks and fast reflexes.

Be safe.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 08:54 · Score: 0

> Well, lives aren't worth as much as property.
> You're allowed to shoot someone for breaking in to
> your house, even without being threatend.

in some states, that is true. but in other states, you have to make a reasonable effort to escape (even your own home) before you are allowed to use deadly force.

cheers,
-zach
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by picardsb · 2003-07-29 08:55 · Score: 1

Or do they....?!
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Theranthrope · 2003-07-29 08:55 · Score: 1

Speed limits are there for a reason. Yeah, revinue generation. A lot of speed limits are set arbitrally low on roads and highways for the sake of genrating profit for law enforcement. Which makes a mockery of speed limits for safety argument.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by NanoGator · 2003-07-29 08:59 · Score: 1

"So if millions of people decide to walk out of restaurants without paying, it should be made legal? "

If all the restaraunts agree to charge $100 a meal, then try to get laws changed to protect their oligopoly, then yes.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by cptgrudge · 2003-07-29 09:33 · Score: 1

But it isn't the point that habitual speeders get caught or not. The fact that there is a market for these devices that people use to *try* to get away with it. And then technology gets better on the other end of the scale, and it continues back and forth. Whether one "side" wins or loses is irrelevant.
OT, I have a radar detector, and the only time I find it useful is for speed traps that actually *use* radar, not laser. No need for the cop behind you to use radar *or* laser when all it takes is a look at the spedometer.

--
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 09:35 · Score: 0

> The parable here is this: the RIAA could save a LOT of money by simply sending a letter to people "caught" file sharing that says "Cut it out, or we'll sue you."

Who's to say that ISN'T their strategy - first make a few thousand high-profile examples, then start with the mass (and cheap) cease-and-desist. Still sue a handful of people who don't comply.

Think about it - would seeing a police car cause people to slow down if noone had ever gotten a speeding ticket?
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by hotair · 2003-07-29 09:36 · Score: 1

And of course, just how effective are those state highway patrol officers? They certainly are effective revenue producers, but speeding is still endemic. In fact, if they managed to stop it, what would the state do without the revenue?
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by jafac · 2003-07-29 09:38 · Score: 1

There's something wrong with your beetle. Max speed pre 1972 should be at least 75 mph. With the late transaxle, you should be able to attain 80 comfortably. 90% of the time, it's either poor compression (ring job time) or bad tuning (spark too far advanced = excessive knocking under load on the top end).

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by theLOUDroom · 2003-07-29 09:42 · Score: 1

I almost never buy tickets through ticketmaster. I think I've done it once, ever.

I'm not saying I won't do it again, but if I can save money, and aviod giving tickemaster money, I'm doing it.

Ticketmaster charges what, 50% service charge? As sick as that is (and it's really disgusting), it's nowhere close to what the RIAA gets from artists. If I had to choose between the two, I'd have to pick ticketmaster.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by mcg1969 · 2003-07-29 09:56 · Score: 1

The most effective method of reducing speed is a visible patrol car. People are guaranteed to slow down when being watched.

OK, how about this: we'll repeal all speed limit laws (and prevent cops from writing tickets for reckless driving just for speeding). Now let's put a few cops on the freeway and see if anyone gives a flying fig.

So no, it's not the cops themselves that reduce the speed. It's the knowledge that they can stop and ticket you---hence the speed limits.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 09:57 · Score: 0

I'm guessing that you are in North Carolina where this is actually true. Here in Michigan a woman was being stalked by her ex. The advice that she got was to buy a firearm but be damn certain that his corpse fell inside her house. If he fell out a window then she'd pretty much have no defense.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 10:32 · Score: 0

'Our current legal system just isn't up to prosecuting over a sixth of our population and probably isn't up to prosecuting over a thousandth.'

Um just under one percent of the population is in jail. 10 percent of african americans between 25 and 29 are in jail.

Me thinks they could prosecute a lot of people if they wanted.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Suidae · 2003-07-29 10:35 · Score: 1

It seems like most people who have not taken care to hide their social security numbers should be pretty easy to get, unless they have a very common name.

I'll have to do some research.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by 1029 · 2003-07-29 10:59 · Score: 1

Wha? What the hell do you call breaking into someone's house, a jolly suprise? Maybe the law should actually say you cannot shoot people who break into your house, but instead MUST serve them milk and cookies and give them the combination to your safe. That way everyone will be happy and the world will be a better place... except for all the dead/raped/maimed/robbed occupents of the residence.

To me once you break into someone's house you are fair game. What is it with some people and insisting that criminals have some sort of right to not be harmed while commiting their crimes? What next, workers comp when the burglar breaks his leg climbing out a window?

--
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by merky1 · 2003-07-29 13:15 · Score: 1

If they were criminal cases you'd pay a fine and go to jail for a while, but you'd also get a court appointed lawyer if you couldn't afford one and have the option of a jury trial.

Interesting, I never thought the whole reason the RIAA wants to keep this in the civil courts would be to prevent folks from having proper legal counsel. Could you imagine the time / expense on the legal system. And beyond that, aren't there laws against a DDOS attack like this on the judicial system?

--
--WooooHoooo--
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Ironica · 2003-07-29 14:03 · Score: 1

The link you posted (here) is a great study for anyone interested in the effects of speed limits. My transportation engineering professor sent that one around to the class when it came out.

This doesn't mean that speed limits aren't a great analogy for P2P file sharing. Perhaps an even better one, since the RIAA's campaign against downloading has if anything made it more likely, by causing the only people who are paying any attention to boycott CDs from major labels. In essence, this is the case with most law: if people feel that the law is reasonable, and it is not too difficult to comply with it, they will. If it becomes more difficult to comply, they will be less likely to. So, when the speed limit is 50, a lot of people drive 70... but when it's 60, many of those folks slow down a bit because it's not too different from what they want to drive. If the RIAA figured out their own way to let us download music and pay appropriate royalties, they wouldn't have a problem.

A little more on the speed limit issue, btw:

- "The most effective method of reducing speed is a visible patrol car." I suppose that depends on what you mean by "effective." The most effective of the relatively inexpensive methods is a speed trailer. You know, the digital sign that displays your speed right below the speed limit? Occasionally, kids will use the sign to see how fast they can go, but because of that they usually hard-code them not to display over 55 when used on surface streets. Somewhere recently I saw a permanent sign pole with a solar panel and a "your speed" sign. It does work.

- Speed limits are usually not just arbitrary "we want people to go no faster than this" numbers. There are some "statutory" limits, such as 25 in school zones, or 35 on residential streets. But for a lot of streets, the speed limit is based on the 85th percentile speed. Before they can change the speed limit, they have to do a speed study... which means they sit out there and record speeds for 24 hours (or have a speed trailer do it for them) and then find out what the 85th percentile is. The speed limit cannot be *lower* than that.

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 14:25 · Score: 0

I don't want people zipping by my house at 100mph but there are hundreds of millions of people in this country who could care less about my house.
Oh, on the contrary. I don't think there are hundreds of millions of people who could care less about your house. But there ARE hundreds of millions who could care LESS about your house.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by pod · 2003-07-29 14:30 · Score: 1

The parable here is this: the RIAA could save a LOT of money by simply sending a letter to people "caught" file sharing that says "Cut it out, or we'll sue you." I think most of us would be sufficiently scared to curb out practices.
Yes, but first they need to successfully sue some people. A threat isn't worth much if the recipient knows you won't follow through on it. People know they may get caught speeding, and they will get a fine, and demerit points, and lots of hassle, and it's not a pleasant experience. If I get a nastygram from the RIAA, and I know they haven't sued anyone, how is that a deterrant?

--
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 14:33 · Score: 0

Where did you get that idea from? Uhm, no one gets a faster car to elude radar guns.
Re :It's the deterrent, stupid. by gidds · 2003-07-29 15:20 · Score: 1

The parable here is this: the RIAA could save a LOT of money by simply sending a letter to people "caught" file sharing that says "Cut it out, or we'll sue you." I think most of us would be sufficiently scared to curb out practices.
Really? I think that most of us would feel free to do whatever we liked, safe in the knowledge that we'd have a chance to stop before getting into trouble. It would only deter those people they actually sent letters to, instead of deterring everyone as at present (though still not very much).

--
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-07-29 15:52 · Score: 1

Ticketmaster charges what, 50% service charge? As sick as that is (and it's really disgusting), it's nowhere close to what the RIAA gets from artists. If I had to choose between the two, I'd have to pick ticketmaster.

Ticketbastard charges an exorbitant fee to sell tickets, mostly because they have a de facto monopoly through exclusive deals with venues. They don't front the money for the concert and they don't assume any risk.

Music labels front the money for an album and they assume much of the risk if it fails. The RIAA is also not a monopoly. There are plenty of small labels out there, but it's apparently not as easy to be a music label as many people think. The main complaint I have with the labels is that they force bands to agree to 6 album deals. That's really unfair. As for your first album, the label is taking a big risk on you, so I think it's only fair that they get 90% of the profits.

Face it. Ticketbastard is a much greater evil than the RIAA.

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-29 16:51 · Score: 1

Yeah, no shit. Compression's gone to hell on this thing. But I just got it (traded a copy of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" for it) and am not quite ready to rip it apart yet.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by dasmegabyte · 2003-07-29 16:53 · Score: 1

They did this. In Montana. It worked.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 18:14 · Score: 0

So that's why the reinstituted the speed limit in Montana in 1999, then?
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 18:16 · Score: 0

Uhh, no, the cops in Montana could still pull you over and ticket you if they felt your speed was unsafe. Besides, the speed limit is back.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by mcg1969 · 2003-07-29 18:19 · Score: 1

Before they can change the speed limit, they have to do a speed study... which means they sit out there and record speeds for 24 hours (or have a speed trailer do it for them) and then find out what the 85th percentile is. The speed limit cannot be *lower* than that.

In my opinion this is a very reasonable way to set speeds. After all, in most cases, it's the differences in speed that is dangerous (that and the fact that slow drivers don't always pull to the right, and fast ones don't always pass on the left).
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 22:05 · Score: 0

Somewhere recently I saw a permanent sign pole with a solar panel and a "your speed" sign. It does work.
They had a couple of these near where I live, on a STEEP hill that routinely has people going off the twisty turny road. Someone realised there was a grand's worth of solar panel left out on a road that's empty at night. The panels were stolen within a couple of months of being installed. The poles are still there, but the panels haven't been replaced, so they don't work. Now, if I could just think of a use for some doppler radar gear...
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by The+Cydonian · 2003-07-29 22:53 · Score: 1

Precisely why he presumably thinks that was the best post ever. There's still hope for the rest of all.

--
More than mere navel gazing.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by theLOUDroom · 2003-07-30 00:48 · Score: 1

Ticketbastard charges an exorbitant fee to sell tickets, mostly because they have a de facto monopoly through exclusive deals with venues. They don't front the money for the concert and they don't assume any risk.

Later on, you also state: "Music labels front the money for an album and they assume much of the risk if it fails." Not quite true. Although the RIAA does assume risk, they basically force the artist to cover all their expenditures. Any money they spend, the artist is obligated to pay back. A similar situation would be if Ticketbastard were to charge 100% service charge until all of their costs have been recouped. Then they would charge a 50% service charge, after they have already covered all their costs.

The RIAA is also not a monopoly.
Correct. They are a cartel. Which is basically just as bad.

But this is all like arguing who was more evil: Stalin or Hitler?

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by jafuser · 2003-07-30 02:29 · Score: 1

I've heard of cases where criminals sue property owners for being injuried while trespassing on their property. I don't have any specific examples, but I'm sure someone else here may have pointers to one or more.

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by goatan · 2003-07-30 02:42 · Score: 0

There's been a bit backlash against this in the UK where we have some permanant speed cameras for "saftey purposes" in accident hotspots yet since this accidents have risen badly, probably due to people watching there speedo's rather than the road

--
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by I8TheWorm · 2003-07-30 03:58 · Score: 1

Actually, having retired as a professional musician this year, I do know what I'm talking about. CD sales are THE ONLY royalty that songwriters recieve. There is a lot of talk about royalties paid by radio stations for airplay that BMI and ASCAP collect, but the fees are so small that they just take care of the research that went into the song licensing in the first place.

I have no problem at all with someone correcting me or explaining something to me, but don't tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about when I'm discussing an industry that used to put food on my table.

By the way, when did you work in the recording industry?

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by I8TheWorm · 2003-07-30 04:02 · Score: 1

>>Maybe your friends should get involved in live performance, instead of expecting to do a small amount of work once and get paid for it the rest of their lives.

Do you have any idea how few artists, who do nothing but perform for a living, don't write their own songs? I wonder why that is? Maybe because writing a song that other people actually want to hear (and not just because they like to hang out in your garage) is difficult at best.

Once again, an example of the uneducated verbally (or in this case digitally) proving it.

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by I8TheWorm · 2003-07-30 04:10 · Score: 1

In Texas that can't happen.. the jury's word is final. And since the US Supreme Court has ruled several times in favor of the jury nullification, you could easily appeal and overturn a judges ruling. See Jury Nullification, Jury NullificationSupreme Court Justice comments/a.

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-07-30 04:41 · Score: 1

Later on, you also state: "Music labels front the money for an album and they assume much of the risk if it fails." Not quite true. Although the RIAA does assume risk, they basically force the artist to cover all their expenditures

They front the money (provide it up-front). I didn't say it was a gift.

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Fascist+Christ · 2003-07-30 04:51 · Score: 1

Oops. Change "could" to "couldn't."

--
TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Zirnike · 2003-07-30 05:00 · Score: 1

"Now, if I could just think of a use for some doppler radar gear..."
Boost the power, make a HERF gun.
Nuke lunch from across the room.
Use the receiver as a radar detector.
In paralell, use the emitter to pulse back at radar guns off phase... See if they'll pull you over for doing 290mph in your Geo Prism
Connect it to your battery and put it on the back of your car. "Your closing speed is..."
Make your own short range weather station.
Set it for single pulse, and you have an RF rangefinder.
Just point the emitter out the back, and watch those speeders slow as they 'see' the radar on their detectors.
There's ALL SORTS of things to do with it.

--
I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Fascist+Christ · 2003-07-30 05:12 · Score: 1

Microsoft could make Billion$$$$ from using your music ...
I was going to take this as a compliment but then I realized that they can make billions off of of a piece of junk.
Good point though - it's not the same. But my intention was to compare general copyright infringement to speeding, and their relative consequenses. There was a suggestion that it was not fairly balanced, and I disagreed.

--
TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by ball-lightning · 2003-07-30 06:23 · Score: 1

That's what following distance and fast reflexes are for. 90 is perfectly reasonable on most highways, it's jackasses like you who slow everyone else down.

Someone once said "if all the cars were lined up back to back and all going the same speed, someone would eventually try to pass them" As one of those "jackasses" who follow the speed limit, I sincerely hope you get pulled and enjoy your well deserved insurance bill (unless you don't have insurance, cause you know, its for pansies)
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by rhombic · 2003-07-30 07:12 · Score: 1

The 90 mph was hyperbole; I normally keep it to 5-10mph over the speed limit (On freeway, yes. In the city, yes. Comparable to other fast traffic, yes.) Yes, I have good brakes and tires and a car that handles very well (on dry pavement, not normally a problem in So. Cal; when it rains I NEVER go over the speed limit. Rear wheel drive cars spin out just a bit too easily).

I don't weave, either-- but from what I've seen, the weavers do so mainly because drives in So. Cal. are complete and utter idiots that never get to the right, even when they're going below the speed limit. I kid you not, last night I was going down I-8 at 8:30, going 70mph. I completely blew past an old junker that was camped in the FAR LEFT lane. WTF??!! He had to have been going under 55mph, in a 65mph zone. Get the F$#@ over! That is the sort of thing I'm talking about; that is just as dangerous to the people around you as speeding, and ought to be dealt with (traffic fines and insurance hikes) in the same way.

--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by rhombic · 2003-07-30 07:20 · Score: 1

I keep it within reason based on the quick-moving traffic around me, so my insurance is just fine (despite driving a late-model rear-wheel sports car), as is my driving record (no moving violations or accidents, knock on wood).

What really annoys me is that the police enforce the speed limits, but don't enforce statues like California's V.C. 21654, which reqires you to be as far to the right as practicable when travelling at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic. That's a moving violation, too. Idiots camped out in the left lane going slow are just as dangerous as speeders, and deserve to have moving violations and insurance hikes for their behavior as well.

--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by theLOUDroom · 2003-07-30 07:27 · Score: 1

Actually, having retired as a professional musician this year, I do know what I'm talking about. CD sales are THE ONLY royalty that songwriters recieve. There is a lot of talk about royalties paid by radio stations for airplay that BMI and ASCAP collect, but the fees are so small that they just take care of the research that went into the song licensing in the first place.

Read this paragraph again. You just admitted that CD sales are not the only royalty songwriters recieve.

I have no problem at all with someone correcting me or explaining something to me, but don't tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about when I'm discussing an industry that used to put food on my table.

Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed you had just made an honest mistake. How could I have known that you were deliberately lying?

By the way, when did you work in the recording industry?

Please. One does not have to work in the industry to know that your statment was incorrect. Whether that was ignorance or intent, wasn't up to me.

As for your other childish comments about my lack of education: Grow up. Everyone knows that many performers don't write their own stuff. Composers have been paid to write music for a very long time. Only recently has society been giving them money everytime their work is performed. There's nothing ignorant about questioning royalties. Why should you get paid for the rest of your life for a one-time effort? Heck, if I found the cure for cancer, I'd only get paid for 20 years.
Intelligent, educated people think about things like this.

Intelligent, educated people also try to respond with valid arguments.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by cdrudge · 2003-07-30 10:22 · Score: 1

Nothing's final until the Supreme Court says it's final, and even then it can change with time.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by xThinkx · 2003-07-30 12:02 · Score: 1

Firstly, if all the cars were lined up back to back, that must mean at most there are two cars. I hope your job requires no form of technical writing, or else your employer is an idiot.

Secondly, assuming you mean front to back, my decision to pass said cars would depend on the speed. If all the cars were going 30 on I95 and there was an open passing lane, you bet your granny I'd pass them. It was Nietzsche who said "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

Thirdly, not only do I have good insurance, I have a perfect driving record. Why if I routinely speed do I not have a ticket? Two reasons, 1: probability, and 2: I am not an idiot, I don't weave, I speed in the left hand lane, at an acceptible speed, I keep good tires on my car, routinely inspect it for defects, and I KNOW HOW TO DRIVE. When I was learning to drive, my dad took me to empty parking lots in bad weather and we practiced emergency braking and steering. I still go to backroads/empty parking lots and test my ability to react/handle my car. The nice thing about empty parking lots is you have nice uniform parking spots to guage distance so you can see how far you really should be behind the guy in front of you.

--
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-30 14:26 · Score: 0

"The RIAA is also not a monopoly. There are plenty of small labels out there"

There are plenty of non-ticketmaster shows out there put on by smaller bands at smaller venues. Your argument applies just as well to ticketmaster as it does to the RIAA.

"but it's apparently not as easy to be a music label as many people think."

Is that why so many bands run their own label for years before getting signed by a major label?

The only thing that the RIAA does as far as I can tell from my experience with local bands is have some "ins" with Clear Channel and other advertising mediums. The money to record an album argument is crap, considering a) it has to be paid back, and b) it's overpriced overproduced recordings anyway. As with the argument that bands need RIAA money to survive while dreaming up songs for an album. Most bands that end up getting signed [and not sucking] have already produced at least one, if not several albums on their on time and money. And most of them are profiting off their efforts too, just not as much as they hope a RIAA deal might make.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-07-30 14:57 · Score: 1

"The RIAA is also not a monopoly. There are plenty of small labels out there" There are plenty of non-ticketmaster shows out there put on by smaller bands at smaller venues.

Ticketmaster has exclusive deals with all the big venues. That's the point. It's almost impossible to bring in a big-name act without going through Ticketmaster.

"but it's apparently not as easy to be a music label as many people think." Is that why so many bands run their own label for years before getting signed by a major label?

Do you have to nitpick? I'll rephrase: it's apparently not as easy to be a successful music label as many people think.

My point is this: Sure, there are hundreds of indie labels out there. How many of them do you know of that sell CDs for $2-$3 each? (The suggested retail value according to /.)

The money to record an album argument is crap, considering a) it has to be paid back, and b) it's overpriced overproduced recordings anyway.

???

Try going to a bank and convincing them to loan you $1,000,000 to tide you over while you spend 2 years pursuing a music career. I disagree that most bands "that don't suck" have already produced several albums before they get signed. Nowadays, maybe more of them have, seeing as how it's easier to burn your own CDs now. I doubt many of those bands have sold more than a hundred CDs, though.

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid. by I8TheWorm · 2003-07-31 04:28 · Score: 1

Truth to that...

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.

Umm, not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:02 · Score: 0

This article does not take into account the deterrent effect of the lawsuits. RIAA does not *have* to sue everyone, or even a significant fraction, in order to severely curtail online file swapping.

Prior art: by Thud457 · 2003-07-29 03:02 · Score: 5, Funny

Jason Fox has them flummoxed.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I've got time. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:02 · Score: 0

2191.78 Years for the RIAA to Sue Everyone That means I'll stop using P2P in about...2191.78 years.

Re:I've got time. by Chess_the_cat · 2003-07-29 03:06 · Score: 1

2191.78 Years for the RIAA to Sue Everyone That means I'll stop using P2P in about...2191.78 years. Assuming you'd be dead last in the RIAA's list. The point is they don't actually have to sue everyone before people get scared. Once they start suing people successfully people will begin to stop. Some users have already disabled uploading on Kazaa. Even the EFF is recommending that.

--
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1

Excellent! by Lumpy · 2003-07-29 03:03 · Score: 5, Funny

That means that everyone that their last name starts with a letter greater than B has absolutely nothing to worry about!

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Excellent! by TonyZahn · 2003-07-29 03:35 · Score: 1

W00t!!!!

Thank you grand-dad...

Tony Zahn
Software Engineer & occasional MP4 swapper

--
- sig? who is this sig of which you speak?
Re:Excellent! by tbradshaw · 2003-07-29 03:45 · Score: 1

damn it!
Re:Excellent! by anachron · 2003-07-29 04:04 · Score: 1

At least, living people. Of course, you'll have to change your last name to protect your children. (If you have any.)

I can just see, in a few decades, everyone having a last name starting with 'Z'. Or maybe males with Z last names will suddenly become much more marriagable.
Re:Excellent! by ThereIsNoSporkNeo · 2003-07-29 05:37 · Score: 1

Close... everyone will change their names to 'Z' until the RIAA finishes with the 'A's.

Then all of a sudden there will be a rash of Adams and Abrams and Aaa's.

-Mr Aaa.

--
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
Re:Excellent! by SeanAhern · 2003-07-29 06:10 · Score: 1

Ah, damn.

-Sean Ahern
Re:Excellent! by JaxGator75 · 2003-07-29 07:18 · Score: 1

Get out of my head!
Patent Pending!!! Patent Pending!!! Patent Pending!!! /Aaron 1AAA

--
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Re:Excellent! by darksaber · 2003-07-29 08:25 · Score: 1

Don't you mean everyone with a Kazaa username starting with a letter greater than B?

Stupid analysis by JohnGrahamCumming · 2003-07-29 03:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's a totally boneheaded analysis if ever I saw one. The RIAA does not have to sue every file trader, they just have to sue that ones with large caches of files (because they can get the biggest bang for the buck there... more files, more damages) and then they have to make a noise about what they are doing.

By suing a few, they'll scare the many and reduce file sharing to a background noise nuisance... at least that's what they hope. Their point is to be very public about the fact that they are willing to go after individuals so that many individuals will simply stop file sharing because they are afraid.

John.

Re:Stupid analysis by Zelet · 2003-07-29 03:11 · Score: 1

That is their aim, but all they are going to do is force file-traders into small encrypted networks. It won't take long.

--
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
Re:Stupid analysis by perimorph · 2003-07-29 03:12 · Score: 1

You're quite right, but people are afraid because they think "I could be next". The article simply shows how very unlikely it is to be Next, unless you're making too much noise on RIAA's radar.
Re:Stupid analysis by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:12 · Score: 0

but it looks as if their targets are not limited to the larger sharers. mike@kazaa shared 9 files, and is now a target of a subpoena.

Mike
Re:Stupid analysis by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:33 · Score: 0

You're not familiar with the Inquirer, are you?
Re:Stupid analysis by jbottero · 2003-07-29 03:38 · Score: 1, Interesting

This is what happens when you trade in copyrighted material that you have no right to trade. And look you "I Think I'm As Smart As A Lawyer" types, "theft" or not, it's the same thing.

It is unethical for *anyone* including record companies to profit from ill-gotten gains. Sure, the artist may only get a penny on a CD, and you may not like the corporation. But if it's wrong to steal, it's wrong to steal.
Re:Stupid analysis by squiggleslash · 2003-07-29 04:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

If file traders are in small encrypted networks, then from the RIAA's PoV, presumably that's an improvement. I believe what they're concerned about right now is that someone can RIP and MP3, put it on the Internet, and within hours the MP3 can be on the disks of thousands of users, within days hundreds of thousands.
I'm guessing that's why they're not terribly concerned about popularity at the moment - they do believe, rightly or wrongly, that their world is about to cave in, that nobody's going to buy music any more because downloading anything for free is an alternative. If Kazaa is replaced by a bunch of networks comprising largely of people who know each other, then the numbers involved will drop back to "tape copying" levels.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Stupid analysis by cesarcardoso · 2003-07-29 04:16 · Score: 1

That's a totally boneheaded analysis if ever I saw one. The RIAA does not have to sue every file trader, they just have to sue that ones with large caches of files (because they can get the biggest bang for the buck there... more files, more damages) and then they have to make a noise about what they are doing.

Even on that case RIAA will have to fight a long time to actually get someone.

--
Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)
Re:Stupid analysis by angle_slam · 2003-07-29 04:33 · Score: 1

Even if they scare off every single US sharer, all that will happen is that Americans will take but not give. The rest of the world is not effected unless the RIAA's foreign equivalents makes a similar push in every country in the world.
Re:Stupid analysis by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:24 · Score: 0

Well, yeah, the release groups. We have working prototypes now.

That's just for testing and co-ordinatinon though. It's the BIG anonymous encrypted networks we want. Fortunately their time is coming.
Re:Stupid analysis by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:47 · Score: 0

Try this analysis.

Givens: There are less than 300000 civil cases filed in federal court each year. (Cases filed in 12 month period ending March 31, 2002: 265091.) Of these, less than 10000 are intellectual property cases. (IP Cases filed in 12 month period ending March 31, 2002: 8366.) There are 60000000 file sharers. (According to the article.) There are ~260 working days in a year. (Excluding weekends and holidays.)

For humor's sake, if the RIAA wanted to sue every file sharer (unnecessary) and if the courts would let them use all the resources currently devoted to all IP lawsuits (which patent and trademark holders would never allow), then 60000000 users / 10000 suits/year = 6000 years to sue them all. Even the courts gave over the entire civil court system to file sharing cases (absurd), it would still take 60000000 users / 300000 suits/year = 200 years.

Let's look at a more interesting question. Suppose that casual file-sharers stop sharing when the odds of getting sued exceed 1/10000. (Pick your own number, if you disagree with this one.) That's 60000000 users * 1/ 10000 odds, which means that only 6000 suits must be filed to scare off the casual user. Getting that many suits filed in a year or two seems to be well within RIAA's capabilities. There might even be enough courts to handle an extra 3000 or so copyright cases a year.
Re:Stupid analysis by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 07:17 · Score: 0

What is you had a set of private networks, connected to other "trusted" private networks? You'd have to know someone to enter into one of these networks, but once you have entered, you would probably have more access to music than they do now.

Before you allow in a new user, you make them sign a confidentiality agreement, and charge them a yearly fee?

Ofcourse to set out in this direction, the users would knowingly be setting out to do something illegal.
Re:Stupid analysis by Mjec · 2003-07-29 13:22 · Score: 1

they just have to sue that ones with large caches of files

True, but I don't think that will help. The popular files are very widely distributed - you can't sue the 100,000 people who (probably, I haven't checked) have a copy of Sk8er Boi on their computer. And because there are so many popular songs the "small fish", the ones who share maybe two or three ripped cds, no enough for the RIAA to bother suing, will still distribute all the music. And because of the way these programs work, the more popular something is the more widly distributed and hence the easier to download. P2P relies more on there being four million users with four trillion files between them than ten main servers with those 400 billion files each. That's the POINT of P2P.

So yes, they can sue the big guys. But all it will do is remove the obscure music, and the RIAA is loosing most of its money to sharing of the big hits.

--
"But everyone should know everything." -markab

The real reason CD sales are down! by Wacky_Wookie · 2003-07-29 03:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=3654 4&rel

It turns out that it's the Record Companies themselves. It's not loss of profit that the RIAA is worried about anyway, it's always been about loss of controll. If the RIAA can't force the public to think the artists it hand picks are cool, then they can't be sure of profits from manufactured bands.

My .5 pence ;)

Re:The real reason CD sales are down! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not loss of profit that the RIAA is worried about anyway, it's always been about loss of controll

I've been saying that since they started complaining about Napster.

It seems rather obvious to me because they want to sell one artist's music to a million people, not a million artist's music to a million people. People claim they buy the music of the artists they like, but the RIAA doesn't care if you buy those albums they want you to buy the flavour of the month.
Re:The real reason CD sales are down! by Pendersempai · 2003-07-29 03:46 · Score: 1
It's not loss of profit that the RIAA is worried about anyway, it's always been about loss of controll. If the RIAA can't force the public to think the artists it hand picks are cool, then they can't be sure of profits from manufactured bands.

I call BS. Advertising makes an artist popular, not availability. Even without P2P, indie artists are completely accessible: they make CDs too, and they let you buy them. But with or without P2P, they cannot compete with the RIAA's advertising machine. No, the RIAA is frightened of filesharing for precisely two reasons:
1. Loss of profit: someone able to attain a product for free is much less likely to buy the same (or loosely equivalent) product. We can claim that filesharing actually helps the industry, but financially the numbers are not with us.
2. Systemic obsolescence: the RIAA has grown an industry from distributing music. If filesharing technology becomes sufficiently widespread, accepted, and easy to use, then that industry is no longer useful.
Re:The real reason CD sales are down! by felis_panthera · 2003-07-29 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then let's remember the bands that heven't been signed to a label, but have some snazzy digital recording HW/SW. Then we can consider all of the albums that have been discontinued.

If this was really about money, then the RIAA would be using P2P as a tool, not a weapon. Send talent scouts out to the networks to see who is actually popular rather than telling us what's popular. Find out if a particular album should be re-issued. Take a page from the book of Lucasberg(TM), and put out "Special Editions" of popular CDs.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the RIAA is going after people primarily sharing NON-copyrighted material, with a little bit of copyright material. After all, they discover bands, not us.

--

The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
Re:The real reason CD sales are down! by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-07-29 04:26 · Score: 1

The funny thing is when I saw the RIAA web site stating what percentage goes into publicity of a CD's production (near 50%).
This was supposed to justify the fact that CDs cost something like 15pence to produce and cost £15.
To me it said something else - the publicity overhead is too much.
Historically, musicians made money by performing, because recording is really took off in the 20th century.
This eventually led to people who performed making records. At the time of the growth in making records (the late 40s/50s) the only ways to buy a record were to get someone to make a record for you and sell it through a shop. As the cost of making records (studios, pressings etc.) was very costly, people signed to record companies.
Had the internet existed in the 1940s or 1950s, I doubt record companies would have ever taken off. What may have taken off could have been sites offering music for sale, but likely the model would have been more of a commission rather than ownership model.
The bottom line is that eventually, record companies in their huge, bloated form will die. The margin difference for someone to either make records in a home studio and post to their website compared to signing up with a record company will make it so.
What may survive more is independent record companies where artists are treated well by people who really care about music first and profit 2nd.
Re:The real reason CD sales are down! by Suidae · 2003-07-29 06:55 · Score: 1

If they based CD popularity on the number of search matches they returned, no doubt the Red Hot Chili Peppers album 'Blood Sugar Sex Magic' would be right near the top of all time most searched for music.
Re:The real reason CD sales are down! by geekee · 2003-07-29 08:37 · Score: 1

"It's not loss of profit that the RIAA is worried about anyway, it's always been about loss of controll. If the RIAA can't force the public to think the artists it hand picks are cool, then they can't be sure of profits from manufactured bands."

This is bs. Record companies are competing against each other to find talent people like. They only cooperate on legal issues. Record companies simply want the legal right to control copying that is guaranteed by the constitution, which directly impacts their revenue.

--
Vote for Pedro

Yes, I realize by TedCheshireAcad · 2003-07-29 03:03 · Score: 4, Funny

I realize it's just humor, but the point of the RIAA's suits is to deter people from using p2p under fear that they will get sued.

But if there are 60 million p2p users, the probability of getting sued is pretty low, even if it does depend on the number of files you have shared.

Perhaps the next version of KaZaA will have a suit-o-meter, that will actively display your probability of being sued by the RIAA ;)

Re:Yes, I realize by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-07-29 03:06 · Score: 1

Why does our world increaseing sound like a combination of "Logan's Run", "1984", and "Brazil"?

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Yes, I realize by Jack+William+Bell · 2003-07-29 03:38 · Score: 1

Just more fodder for my argument that we are living in a Science Fiction universe. Sadly, it is not one of the utopian ones...

Oh, excuse me. My communicator is signalling, I mean my cell phone is ringing.

--
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
Re:Yes, I realize by NaugaHunter · 2003-07-29 03:45 · Score: 1

...even if it does depend on the number of files you have shared.

But is this true? I thought I heard of people getting nailed for sharing as few as a dozen songs. It seems to me that is more dependant on how easy it is for them to get ahold of your identity. That would depend on a number of variables like your provider, how you're sharing the files, how you've identified yourself. There really hasn't been much rhyme or reason otherwise.

The abstract probability of an single individual vs. all of the individuals sharing may be low, but that assumes they have a list of all of them and just pick randomly. The actual probability of each 'sharer' being targeted seems directly related to the ease to which they can be identified, coupled with the ease they share their files.

In other words, hypothetically speaking, say I contact a dozen people I know and we each set up a secure server of our own and only give access to each other, such that random surfers wouldn't even know there were music files being shared if they got their accidentally. Even if we shared 1000 files each, are odds of being discovered are only related to our encryption choice, our password choices, and our ability to keep a secret. On the flipside, a person who puts 'Rainbow_Connection.mp3' on the front of their personal web page because its their favorite song has a high probability of being on the RIAA's list, since a simple google would probably show them and the page itself may identify them.

Granted, I've exagerated to make my point, but there it is. And here's a bonus point: by going after the easier targets, they are starting a digital 'cold war' that could drive annoyed, capable consumers to devising better and better ways of hiding identities and files sources online. A conspiricy theorist might try to extrapolate that this is their plan, since surely they would invoke anti-terrorist response and give the government an easy in for more computer surveilance of ordinary activities. But for that tto make sense the RIAA would need to have strong govermental ties...

--
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Re:Yes, I realize by HTH+NE1 · 2003-07-29 03:49 · Score: 1

Why does our world increasing sound like a combination of "Logan's Run", "1984", and "Brazil"?

With this amount of individual cases, eventually the RIAA will have to pursue infringers in the manner depicted in "THX 1138". Anyone have the net worth of the RIAA to calculate how much they can afford to spend per trader to sue?

What am I thinking. I'm sure they've run those numbers themselves. That's why the damages they're suing for are so high: they need those high damage awards/settlements to fund the next wave of civil suits.

Meanwhile they sell their own licenses to copy in the form of the "presumed guilty" surcharges on Music CD-Rs. Pennies per CD over the normal cost of a blank data CD-R. Perhaps file trading should switch to a model where users choose their songs from an on-line catalogue of titles which are purchased by the company, burned on Music CD-Rs, and mailed to the user. Get sued? You already paid the RIAA for every copy by using Music CD-Rs.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:Yes, I realize by SPBesui · 2003-07-29 04:06 · Score: 1

probability of being sued by the RIAA
Maybe they could set up a futures market to predict it. ;)

Article author doesn't take into account FUD by donutz · 2003-07-29 03:03 · Score: 1

Sure, it might take them two thousand years to sue every filetrader (assuming the number remains the same) but even if they only sue a hundred or a thousand people, I know that I'll think twice before downloading another song, legitimate (if I have a scratched CD, etc) or not: will they sue me because of it? Is it worth the hassle, and a multi-thousand dollar settlement? You don't have to sue everyone to scare everyone into submission, at least for a while...

Attacking the problem at the root by argoff · 2003-07-29 03:03 · Score: 1

The simple fact is that as long as people tell them that they have some kind of right to restrict what others copy, this is going to linger on. It should really encourage us more than ever to use p2p technologies like Freenet - eventually we can put them out of business.

Re:Attacking the problem at the root by r00zky · 2003-07-29 03:40 · Score: 1

Obligatory link to Freenet's homapage:
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
The more we are, the better

--
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
Re:Attacking the problem at the root by argoff · 2003-07-29 04:00 · Score: 1

Thanks for your reply. It just got me thinking - I had said similar things 5 years ago and nearly got flamed out of existence. Through some sort of twisted logic, I was even accused of justifying murder. After all, if you don't believe in copyrights - then you don't care about anybody - right? Funny how times have changed. Funny how the RIAA and SCO did more to promote this notion than I could have ever.

Great grand children? by SimReg · 2003-07-29 03:03 · Score: 1

"219 years! They'd have to sue our great grand children!"

3 generations spanning 219 years? My grandparents are in their 70s, and they already have great grandchildren. It would seem w/ a new generation being born every 30 years (conservative guess in my family) that they'd have to sue our great-great-great-great-great grandchildren. Good luck RIAA.

But won't most of the copyrights expire by then? by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-07-29 03:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Last I checked the copyright termes were 90 years after the death of the artist. Oh god, they must be planning on keeping the Backstreet Boys in suspended animation.

Should have read THAT on the contract before signing.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

I told ya so by xThinkx · 2003-07-29 03:04 · Score: 1

I'm telling you, eventually the court system or the people will get tired of this and prevent them from filing any more lawsuits. THEN WE WIN.

Let them keep going, all it takes is one judge to say "not liable" or enough courts to say "this is not a viable means" and WE WIN

Who will they sue when they can't sue the p2p or it's users?

--
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"

Re:I told ya so by KillerHamster · 2003-07-29 03:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who will they sue when they can't sue the p2p or it's users?

The ISPs.
Re:I told ya so by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:12 · Score: 0

Uh huh

Just like when 12 guys gang rape and then murder your mother. They prosecute one or two and then the courts get bored of it and change the laws.

Yep, that's how it works.
Re:I told ya so by JonathanBoyd · 2003-07-29 03:14 · Score: 1, Troll

I'd be very concerned if the judicial system got tired of the law being enforced. At that point, no-one wins except criminals. And you didn't mean that by 'THEN WE WIN' did you?
Re:I told ya so by Snags · 2003-07-29 03:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

But maybe the judicial system will get tired of the same organization starting so many civil lawsuits at the same time. Remember, these are not criminal cases, and calling the defendants criminals may be slander. Even if they lose and have to pay RIAA money, that doesn't mean they're (legally) guilty of any crime.

--
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
Re:I told ya so by DarthWiggle · 2003-07-29 03:48 · Score: 1

Psha, that's silly. If they get to that point, they won't sue. It'll cost too much. Instead they'll buy out a few congressmen and senators at bargain prices to criminalize the whole affair and hand over enforcement duties (and costs) to government agencies.

Oh wait, they're trying to do exactly that.
Re:I told ya so by JonathanBoyd · 2003-07-29 03:55 · Score: 1

Or maybe the courts will get tired of so many people acting in such a way that so many lawsuits are required, so they'll start handing out harsher judgements in an effort to dissuade people from piracy.
As for the crime question, I thought IP violation was against the law, so anyone guilty of piracy has committed a crime, but IANAL and haven't exactly studied this in any great depth, so I could very easily be wrong.
Re:I told ya so by mike_mgo · 2003-07-29 03:59 · Score: 1

This isn't always the case. If the laws make criminals out of everyone then yes, it's good that the judicial system just gives up. Essentially this is what happened with Prohibition.
As a side note, I don't equate Prohibition with prosecuting file-sharing, just pointing out at least one example were the courts getting tired of enforcing the law was probably a good thing.
Re:I told ya so by Guardian+Hacker · 2003-07-29 04:32 · Score: 1

That's like suing Mobil, Sunoco, Exxon, Hess, BP, or any other petroleum dispensing station for abetting an accident. Moreover, most ISPs have Acceptable Use Policies/Terms of Service in place to help protect them from the legal recourse of Corporate America.

Incorrect Math by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

The math used to arrive at 2191.78 years is incorrect. We must also account for a courthouse being capable of having multiple court sessions at one time. Let's say that the average court house can have 4 cases at a time, we'll call this 4X.

If the united states is capable of having one million court houses, each working at 4X then that's 4 million cases all at one time! At that rate it will only take one day!

Re:Incorrect Math by BetterThanCaesar · 2003-07-29 03:16 · Score: 1

What kind of RIAA math is this?

--
"Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert

What bothers me by phorm · 2003-07-29 03:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is not only are they at many times taking the law into their own hands (and somewhat frivolously I might add), but could also be tying up mass amounts of the legal system in such a venture. In the end, will hurt not only those being sued unjustly, but all of the country as the legal system gets bogged down by idiotic cases.

Re:What bothers me by KillerHamster · 2003-07-29 03:13 · Score: 1

It seems to me that this is the only realistic thing that can stop the RIAA. If the courts get so bogged down with these suits that they can't get any real business done, SOMEOME in the government will find a way to put a stop to it.
Re:What bothers me by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:19 · Score: 0

[snip] but all of the country as the legal system gets bogged down by idiotic cases. [snip]
and how is this different from today ? Hell, they even have websites dedicated to tracking this.
Re:What bothers me by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:29 · Score: 0

Look at it from the RIAA's perspective. Like it or not (and I certainly don't), they've got legal rights. What other course of action should they take to enforce those rights?
Re:What bothers me by neitzsche · 2003-07-30 04:21 · Score: 1

The logical problem with your statement is that the US judicial system is severely broken at present. Anything they do is evil - so keeping them occupied with this nonsense is probably a good thing. This busy-work keeps them from doing more damage to society as a whole.

--
"God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche

So says some clown from the EFF by stratjakt · 2003-07-29 03:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

What a stupid article.

- the RIAA is not suing everybody, they're picking the most prolific sharers, not leechers

- they dont need to sue everyone, for every one they sue, they scare another dozen away.

It isnt legal, and isnt right, to put 1000 cd's up for download. It's no different than any other warez ring. I dont feel sorry for people caught doing it.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Re:So says some clown from the EFF by x0n · 2003-07-29 03:07 · Score: 1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't prolific leechers automatically prolific sharers (by default)?

- Oisin

--

PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
Re:So says some clown from the EFF by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:17 · Score: 0

You are wrong. Consider yourself corrected.
Re:So says some clown from the EFF by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:17 · Score: 0

The leechers aren't putting their files up for grabs. Yarrr, matey.
Re:So says some clown from the EFF by kannibal_klown · 2003-07-29 03:19 · Score: 1

A leech is typically someone that just downloads a lot, but gives very little back to the network. This can be done by limiting or eliminating uploads, letting a person upload at the max speed of a 24.4 modem, etc.

Prolific sharers are those that have a sizeable library, and let the flood-gates open; allowing anyone access to all of their songs.

These are the ones that (in all fairness) should watch out for the RIAA. Because they're technically doing the most damage.

Then again, I'm sure the RIAA is just swining around their lawyer-stick, and suring anyone it hits.
Re:So says some clown from the EFF by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:20 · Score: 0

Umm, no

You dont have to share anything to be a leech.

In fact, thats what a leech is.

A Different Approach... by mgcsinc · 2003-07-29 03:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm gonna be the first to make some crazy numerical speculations to bring this number down to a more sensible time in which the RIAA can disable national file sharing. Please, these numbers are meant as argument-starters, so by all means, argue against them. Let's say of 75 people a day who are subpoenaed, 25 are scared shitless and settle. They each have 15 close friends each, who they also scare shitless, and who stop sharing (I say sharing, because it is those who are sharing who get subpoenaed, and they keep the networks alive). Also, publicity from the settlements brings 50 sharers down per settlement. That's 1650 sharers gone, per day. Then let's say 25 of those who are subpoenaed battle it out in court, and lose. A loss will have much larger publicity, so let's say we lose 200 sharers per loss, and the friend effect should bring down another 50 people a piece (think about seeing your friends lose thousands of dollars to the music industry after a court ordeal). That's 6275 sharers down per day. Finally let's say 25 people never see continued legal battle, or just win. That inspires 100 sharers to get back online, apiece. This all makes for 5425 sharers lost per day, net. Finally, there is an effect whereby sharers will be generally afraid of being subpoenaed in general. We can probably safely bet that for every 10% of the current sharing community which is subpoenaed, 2% of other sharers will be scared out of sharing, and that proportion would probably grow exponentially as the RIAA gains monster effect. Finally, consider that once the community loses more and more sharers, sharers are able to download less and less music in return for their contribution, and will share less and less. With all these effect coupled, I dare say that two millennia is a bit of a longshot...

Re:A Different Approach... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:30 · Score: 0

What's far more likely is that people will stop using ISPs that give out their information, and someone will find that there is profit to be had by making an ISP that doesn't give out your info except in extreme circumstances.

Don't worry, it won't last.
Re:A Different Approach... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:33 · Score: 0

John, I have a wonderful business proposition! Let's make a company who's business relies on defying court requests (yes, subpoenas are court documents, and after appeals are exhausted, they reign supreme) for information!
Re:A Different Approach... by BrynM · 2003-07-29 03:37 · Score: 1

I've asked this before (here). Is there some way that the defendants can band together (pun intended) for some type of class action defense?

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:A Different Approach... by javatips · 2003-07-29 03:57 · Score: 1

You dpn't have to do that. Your ISP business can keep NO logs.

Then if it gets a court request, just reply that you do not have the information they are requesting.

To my knowledge, there is no requirements for an ISP to log IP/modem associations.

The ISP could charge more than competitors to overcome the problem of not being able to charge customers for the amount of bandwidth they are using.
Re:A Different Approach... by mike_mgo · 2003-07-29 04:02 · Score: 1

I doubt that legally you could get a bunch of suits joined into one big suit. The best you could probably do would be pooling resources together (and getting donations from others that support your actions) into a joint defense fund that would provide money/lawyers to people in this situation.
But I don't really know.
Re:A Different Approach... by Ummite · 2003-07-29 04:21 · Score: 1

Please, these numbers are meant as argument-starters, so by all means, argue against them. Let's say of 75 slashdot reader who are reading your post. Let just say that all of those just don't care about your number and your theory. Then, let's say that you take 15 minutes to write your speculation. This all makes for 15 minutes loss + the time those 75 slashdot reader read your post. That's amazing!
Re:A Different Approach... by Alton_Brown · 2003-07-29 04:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Let's say of 75 people ... they each have 15 close friends... this makes for 6275... 10% ... 2%... thousands of dollars...

This is the RIAA, not Amway ;)
Re:A Different Approach... by Suidae · 2003-07-29 07:01 · Score: 1

They could also provide a nice terabyte freenet node for their users.
Re:A Different Approach... by Darth+Fredd · 2003-07-29 14:00 · Score: 1

Do you have 50 close friends? 15 close friends? 15 *IRC* friends?

But I do like the math. Next time, try quantum physics, though..

--
"The most looniest, zaniest, spontaneous, sporadic Impulsive thinker, compulsive drinker, addict"
Re:A Different Approach... by jdschulteis · 2003-07-29 19:26 · Score: 1

You dpn't have to do that. Your ISP business can keep NO logs.

Then if it gets a court request, just reply that you do not have the information they are requesting.

An ISP that didn't keep logs would probably get sued for contributory infringement.

It would also make it harder for the ISP to stop its customers from spamming or otherwise abusing their service.

Can they really DOS the court system? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:05 · Score: 0

Let them try, instead why don't they create a music store WITHOUT DRM and WORKS ON LINUX and they will just sit back and watch the profits ROLL IN!

Re:Can they really DOS the court system? by JonathanBoyd · 2003-07-29 03:16 · Score: 1

Yes, because 90% of consumers run Linux and wouldn't share files if it wasn't DRMed.

Don't encourage them! by operagost · 2003-07-29 03:06 · Score: 1

They'll just step up their efforts. Frankly, all they need is a few high-profile lawsuits to scare off a lot of people who don't know any better.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

hmm by jazman · 2003-07-29 03:06 · Score: 1

yeah, but one they've taken the big sharers out and spread FUD around a bit they won't need to get to everyone. Coppers don't have to fine all speeders; only a few, and as a result the majority of us obey the speed limit to within a few mph; generally they don't give a hoot about people doing 80 in a 70 unless there's something dangerous about it (patchy fog etc) but if you do 150 in a 70 then you've got a big target painted on you.

Besides, won't everyone shortly be moving over to Freenet and make tracing impossible?

If they were using linux by Timesprout · 2003-07-29 03:06 · Score: 0, Troll

It would only take about 10 years due to increased system stability and efficiency. We should be grateful for the small mercy of MS instability in this situation.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe

There is an obvious solution by heironymouscoward · 2003-07-29 03:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

And that is for the RIAA to use the P2P network to sue itself. Perhaps we will see an RIAA-sponsored feature in upcoming releases of W2K3: 'autosuit', in which your computer automatically formats you an appropriate lawsuit and sends a log of incriminating evidence to the RIAA.
Maybe the most effective resistance against the RIAA would be for 10,000,000 people to voluntarily go to the authorities and confess to having downloaded exactly 1 song. "I did it, and I can't sleep cause of the guilt, please punish me."
Kind of like burning ID passes in Apartheid South Africa. If everyone does it, punishments become unenforcable.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature

Re:There is an obvious solution by JonathanBoyd · 2003-07-29 03:19 · Score: 1

All they have to do is accept a few of the people who turn themselves in, then convict them and a lot of the others would get scared and run off. The difference between piracy and demonstrating against apartheid is that apartheid is morally contemptable and that piracy... also is.
Re:There is an obvious solution by Lord_Dweomer · 2003-07-29 07:15 · Score: 1

"Maybe the most effective resistance against the RIAA would be for 10,000,000 people to voluntarily go to the authorities and confess to having downloaded exactly 1 song. "I did it, and I can't sleep cause of the guilt, please punish me."
To which everybody else will reply: "You first."

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:But won't most of the copyrights expire by then by Rhubarb+Crumble · 2003-07-29 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Last I checked the copyright termes were 90 years after the death of the artist.

Except that next time you check, it will be 100 years. If you check in 10 years time, that is.

Basically, anything post Walt Disney will NEVER stop being in copyright.

LL! by bersl2 · 2003-07-29 03:07 · Score: 0

I call Last Lawsuit!

RIAA is turning me pirate.. arrr by KrancHammer · 2003-07-29 03:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

I am a strong supporter of property rights, intellectual and otherwise (yes I know the IP rights situation is a bit more complicated). However, the RIAA's strongarm, bullying tactics are pissing me off. I would not vote for any politician who supported that organization. Yes, people have a right to make a dollar or thousand for their intellectual contributions, but people also have a right to such as "innocent until proven guilty," and "freedom from unwarranted search and seizure" and a dozen other rights the RIAA, MPAA, and their highly funded Washington lawmakers would trample on in the rush to stamp out music piracy. I used to have sympathy for the RIAA's viewpoint. No longer.

--
Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.

Re:RIAA is turning me pirate.. arrr by Alkarismi · 2003-07-29 03:11 · Score: 1

You're not the only one!
I have gone from spending a reasonable chunk on their warez each month to a conscientious objector purely on the strength of their insults. Talk about biting the hands that feed you...
Re:RIAA is turning me pirate.. arrr by lightspawn · 2003-07-29 08:36 · Score: 1

However, the RIAA's strongarm, bullying tactics are pissing me off. I would not vote for any politician who supported that organization

I think that in the U.S. this would make you a libertarian.
Re:RIAA is turning me pirate.. arrr by KrancHammer · 2003-07-29 08:41 · Score: 1

I think that in the U.S. this would make you a libertarian.

I am of libertarian bent, but there are those in both major parties who oppose this legislation. Can't judge every pol by the Fritz Hollings and Orrin Hatchs of the Congress. After all.. the RIAA lobbyists can't afford every congressperson.

--
Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
Re:RIAA is turning me pirate.. arrr by geekee · 2003-07-29 14:16 · Score: 1

"Yes, people have a right to make a dollar or thousand for their intellectual contributions, but people also have a right to such as "innocent until proven guilty," and "freedom from unwarranted search and seizure"

The people being sued are still considered innocent until proven guilty. As for unwarranted search and seizure, the evidence for a search warrant is pretty strong for the alleged infringers, so I don't see a problem here, although the law needs to be revised to have a judge examine the method to apporve a block of IP name requests based on the method of obtaining them, IMO.

--
Vote for Pedro

No wonder... by admbws · 2003-07-29 03:07 · Score: 1

...they want to stretch the copyright duration out a bit...

Unfortunately they don't need that long... by Alkarismi · 2003-07-29 03:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is simply the chilling effect of the *threat* they are after.

You only need look as far as slashdot to see posts suggesting that kazaa et al usage is declining. Speaking with non-geek users of these services also shows that the threat is slowly being taken seriously.

Of course the **AA are merely playing King Canute as usual, in the long run suing the f*ck out of their customers will not restore their fortunes, merely delay the inevitable.

I used to spend several hundred a month on DVDs & CDs. Now... well I guess I never did like bullies much!

Re:Unfortunately they don't need that long... by garcia · 2003-07-29 03:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Kazaa use is declining? Funny, I just logged on the other night for my daily dose of pornage and found that there were nearly 7TB's of files available. Last time I checked it was in the low 6TB range...

Some people have gotten a clue and moved to other methods (like BT) for getting their TV episodes, porn, music, etc. BT speeds are BLAZING fast compared to most of Kazaa (not for music, for movies, etc). I average about 100kB/s for most songs on Kazaa, I can download entire albums from BT at 200kB/s+
Re:Unfortunately they don't need that long... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:30 · Score: 0

nah, everybodys just moving on to the next p2p app.

right now i can find more good stuff in bit torrent than i ever could in kazaa..

& when they start suing bit torrent users, something else will pop up.

fortunately, bit torrent is just a lil more complicated than the average user is used to, so it may take a bit longer
Re:Unfortunately they don't need that long... by Alkarismi · 2003-07-29 03:40 · Score: 1

I'm glad you posted this, I was thinking of saying something along these lines myself - seemed a little silly replying to myself though - so thanks ;)

Of course from one point of view this is *exactly* the stimulus p2p needs right now - the next p2p app to reach critical mass will of course include strong privacy/anonymity, hopefully along the lines Bruce Schnier outlines in Applied Cryptography.

Let's see them get out of that one! The DMCA will appear lightweight compared to what they'll be lobbying for then...

Imagine... by SharpFang · 2003-07-29 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

A guy has a gun pointed at crowd. Whoever goes to attack him, will be shot. If they rushed all, they would surely overpower him, but the first 2-3 would be killed, for sure. Who wants to be first?

RIAA doesn't need to sue everyone. Just some suitcases and "Who wants to be next?"

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Re:Imagine... by Have+Blue · 2003-07-29 03:28 · Score: 1

If that happened in a street, yes. But since about 2 years ago, if it happened on an airplane, the crowd would rush.
Re:Imagine... by Timesprout · 2003-07-29 03:39 · Score: 1

What you mean you are not volunteering to lead the rush ?

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Re:Imagine... by BrynM · 2003-07-29 03:42 · Score: 1

If he's got a derringer, then he's really screwed. If he's got an AK-47, then I bet nobody is going to rush him at all. Which brings up a good point, how many shots are in the RIAA clip?

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:52 · Score: 0

The difference is that on the airplane, if no one does anything, they will all die anyway. A few will people sacrific to save everyone else. Usually, though, if it's 2-3 get killed vs. inconvenience/fear for a while, people choose not to get killed.
Re:Imagine... by Hoarke42 · 2003-07-29 04:13 · Score: 1

Reminds me of the scene in Tombstone:

"Your friends may get me in a rush, but not before I turn your head into a canoe."

"And you, music lover... you're next."

Which does make me think of something else... would anyone be surprised if the MPAA jumps in to help?

Population changes not accounted for by perimorph · 2003-07-29 03:08 · Score: 1

After skimming through the article, I don't think the author took into account the population changes (births, deaths) over the 2191 years. The RIAA would have to continuously sue the oldest filesharers first (in order to "make them pay" while they're still visiting this planet) while the younger generation continues to create an even younger generation to take its place.

Thus, the RIAA would need to increase its rate of filings to at least match the birth rate if they are to have any chance of ever suing every filesharer.

(Something like that, anyhow. I never studied statistics.)

There's a cheaper alternative... by addie · 2003-07-29 03:08 · Score: 1

Just put every 1 in 10 or so hardcore file traders in stocks in the public square for 18 hours a day, have them all listen to the mountain of pop fluff that they've been constantly downloading. Public humiliation beats lawsuits anyday!

Do they honestly expect to get any cash out of a 13 year old kid in his basement, trading 50 cent and Shakira tracks? I realize these lawsuits are meant to target the 'worst' of the filetraders, but quantity shouldn't define level of illegality, should it?

Re:There's a cheaper alternative... by The+Masked+Fruitcake · 2003-07-29 03:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do they honestly expect to get any cash out of a 13 year old kid in his basement, trading 50 cent and Shakira tracks?

That's something that I've pondered through this all. A vast majority of these lawsuits surely surely must be costing the RIAA dearly in legal fees that won't be recouped in damages collected from the average victim. They're making a rather expensive point, and a foolish one in my opinion, but it's their money...

I realize these lawsuits are meant to target the 'worst' of the filetraders, but quantity shouldn't define level of illegality, should it?

In a technical sense, no, but in a practical sense, yes. Who do you expect to receive more attention from the police: the guy who ripped off $10 million from a bank in the middle of the night, or the guy who stole the TV set out of your living room? Both are guilty of burglary, but one is worth a lot more time and effort to track down.

--
Sola Scriptura * Sola Gratia * Sola Fide * Solus Christus * Soli Deo Gloria

Question by tomstdenis · 2003-07-29 03:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

of the 57M [or whatever the number of the day is] P2P users, how many are actually allowing people to download significant quantities of files?

I bet if the RIAA managed to stop say the top 5% of P2P "senders" they could cripple a network.

I dunno about you, but when I used P2P back in the day I didn't wait 8 hours for some lame as 56K to send me a music file.

Until P2P truly becomes a balanced network [e.g. everyone with decent speed] it will remain fairly easy to knock out a P2P usefulness.

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:20 · Score: 0

NOTICE TO RIAA: Tom St Denis is an admitted music pirate! Also, he's a closeted MANHAM CANNER.

Job Security by _Sambo · 2003-07-29 03:08 · Score: 0

Sign me up for law school!

An attorney can't go wrong in today's society.

(just kidding all you angry attorneys reading this who still owe $250,000 in student debt and are making $40,000 in a small town practice)

Re:Job Security by mcp33p4n75 · 2003-07-29 03:52 · Score: 1

You missed a great special on the Daily Show. It was about the hottest job's in the current job climate: bankruptcy lawyers and repomen.

-1, Missed the point by CowboyMeal · 2003-07-29 03:08 · Score: 1

The point of it isn't that they can't sue everyone, it is to give some perspective on the number of people that are filesharing.

--
Your credit card information wants to be free.

Distributed Sueing ! by da5idnetlimit.com · 2003-07-29 03:08 · Score: 3, Funny

In an unheard of move, the RIAA has decided to use a basic P2P scheme to have its law ordinance sent to everybody.

A cascade chain of Court Letters will be sent from Lawyer branch to Lawyer branch and only the lasts in the distribution tree will have to send the letters.

After the close observation, the RIAA has been put to court by Bittorrent inventor.

Also, the Courts are looking at this apparent pyramidal scheme as a new, innovative way to collect money from unsuspecting lusers.

See you later, this was AN, from Slashdot News Channel...

--
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker

According to the NATIONAL Inquirer by Ominous+Coward · 2003-07-29 03:11 · Score: 1

Hilary Rosen is 2191.78 years old, and will sue everyone personally.

--
Ceci n'est pas une sig.

Who says they're suing? by Ironpoint · 2003-07-29 03:11 · Score: 1

Last I heard they were only issuing subpoenas to get names/addresses from IP numbers. I haven't read anything about suing expect those four cases a couple months ago.

Think subpoena farming! by Rares+Marian · 2003-07-29 03:11 · Score: 1

They could split us against each other. We could hope the report-on-people tactic strikes the American spirit as repulsive, couldn't we?

Couldn't we? Oh...

--
The message on the other side of this sig is false.

it just doesn't make sense. by tlacicer · 2003-07-29 03:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

How much money is the RIAA spending on chasing these people. The are trying to squeeze blood from a stone. They should worry more about the future of the record industry and start using new technology to help them rather then trying to stop the technology, which will never happen.

Record companies I believe at one time served a purpose, now with digital media and the internet, and cheaper production equipment I think they are going to start fading into part of our history.

This whole thing is pointless and scary to say the least.

--
"A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." - Burt Bacharach

Total control by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:12 · Score: 0

once everybody is in jail.

Why not just put a barb wire fence around the USA?

The rest of the world will then be so much safer...

That's better than winning the lottery by NetDanzr · 2003-07-29 03:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

The chances of winning the jackpot in Mega Millions are 135,145,920 to 1. With $5 spent per drawing and 104 drawings per year, it will take me 259,896 years to win the jackpot.

In a sense, RIAA is betting on the right horse. They'll win their big jackpot 118.58 times faster than I'll do.

They'd have to sue our great grand children! by burgburgburg · 2003-07-29 03:12 · Score: 1

They'd have to sue our great grand children!

Michaela says that as if she expects that they won't. Oh, yes. They will. They've developed a company called Life Extension (LE) that will store their physical bodies while allowing their minds to roam free, suing P2P users, their children, their children's children, etc.

Little Johnny by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:12 · Score: 0

I can just imagine if the RIAA was around 2000 years from now. They'd probably own rights to everything.

RIAA exec: Hi there Little Johnnie, I'd like to talk to you about potential copyright infringements, specifically your regular twice-a-day masturbation sessions.

Little Johnnie: Fuck off, George Jetson. I bought that porn with my 50cents that I earned mowing the neighbors lawn and I'm going to make it worth my money.

RIAA exec: I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you only purchased the rights to look at it. Masturbating while looking at porn constitutes an infringment on our rights.

Little Johnnie: What the hell are you talkin' about! I paid for that porn, and it's my weenie you're seeing here, and I'm going to do what I like with it, when I feel like it, and if you don't watch out I'm going to shove it right up your a***.

RIAA exec: Calm down, horny boy! We can settle this matter right away, if you do what you just suggested, and we will consider it a closed deal.

*WHAM* *WHAM*
adapted from earlier post

"Steamboat Willy" was a crappy cartoon! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:13 · Score: 0

Yes Virginia,
the Disney corporation is totally perverting copyright law for their own gain.

the solution is obvious by leekwen · 2003-07-29 03:13 · Score: 4, Funny

this is obviously too much for one person to handle. we need to create a distributed network among kazaa network users.

i will start by suing myself. you can help too by donating your spare cpu cycles towards our cause.

Tough luck by kars · 2003-07-29 03:13 · Score: 1

Tough luck for those whose last name begins with an 'A'. Mine begins with an 'M', so I should be safe for about another millennium... :)

--
Take life easy: one bit at a time.

Doing the math by borkus · 2003-07-29 03:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Let's see -

60,000,000 defendants at ten defendants per attorney is
6,000,000 attorneys at an average height of 5'8" is
33,960,000 feet of attorneys laid end to end or
6,400 miles of attorneys laid end to end

That's enough attorneys laid end to end to cover every sidewalk in New York.

Re:Doing the math by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:37 · Score: 0

Wouldn't it be better to cover the streets with lawyers? That way we could drive over them.
Re:Doing the math by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:54 · Score: 0

6,400 miles of attorneys laid end to end
I'd rather have laid 6,400 miles of cheerleaders. End to end.

Sounds like a job for a P2P network by danormsby · 2003-07-29 03:13 · Score: 1

So if an artist plays a song to everyone who wants to listen to it it will probably take this amount of time too.

Surely some laywer will work this out, then distribute a self serving auto-sueing letter over Kazaa?!?

--
Omnis amans amens

How are they sorting that list of offenders? by BurKaZoiD · 2003-07-29 03:14 · Score: 1

I hope to God they're not doing an ascending sort on that; that puts me near the top! Oh wait, all I download is pr0n. *Whew*

/fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap

--

Spread the RC luvin'

are they going by orange · 2003-07-29 03:15 · Score: 1

to do it in alphabetical order?

Wouldn't it... by Sir+Haxalot · 2003-07-29 03:16 · Score: 1

be a better idea for the RIAA to spend it's time/money on suing the P2P software companies rather than the actual P2P users? If you get rid of the source of the problem then not much can happen... plus it means if they're busy suing the companies they're not suing me ;)

--
I have over 70 freaks, do you?

Re:Wouldn't it... by inertia187 · 2003-07-29 03:37 · Score: 1

They basically already tried, and failed. Here's one instance where a federal court judge ruled that P2P software authors ...are not liable for copyright infringements due to files that are traded with their software.

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.

Let A Man Do The Calculations by tds67 · 2003-07-29 03:16 · Score: 5, Funny

She said: "I pulled out my calculator to see just how long it would take the RIAA to sue all 60 million P2P music file traders at a rate of 75 a day. 60,000,000/75 = 800,000 days to subpoena each person or 800,000 days/365 days in a year = 2191.78 years to subpoena each person".

Hey babe, let me show you how a man calculates all this: After whipping out my sliderule and factoring in the size of the aforementioned subpoenis', I come up with 2200.25, a much bigger number.

Re:Let A Man Do The Calculations by SeanAhern · 2003-07-29 06:15 · Score: 1

I don't want to hear about the size of your subpoenis.
Re:Let A Man Do The Calculations by PMuse · 2003-07-29 09:30 · Score: 1

Part 1: There are (roughly) 260 days per year. Working days, when the courts are open. Greater precision is impossible, as the number of weekdays per year and the number of court holidays per year vary slightly.

Part 2: The number of file sharers is given in the article with only one significant figure. While we might perhaps assume that the number of file sharers is precise to the millions or hundred thousands, that's as good as it gets. Using more than 3 significant figures in this calculation is pointless.

Part 3: The RIAA's suit-filing process will not scale linearly because the number of available courts and the number of available lawyers are rate-limiting. There were fewer than 10000 intellectual property suits filed in federal court in all of 2002. The system probably can't handle even a couple of thousand extra copyright cases.

Conclusion: while amusing, the article's method of analysis is faulty and useless.

--
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Re:Let A Man Do The Calculations by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 10:18 · Score: 0

Greater precision is impossible, as the number of weekdays per year and the number of court holidays per year vary slightly.

That merely makes greater precision more dificult, not impossible.
Re:Let A Man Do The Calculations by PMuse · 2003-07-29 10:43 · Score: 1

Granted. In fact, if the amount of difficulty you're willing to undertake is unlimited, you may be able to get an exact answer.

Calendars can project weekdays/weekends into the future and the government probably plots the floating holidays several years in advance. Of course, the number of working days varies by country and also varies slightly by state. Days lost due to bad weather and other unscheduled losses would be harder to predict, but perhaps a statistical analysis of historical data would provide some estimates.

Not 'impossible' then, just 'more difficult.' And a waste of effort.

--
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)

May by AnonymousCowheart · 2003-07-29 03:16 · Score: 1

Maybe I'll be last, and won't get sued because there will be no one to share with. Or maybe they'll go after all the people who listen to good music first, then the p2p networks will cripple, having only Dick Cheese on their network!

I wonder by reboot246 · 2003-07-29 03:16 · Score: 1

how many musicians they'll sue in the next 2000 years. Musicians are among the worst violators of P2P music sharing; just ask one. Betcha there won't be one sued.

Lawyer's Job Security by LoneStarGeek · 2003-07-29 03:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well at least the RIAA lawyers will have work the the the next 2,000 years.

In my opinion there is no logical way they can sue everyone file sharing songs around the world. The courts would be so blocked up from these frivilous lawsuits that no real trials could be heard. To be fair they would have to raid everone's cassette tape collection from the 70's/80's and sue people that made taped copies of albums and CDs then gave them away to friends.

The RIAA and it's fleet of lawyers are insanely greedy. If only the artist got their fair share of what a song grosses then maybe they would get more sympathy.

Thank heavens... by indros · 2003-07-29 03:17 · Score: 1

.. my last name begins with a Z! Now they'll have to exhume my body if they wanna sue me!

Terrorism by lpret · 2003-07-29 03:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Fabulous. We've got a consortium of companies using terrorist methods to get their way.

However, it doesn't matter anymore. Technology will always provide a solution to "get around the system." Even now, Kazaa Lite and many others have changed their system so that it protects users against the RIAA for now. And once the RIAA breaks that, another protection will exist. You can't fight a system that goes underground.

--
This is my digital signature. 10011011001

Re:Terrorism by pebs · 2003-07-29 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can't fight a system that goes underground.

Well, sure. But the whole point is that file-sharing is above ground. Its out in the open for everyone to see. I remember the days of private warez BBSes, that is underground. Then ftp lists downloaded off of IRC; underground, but a little more out in the open depending on how private the channels were (and risky since then FTP sites could log your IP address). Then list of ftps posted on web pages, not underground anymore. Then Hotline (more of a Mac thing), underground depending on how private the sharers were, but many were public. Then P2P file-sharing networks, which was not underground at all, and you expose your IP address to everyone.

The only way to go underground is to go private. I'm surprised things are so open these days and how much people can get away with while being completely careless doing things out in the open.

--
#!/
Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 14:22 · Score: 0

Fabulous. We've got a consortium of companies using terrorist methods to get their way.
How are they using terrorist methods? I don't see a smoking crater where your house used to be...
Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 20:06 · Score: 0

Switch to Freenet (www.freenetproject.org). Best of both worlds. Public network, anonymous transfers, and some other cool features, too.

Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:18 · Score: 0

Well, hopefully, IPv6 will help alleviate some of these problems. Definitely...

When they file the BIG one... by r_j_prahad · 2003-07-29 03:18 · Score: 2, Funny

That kid I used to tease about his name in secondary school, Zwykowski or something like that, I'll bet he's laughing his ass off now.

What song is that from? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:18 · Score: 0

I want to download it off KaZaa...

Re:What song is that from? by mschoolbus · 2003-07-29 03:21 · Score: 2, Informative

The song is Untitled, but unofficially called Revolutionary. The song is also played with Tool.

Here are the lyrics.

Why is 75 a magic number? by duckpoopy · 2003-07-29 03:20 · Score: 1

Is there some law against hiring enough lawyers to file more than 75 lawsuits per day?

--
word.

Re:Why is 75 a magic number? by Snags · 2003-07-29 03:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is exactly what I want to know. Is there some legal limit to how many lawsuits you can start at once? All the articles I see say that there are approximately 75 subpoenas filed per day. It is also written that the court is having trouble with the paperwork. I wonder if all of this is making it more difficult for more important federal cases (like antitrust, kidnapping, tax fraud) to be processed.

--
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!

"world without end" by MORTAR_COMBAT! · 2003-07-29 03:20 · Score: 1

This is just Isaiah telling us that the world isn't flat, thousands of years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, right?

--
MORTAR COMBAT!

Re:"world without end" by Dyolf+Knip · 2003-07-29 11:43 · Score: 1

Bah. Ancient greeks had a highly accurate estimate of Earth's size and mass thousands of years before Columbus.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:"world without end" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 14:02 · Score: 0

Mass?!?! The only way they could get the mass in the right ballpark is by pure chance and coincidence. All the ancients could do to calculate it would be weigh some kind rock/dirt mix, and assume the whole planet was made of it.
Re:"world without end" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 21:37 · Score: 0

And Columbus was wrong, too. He completely underestimated the distance you had to travel westwards to get to the rich markets of the Indies: it was obvious to everyone that trying to get to India that way, the entire crew would be dead of thirst/starvation/scurvy before they reached land. Columbus was just lucky there was land ahead of him instead of 10000 miles more ocean when his supplies were beginning to run out and the crew were getting restive..

an end to the enforceable laws by dakkon1024 · 2003-07-29 03:21 · Score: 1

Let's face it, we live in a world where the law is un-enforceable, you can't stop file trading any more then you can stop the guy on the street from selling boot legs. You can crack down on it, but never put an end to it. Regrettably, file trading at this point is far too effective and far too accepted. Certain IP laws are about to take a nose dive in the next 50 or so years. Unless of course DMCA supporters start offering you 10,000 to snitch out your CD burning friends.

Re:an end to the enforceable laws by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:13 · Score: 0

"boot legs"?

What? I can't get the soles with my boot?
Re:an end to the enforceable laws by dakkon1024 · 2003-07-29 04:31 · Score: 1

Recently and regrettably my attorney has informed me to not sell any soles until the pending SCO case is over...
Re:an end to the enforceable laws by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:43 · Score: 0

I thought that SCO's lawyers had already sold their souls.

in your dreams.... by endoboy · 2003-07-29 03:21 · Score: 1

it's a question of when DRM is effectively universal, not if.

The end isn't here yet, but the days of "sharing" are numbered....

Re:in your dreams.... by xThinkx · 2003-07-29 08:25 · Score: 1

Name one DRM scheme that hasn't been cracked/worked around in less than 18 months?

This is a matter of logistics. Even if the RIAA were to employ a massive workforce, lets say 5,000 people, to work solely on creating a strong DRM, there are easily that many people with interests in breaking that DRM, and they'll do it for free. DRM will never work, and it's in good part due to companie's own greed. Company A's DRM won't work with Company B's device, so no one buys the device or the songs, meanwhile my mp3 player plays MP3s quite nice, millions of people have loads of MP3s and the technology to create an infinite amount more (sound at all like the VHS vs Beta wars). How exactly is DRM going to stop those people? With projects like freenet coming of age, the RIAA will be out of options, and free trading WILL prevail, unlike DRM.

--
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Re:in your dreams.... by endoboy · 2003-07-29 09:06 · Score: 1

The copy protection scheme on commercial DVD's works quite nicely, at least from a commercial standpoint. It makes copying moderately difficult, but doesn't get in the way of "normal" viewing of the movie. Sure, it's been cracked, but the crack is more trouble than most people are willing to deal with. In countries where incomes are lower, there's still a piracy problem, because there are commercial ventures that do the copying. In the "1st world", however, copied DVD's aren't exactly on every street corner. Another apparently viable system is the DRM embedded in Apples iTunes. Too soon to tell for sure, but it seems to have struck a reasonable balance between price, security, and usability.
Re:in your dreams.... by xThinkx · 2003-07-29 10:21 · Score: 1

I don't know where you are, but in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore it IS possible to buy pirated DVDs on some street corners. DVD "protection" has been broken, and it is causing problems for the movie industry, hence the MPAA lawsuits.

You are correct in that as far as I know, no one has broken the Apple iTunes DRM without using the "analog hole". However, iTunes is YOUNG, give it time and I'm sure it will be broken just like every other DRM.

--
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"

Fred Hampton by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:21 · Score: 0

"You can kill a revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution" is a phrase made famous by Black Panther leader Fred Hampton.

Hampton was killed at 20 by the FBI and the Chicago Police Department in 1969.

just think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:21 · Score: 0

after they are done with this round of lawsuits for the people doing it today, they will have 2191.78 years of file swappers to sue! wonder what that math comes out to?

60 million minus one by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Actually, they would only have to shut down 59,999,999 file traders. The last guy would have nobody to share with.

That should shave a few seconds off...

How can they catch them? by nvermor · 2003-07-29 03:23 · Score: 1

Does Gnutella not have encryption? If not then eventually there will be a version that does and then the problem will be solved.

Re:How can they catch them? by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-07-29 19:41 · Score: 1

Does Gnutella not have encryption? If not then eventually there will be a version that does and then the problem will be solved.
Encryption solves nothing because that's not how that not how they're identifying file shares. They run the same client you do (e.g. KaZaA etc.) and search for popular files. Then they download those files and use search features in that client to look for other files on your machine. During the download they identify your IP address since they are connected to you and the files they can get from you. Then they verify that the file is the song it is supposed to be. This method works whether or not the file is encrypted because they get the files the same way any other downloader would. It's not like they're tapping the Internet like a telephone line and seeing the files zipping between two other users.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:How can they catch them? by nvermor · 2003-07-30 01:16 · Score: 1

That is a good point that all they have to do is log on to your computer but that's only a preliminary sweep. They can't use what they find on your computer other than to identify you has a major file sharer. Once they file the lawsuit, they would have to subpoena your computer to prove anything (but this is only in the US, don't know other countries laws). They couldn't use a print screen picture because that can be easily forged so confiscating your computer is the only way to get both a criminal or civil conviction. I would recommend to people who feel that they might be targeted to keep their entire stash just 1 or 2 clicks way from deletion using a deletion program that doesn't just remove the file from the FAT but completely rewrites over the file.

ooh, a she by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:24 · Score: 0

let me show you my subpenis and file a motion into your poopchute

A Different Approach Continued... by mgcsinc · 2003-07-29 03:24 · Score: 1

I forgot this part of my numbers game: Let's say for each subpoena filed, half an RIAA lawyer hour is taken. Then, let's say for each settlement reached, 4 RIAA lawyer hours are taken. For every court battle, 20 lawyer hours are taken if the battle is won, 25 if it is lost. Assuming equal ratios, that's about 17 eventual lawyer hours per subpoena, that makes 465375 eventual lawyer hours per year, after all follow up. Assuming the going Wall Street law firm rate to be $400 (which is quite liberal), that means, for those of us who like useless numbers arrived at from the top of one's head, $186 million in lawyer fees per year for the RIAA...

Re:A Different Approach Continued... by swb · 2003-07-29 03:54 · Score: 1

If massive lawsuits were their approach, why not build an in-house firm?

If you presume that a typical lawyer bills 100 hours per week (since hours billed > hours worked), that's 5200 per year or only 89 lawyer-years to handle your 465375 lawyer-hours.

Hiring 45 staff lawyers at $300,000 per year will cost you about $35 million (assuming their salary x 3 for all costs including support and facilities). You can then hire out 45 lawyers @ $93 million per year, yielding a tidy savings of around $50 million dollars.

I'd imagine there's even greater economies of scale from staff lawyers being able to handle a lot of this via form letters or other kinds of economies that hired lawyers would try to re-do froms scratch; you might even be able to get the lawyer-billable-hours up to 120 hours per week with these efficiencies, further cutting outside council costs by about $30 million dollars.

I'd also assume that a healthy victory-loss margin for the RIAA would cut the hours necessary to win a victory or a settlement substantially since there will be a large body of case law which will be hard to challenge.

You may even see after a couple of years a sub-$50 million legal cost to all of this.

P2P lawsuit sharing! by pecosdave · 2003-07-29 03:24 · Score: 1

Here's an idea, the RIAA can work with the justice department, SCO, Direct TV, and the MPA to setup a P2P lawsuit sharing suite!

It would contain the bank account information of everyone in America. When an account appears with substantial funds, one of the organizations investigates the individual for any copywrite infringements, Linux use, or the purchase of a smart card writer. If any of the criteria come up postive, they mark the individual for each transgression. The justice department then transfer funds automaticaly and without warning from the transgressors bank account to the victimized group.

All parties involved (except for the justice department) would supply programs and employees to scour the bank account data and the other file sharing networks, and connect the two together.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.

Re: Prior Prior art: by rokzy · 2003-07-29 03:27 · Score: 1

The Smashing Pumpkins have copyright to the song "Zero" from 1995.

btw for those new to computers, the site linked to in the parent has a "Message Alert" box.

this is an advert, you do not have "1 message waiting for you"

Nationwide Class Action Filed Against DoubleClick

they only need to get the major sharing parties by *weasel · 2003-07-29 03:27 · Score: 1

they don't -need- to get everybody.

just enough to get the average p2p participant to change their shared directory away from their main music repository. then with a predominance of leeches and no providers, p2p for music will collapse.

or so goes their logic.

i myself believe that people will simply migrate to a more anonymous, more secure network. or simply one in which you download no more than 20 seconds of a given song from a given source (you are legally allowed to distribute a 20 second clip).

the only thing that will measureably kill music 'piracy', is a pay service that's cheap enough and flexible enough to be more viable than the hassles one deals with to pirate music (mislabeled songs, bad rips, radio rips, low bitrates, webcast dj intro/outro's, threat of legal action, etc).

and from the sounds of it, iTunes ain't quite it. (see: locale restrictions, copy restrictions)

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"

Book sales down too... by frenchgates · 2003-07-29 03:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

There was an article today about how the book publishers are going through a very rough sales period. Like record companies, they can only count on profits from a few guaranteed big sellers like H. Potter and H. Clinton.

I don't think they have figured out that they can blame it on P2P yet.

--
Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than

Re:Book sales down too... by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-29 04:06 · Score: 1

I don't think they have figured out that they can blame it on P2P yet.

Give it time. Someone somewhere is going to point the finger at P2P. Nevermind the fact that it would be foolish to either transcribe an entire novel or scan all the pages with a 100% accurate OCR program then slap all the pages together in a PDF.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:Book sales down too... by FrostedWheat · 2003-07-29 04:16 · Score: 1

then slap all the pages together in a PDF

Not to mention how awkward it would be to read it, there's just something great about a proper book over a computer display. And forget about printing it ... be cheaper to buy the thing :)

Tho as you say, they'll probably blame it. Just be thankful they can't use DRM-type restrictions on books!
Re:Book sales down too... by Frac · 2003-07-29 05:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Nevermind the fact that it would be foolish to either transcribe an entire novel or scan all the pages with a 100% accurate OCR program then slap all the pages together in a PDF.

Foolish? Maybe. But are books available on P2P? I believe so!

Of course, it's the norm to post wrong information on slashdot. You're not the only one.
Re:Book sales down too... by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-29 06:05 · Score: 0, Troll

Of course, it's the norm to post wrong information on slashdot. You're not the only one.

At no point did I say that there weren't books on the P2P networks.

Nice attempt at trolling though.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:Book sales down too... by Frac · 2003-07-29 10:19 · Score: 1

At no point did I say that there weren't books on the P2P networks.

Although you said enough to suggest that books would not be shared on P2P networks. Foolish that anyone would actually OCR it and put that up on share, indeed!

I'm sorry to see you get modded down by someone else as a Troll. It really should've been a Flamebait. I hope they catch that for you in M2.

I suggest an opt-out model... by jkrise · 2003-07-29 03:28 · Score: 5, Funny

RIAA says: We sue the whole world for P2P misuse. Those who think they've been sued wronly, please opt-out by visiting the nearest court, depositing $5 towards opt-out costs and inform us over Kazaa er.. e-mail.

Failure to opt-out would mean that you plead guilty, the penalty for which is 95% of all earnings, including future earnings, over the next 2191.78 years...

PS: If you have paid our associate SCO, you have been automatically opted-out.

Done.

-

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....

Re:I suggest an opt-out model... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:51 · Score: 0

Would this be a reverse class-action lawsuit?

Faster Development by rigga · 2003-07-29 03:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

All that these lawsuits will do is push P2P and media sharing deeper underground on the Internet. Push forward better P2P technologies and advance better ways to move MP3's, Movies and Pr0n. Everyone has had a taste of how easy it is to get these files. I don't think that everyone is going to move en masse back to purchasing CD's. RIAA\MPAA, Want to stop file sharing? Come up with a fair and reasonable Internet subscription service. Maybe working with P2P to make them more profitable would be a better idea. After all the guys that create P2P are usually greedy business men just like the RIAA. I am surprised that this idea has not been kicked around. RIAA is running scared, kind of like SCO. Kick, Scratch and Bite hoping that you will stop your eventual fall into obsolescence. Music and Movie distribution is changing, better roll with the times.

--
RiGgA

You'd be more believable by Microsift · 2003-07-29 03:29 · Score: 5, Funny

If you weren't bragging about your past sexual conquests on a site whose subtitle includes the words "News for Nerds"

--
My other sig is extremely clever...

Re:You'd be more believable by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:01 · Score: 0

its called a joke, boy.
Re:You'd be more believable by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:39 · Score: 0

or any website for that matter. haha, good one mate.

Markov Cheney in da house! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:30 · Score: 0

At what point do we realize that the corps have declared war on us citizens?!!!

Time to change our screen names! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:33 · Score: 0

I suggest that EVERYBODY changes their name too someone@riaa.org. munkeyspanker21@riaa.org, hilary@riaa.org, lawyer@riaa.org, mp3police@riaa.org are good suggestions. I bet some people would go white with fright seeing a member of the riaa downloading one of their files too.

Let A Geek Do The Calculations by Sogol · 2003-07-29 03:35 · Score: 1

Theres 365.25 days in a year, so the solution is actually 2190.29

Re:Let A Geek Do The Calculations by Chess_the_cat · 2003-07-29 03:41 · Score: 1

But did you figure for leap years?

--
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Re:Let A Geek Do The Calculations by Smallpond · 2003-07-29 03:45 · Score: 1

Don't forget that every non-millenium century is not a leap year. I'd figure it out but my calculator has that pesky Y3K bug.
Re:Let A Geek Do The Calculations by lockefire · 2003-07-29 04:05 · Score: 1

Actually, there are 365.2422 days in a year.

For those of you who may have forgotten, leap years are in place to make up for this extra portion of a day by giving us an extra day every 4 years except centurial years non-divisible by 400. Therefore, no further calculation actually is needed, so:

(60,000,000/75)/365.2422 = 2190.3274 years

Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:36 · Score: 0

"I know I stick to the speed limit because I don't want a ticket."

Pussy.

Woot! by JediTrainer · 2003-07-29 03:36 · Score: 1

So it'll take them that long just to sue the Americans who are using P2P. Guess I've got about two thousand years before they set their sights on Canada, eh?

Err, nevermind. I don't care for American music anyway.

--

You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.

Re:Woot! by Bilange · 2003-07-29 04:24 · Score: 1

So it'll take them that long just to sue the Americans who are using P2P

Better yet, it will take them that long to sue americans that ACTUALLY (as in today) are using P2P. In a few years, other will enter the building and start sharing. So, there will be others people to sue.

--
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk

Last guy on P2P by aardwolf204 · 2003-07-29 03:37 · Score: 1

Knowing me, I'd be the last guy to get 'busted' on P2P. No less for uploading to myself.

I call it P2ME

--
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al

For the Next Version of Kazaa Lite.. by FsG · 2003-07-29 03:38 · Score: 1

..I'd like to suggest a proxy system so those of us who are stuck in the U.S. can proxy our searches and downloads through the computer of a friend who lives in a truly free country, possibly even in encrypted format.

This wouldn't have to be automated or anything, but an easy way to specify the IP of the person through whom you'd like to relay all kazaa traffic will ensure our protection - for now.

--
I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!

It'll work ..... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:38 · Score: 0

...but only for a while.

its very public now, and they'll try to go for a few judgements.

But then, after that (6-12 months), the furor dies down and we're back to square one.

The lawsuits at best are a delaying tactic. They actually need a plan other than "sue everybody".

Six Degrees and Paranoid P2P by Lousie_Louie · 2003-07-29 03:39 · Score: 1

People will stop sharing cuz their scared, what we need is secure P2P. Waste's encrypted mini-network is cool, and possibly safe, but trading with people you don't know is the whole point of P2P. What if you could have a list of trusted friends who were the only ones that could connect to you directly? A trusts B and they share files. B trusts C and they share. A does not trust C, but C ask B about a file. B knows that A has it, but does not reveal the identity of A. Instead A send the file to B and B forwards it to C. Not the most efficient, but safe. I know these ideas are not all knew (freenet) but I have not seen anything like this that is easy to use.

Buying the CDs after they sue you by managementboy · 2003-07-29 03:40 · Score: 1

Was thinking about this... you get 2 weeks from the time you get the notice from them. Why not also go to your nearest used CD store and buy the CDs that you are sued for. Now take those to court with you. The burden of proof sits with them... or not?

Re:Buying the CDs after they sue you by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-29 04:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

But they're suing those that are sharing not those downloading. So buying CDs for music you're sharing won't protect you.

So, you get a subpoena. Whats to stop a user from simply low-level formatting their drives, writing zeros to the drive, re-formatting and reinstalling their OS? Sure, the RIAA can show that you were sharing, but what is the court going to do if you no longer posess the 'pirated' works?

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:Buying the CDs after they sue you by merkel · 2003-07-29 04:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think this is why it may be more difficult for RIAA to go after file downloaders instead of file sharers.

If you already own a legitimate copy of a copyrighted work is it wrong for you to download another?

What do you get when you buy a CD? Is it a bundled license to listen to the music plus a single physical copy?

When you scratch your CD and need to replace it, why should you have to pay again for that license? Why not just pay a media fee -- or make things more efficient for all involved and just download it off the net?

It is a very curious question what a judge would think if RIAA sued a downloader who was able to provide a physical copy of a CD for every song he allegedly downloaded. Particularly if he could provide a store receipt dated earlier than the alledged copying...
Re:Buying the CDs after they sue you by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-07-29 04:25 · Score: 1

Well, if a vendor in the street is selling bootlegs movies or compact discs I would think that if the MPAA had purchased one of these discs, then went to go get the cops to arrest him/her, and in the meantime all the discs sold out, that person would still be arrested. Once you've got proof that someone was offering copyrighted material to others without the consent of the owner of that copyright, the person is in trouble. The issue (not "crime" since these are civil suits) is not one of possession but rather one of distribution. Thus, if some government agency checks your hard drive and finds stashes of mp3s, you're not in murky waters unless they can show that these mp3s are freely available to others through download.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Re:Buying the CDs after they sue you by Lord_Dweomer · 2003-07-29 07:20 · Score: 1

"but what is the court going to do if you no longer posess the 'pirated' works?"
Something about tampering with and destroying evidence comes to mind.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Re:Buying the CDs after they sue you by JaxGator75 · 2003-07-29 07:51 · Score: 1

Ahh yes, but how can they prove it? They cannot. They don't have to. Simply suing you is enough for them since Johnny Download would have ot crack the Yellow Pages to hire a Defense Attny.

--
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

Perhaps ... by simong_oz · 2003-07-29 03:40 · Score: 1

Hey, instead of sueing everybody who possibly might have a mysterious "I-might-start-using-p2p-to-download-music" glint in their eye, perhaps the whole (mainstream) music industry could try putting out some decent music that people might actually be willing to pay for instead of the music-to-a-recipe crap that they produce by the barrel full at the moment?

You know, say, just for an example, an album released because the artist is happy with it, rather than because a deadline has passed?

--
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)

Re:Perhaps ... by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-29 03:53 · Score: 1

...perhaps the whole (mainstream) music industry could try putting out some decent music that people might actually be willing to pay for instead of the music-to-a-recipe crap that they produce by the barrel full at the moment?

Not possible. The crap that exists on the airwaves now is due to the fact that it has an audience.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!

Re: Even Stupider analysis by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:40 · Score: 0

"It is unethical for *anyone* including record companies to profit from ill-gotten gains."

Its still not clear what the difference is between listening to the radio and listening to a file I download.

How do I profit when I download a song?

I think if I were to *sell* the song it would be illegal, but just downloading and listening a crime? Only in a bad dream created by bad laws, and evil corporations.

Re: And you're complaining? by Shdwdrgn · 2003-07-29 03:41 · Score: 1

4.7MHz? 128K of ram? Well aren't we just Mr. Fancy-pants? I started out on a Sinclair ZX81 with a whopping ONE K of memory. Sheesh... kids these days got it easy! :-)

You're missing their strategy by pclminion · 2003-07-29 03:43 · Score: 1

The RIAA isn't trying to scare people aware from using P2P -- at least, not directly. They are going after the big file sharers. By scaring people into believing that they'll only get caught if they actually share files, people will all decide to go into their P2P client settings and disable sharing.

With nobody sharing files, P2P becomes pretty damn useless, and they don't have to directly attack the downloaders.

At any rate, I'm glad the RIAA has chosen this approach (at least, for the time being). They aren't directly attacking P2P, they're only attacking the people sharing copyrighted content. As long as they don't kill P2P for legitimate purposes, I say let them rape and pillage to their hearts' content. The "revolution" again the music industry is bound to start sometime soon, anyway...

Re:Bite me, assmaster. by 91degrees · 2003-07-29 03:44 · Score: 1

(The superflous or outright inimical ones, I ignore.)

What about the superfluous ones that have a harsh punishment?

How to profit from the RIAA by tekrat · 2003-07-29 03:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Just like with the terrorists, we should start a website for betting on who the RIAA will sue first. Then, if you bet on yourself, and place a good bet, you'll win enough money to finance your defense.

It's a futures market for RIAA lawsuits, aka "America's New Economy".

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

The Universe... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:45 · Score: 0

But if there are 60 million p2p users, the probability of getting sued is pretty low, even if it does depend on the number of files you have shared.

Possibility of another planet supporting Humans? likely
Posibility of that planet having humans using a P2P network. less Likely
Possibility that the RIAA is going to try to sue them? Definite.

there are only three, things in this universe that are certian, death, taxes, and the RIAA coming to get you!...

*squinty eyes*

This would make a great book by kireK · 2003-07-29 03:45 · Score: 1

Something to drop into a SciFi book, movie etc.

"And in the latest move, the RIAA has sued the descendants of 10,000 MP3 users over the DMCA. For more info about Mp3s, please see your local museum or antique store"

Selective enforcement == CORRUPTION. by Thud457 · 2003-07-29 03:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The goal here is to create a scare tactic."

Isn't that loosely equivalent to barratry? Shouldn't they sue everyone that they catch?

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re: Prior Prior art: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:48 · Score: 0

btw for those new to computers, the site linked to in the parent has a "Message Alert" box.

this is an advert, you do not have "1 message waiting for you"

btw for those new to Slashdot, this site isn't for those new to computers. And anyone with half a brain would realize that's an ad.

And if you used something besides IE for your browser, you would have never know there was a popup there. I didn't, until you said something.

Let A Computer Do The Calculations by tds67 · 2003-07-29 03:48 · Score: 1

Female unit said: "I pulled out my computer to see just how long it would take the RIAA to sue all 11000110010000111101001110001110001101000110001100 010001001 P2P music file copiers at a rate of 11000110100100101 a day. 11000110010000111101001110001110001101000110001100 010001001 / 11000110100100101 = 111010010101010111001000110010001010100100101 days to subpoena each carbon-based unit or 111010010101010111001000110010001010100100101 days / 11010010010010100010010101 days in a year = 1110010100101.100101 years to subpoena each carbon-based unit".

Re:Let A Computer Do The Calculations by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:29 · Score: 0

You neglected to use IEEE standard 754 floating-point format.

Rage Against the Machine (but not Sony Records) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:50 · Score: 0

Which put out their music...

I always found that amusing/annoying.

More Realistic Analysis by Kaz+Riprock · 2003-07-29 03:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are several variables missing from the equation that they propose.

First is the one that everyone picks up on...the intimidation variable (sue enough people and win and others will panic and leave). There is also the number of people that will stop pirating because they have what they need and don't want any more. Then there are those that finally get a fast connection and learn how to use the software...more than enough to negate those leaving by choice. Next, you have those that have been sued, but damn the consequences, they return to share more files. Finally, you have those that light themselves on fire in protest...and die.

There are a number of off and on rates not in the steady-state calculation that led to the 2K+ years to get them all. There are also just those that die of natural causes while file sharing.

My guess is that the on-rate of swashbucklers is more than the off-rate and rapidly increasing (for now), which means the population is in an exponential growth and 2000 years is only going to cover about half or 1/3rd of the people still sharing in 2000 years' time...

--
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon

Re: Prior Prior art: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:52 · Score: 0

btw for those new to computers, the site linked to in the parent has a "Message Alert" box. this is an advert, you do not have "1 message waiting for you"

erk. I apologize to anyone that got that. Lord knows I despise those things. My filter must've nailed it, because I didn't see it. Even when I checked after rokzy's warning. Next time, I'll be a bad netizen and deep link.

Zager and Evans by Orblivion · 2003-07-29 03:52 · Score: 1

:-) In the year 2525!

Statute of Limitations? by schalliol · 2003-07-29 03:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wouln't there be a statute of limitations that would not allow them to sue you in 50 years if you stole "Baby One More Time" today? ;)

Re:Statute of Limitations? by ahfoo · 2003-07-29 04:53 · Score: 1

Actually the statuate of limitations is very short in a tort case. They might not have a case after twelve months. Also, they'd have to try it as a willful tort to even have a chance at challenging a chapter7 filing and even then it would be iffy and that's assuming the jury sides with them. They're playing the long shot here.

File Sharing will Evolve by merkel · 2003-07-29 03:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Like everyone else, I first thought all this legal hoopla by the RIAA and other private, quasi-governmental and the U.S. Congress would eventually put an end to file sharing, but thinking about it more I realized that file sharing will just evolve. It is simply becoming too easy to transfer bits of data for file sharing to stop.

What are some of the likely outcomes?

1. Anonymous file sharing. I think the technical challenges to this are pretty huge. There are legitimate reasons to allow anonymous information exchange, and even the US government seems to desire this to promote favored political dissidents. If someone can geninuinely overcome the challenges, I imagine peer-to-peer networks will survive, but I'm not very sanguine about this.

2. Private networks. Rather than letting just any yahoo search the files on your computer and suck down your precious bandwidth, I forsee private networks where friends and family can share files, but strangers can't. As long as you keep your list of buddies under reasonable control, it's going to be difficult for anyone to track file back to you.

3. Local exchanges. Even more extreme than a private network, people might make direct device-to-device copies. Go over to a friend's house and download their entire music collection to your laptop. Meet someone at the library and sync up your iPod. Whatever - by cutting out the middleman, there are no sticky subpoena issues with your ISP. Think about it - as data storage and data transfer rates improve, it'll be feasible to exchange files with any person you casually meet. Instead of meeting for the coupon swap, you can bring your PDA/iPod/laptop/hard drive and swap with your friends.

I really don't see how encryption, watermarking, or stronger enforcement of IP laws is going to put this genie back in the bottle.

The music industry, just like every other content provider, is going to have to adapt their business model, by providing a reasonably priced service that provides consumers what they want.

I think the only viable business model is subscription based access to a music catalog. For something like $10 or $20/mo., subscribers will have access to the entire catalog - and maybe special features like "webcasts", web radio, etc. But the current distribution system is done.

That and the music indutry needs to turn out something better. Honestly - I haven't downloaded ANY music and I've still only bought about 2 CD's in the past year. It's all crap.

Re:File Sharing will Evolve by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-29 04:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think the only viable business model is subscription based access to a music catalog. For something like $10 or $20/mo., subscribers will have access to the entire catalog - and maybe special features like "webcasts", web radio, etc. But the current distribution system is done.

I'd buy that, but only if it were a conglomorate site (eg. has more than one label's catalog) and didn't require a contract.

If consumers had to pay separate fees to each lable's site in order to get music that they want, this would cut out some of their potential clientel.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:File Sharing will Evolve by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:14 · Score: 0

I think the only viable business model is subscription based access to a music catalog. For something like $10 or $20/mo., subscribers will have access to the entire catalog - and maybe special features like "webcasts", web radio, etc. But the current distribution system is done

It's called Rhapsody.
Re:File Sharing will Evolve by 100110110 · 2003-07-29 05:21 · Score: 1

Merkel makes some good points, but is a little (lotta?) behind the times. Haven't you people heard of proxying, vpn, ftp servers, yada yada? File sharing is continually evolving. There are countless ways to share files that have existed for decades, and the technology exists to make sure the RIAA can't get hold of your ip address or other means to identify you. Somebody'll wrap it all up in an easy, point and click package and walla! File-sharing marches on. The uber geeks don't share files using spyware-infested clients like Kazaa (well sometimes 'cause it's easy). You can still get terrabytes of stuff using mirc, ftp, central file repositories, etc. It just takes more effort. If straight up p2p is shut down, it won't take long before the next step in tech fills the gap. An extreme would be an anonymizing proxy service with a vpn connection. Your ip address is nat'd, the connection encrypted and log files not kept or flushed every hour or so. The question is how much will it cost you? If it's cheaper than a horrendously overpriced cd full of crap, and still easy as a few point and clicks, people may use it. Mp3s are popular because they are cheap, easy, and you have complete control. As long as the Music Industry refuses to change with the times, the techs will always be two steps ahead of them. The more RIAA attempts to legislate change, the greater the risk of consumer backlash. What would happen if a 2 month moratorium ( it will never happen, of course) on cd purchasing was followed? Think they would wake up then? Probably not, they would just include the numbers in their losses to mp3 downloading.
Re:File Sharing will Evolve by Coward+Anonymous · 2003-07-29 05:44 · Score: 1

There can be another "legal" approach. Instead of sharing complete files on your system, you only share small parts of them. For instance, if you have a 5MB file on your drive, you only share 100K bytes of it.
Someone downloading the file would have to find 50 peers in order to reconstruct the entire file.

This appears to be legal since you are sharing only a small portion of the file (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32004.html ).
Re:File Sharing will Evolve by AaronStJ · 2003-07-29 06:12 · Score: 1

I'd buy that, but only if it were a conglomorate site (eg. has more than one label's catalog) and didn't require a contract.

Sounds a lot like www.emusic.com to me.

--
Stupid like a fox!
Re:File Sharing will Evolve by oliphaunt · 2003-07-29 07:12 · Score: 2, Informative

3. Local exchanges. Even more extreme than a private network, people might make direct device-to-device copies. Go over to a friend's house and download their entire music collection to your laptop.

News flash- people are already doing this. It beats all the hassle of searching for a file and then ensuring its quality, and then filing it in the right place with the rest of the songs by that artist/album/mp3_bitrate_trackname. If you have a fried with a computer (I bet you do!) and you have $200 to spend on an external drive, you're in business. Hell, even USB beats DSL speeds.

And there is really something to be said for consistent quality and naming conventions. You buy a couple of big drives, you set up a raid, you rip everything you have at 160 or 192, and you suggest that 2 of your close friends should do the same... you never ever ever have to buy any of those albums ever again. And neither do your friends. Why be anonymous? if you have a circle of 4 or 5 people to trade stuff with, that probably represents more music than you could listen to in 5 years.

If I'm passing hard disks around with my friends, it makes it easy for us to just assimilate each other's entire music collection in an afternoon, rather than the 8-10 hours of DL time you would need to get, eg, the new Gang Starr album. The hardest part is scheduling regular updates when someone gets something new. My music collection has grown by 80 gigs in the past 12 months, and I haven't bought a single CD during that time- AND I haven't downloaded a single music file over the open internet since Napster went under.

--

Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
Re:File Sharing will Evolve by Mjec · 2003-07-29 13:42 · Score: 1

1. Anonymous file sharing. I think the technical challenges to this are pretty huge. There are legitimate reasons to allow anonymous information exchange, and even the US government seems to desire this to promote favored political dissidents. If someone can geninuinely overcome the challenges, I imagine peer-to-peer networks will survive, but I'm not very sanguine about this.

Freenet has overcome these technical challenges. We do have an anonimity protocol, I just haven't seen it implimented in a mainstream P2P program yet. Sure, it's slightly slower, but the only way they can sue you is if your ISP monitors incoming packets, and IIRC this is illegal. Besides, the incoming packets are (I think) encrypted.

2. Private networks. Rather than letting just any yahoo search the files on your computer and suck down your precious bandwidth, I forsee private networks where friends and family can share files, but strangers can't. As long as you keep your list of buddies under reasonable control, it's going to be difficult for anyone to track file back to you.

The problem is I already have all the songs my friends have. We have a sort-of unofficial private network thing already - the guys with broadband download, the guys who go to giant lan parties in the city download, and we all meet for a lan party once a month and leech the hell out of each other's hard drives. But quite a bit of what I like in the way of music my friends don't like. Besides, small private networks defeat the purpose of P2P - that is, anyone anywhere can have the file and you can get it.

3. Local exchanges. Even more extreme than a private network, people might make direct device-to-device copies. Go over to a friend's house and download their entire music collection to your laptop. Meet someone at the library and sync up your iPod. Whatever - by cutting out the middleman, there are no sticky subpoena issues with your ISP. Think about it - as data storage and data transfer rates improve, it'll be feasible to exchange files with any person you casually meet. Instead of meeting for the coupon swap, you can bring your PDA/iPod/laptop/hard drive and swap with your friends.

Again, too limited. The system as it stands simply requires greater anonimisation - anyone want to chip in for an anonymous proxy on Sealand?

PS:Honestly - I haven't downloaded ANY music and I've still only bought about 2 CD's in the past year. It's all crap.

Oh god, you are so right about that.

--
"But everyone should know everything." -markab
Re:File Sharing will Evolve by jafuser · 2003-07-30 03:12 · Score: 1

This is a good point. I wonder what the legality would be of sharing 15 seconds of a song, since that is clearly a "fair use" sample.

If a few thousand people just happen to share different 15-second segments, then there would be no one person to sue, since each is contributing no more than a legally-protected fair-use sample.

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Re:File Sharing will Evolve by gnovos · 2003-07-30 06:08 · Score: 1

If consumers had to pay separate fees to each lable's site in order to get music that they want, this would cut out some of their potential clientel

Uh oh, it might require competition!

--
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"

Thieves! by notetoi · 2003-07-29 03:53 · Score: 1

If you are smart enough to steal and not get caught more power to you, but stop rationalizing stealing.

Re: Even Stupider analysis by JohnGrahamCumming · 2003-07-29 03:54 · Score: 1

You profit when you download the song because you didn't pay for it. Had you not downloaded it you would have had two choices:

1. Buy the song at a store on CD/tape/vinyl.
2. Listen to the song on the radio.

In case 2 you are not paying directly for the song, the radio station is doing that by paying for the rights to the songs it plays. And you pay indirectly because you are the target of the radio station's advertising. You pay by being in the radio station's target market. Essentially the advertiser pays on your behalf.

John.

Re: Even Stupider analysis by jbottero · 2003-07-29 03:55 · Score: 1

It is VERY clear what the difference is between listening to the radio and downloading a tune is. In one case, a radio station has paid to broadcast the song, in the other case you have NOT paid to download and possess the song on your hard drive.

And, how do you "profit"? By having that song on your hard drive to listen to when ever you wish. You need to go out and buy the CD if you want this privilege.

Forgive me for being pedantic by uptownguy · 2003-07-29 03:57 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Traffic fines are lesser because everyone NEEDS to drive to work

I was just catching up on my early morning reading... I certainly wasn't going to respond to any of the comments in the article...

But, in case you never thought of this: Not everyone needs to drive to work! This may come as a shock to some. I mean, people use their cars for "trips" that are a couple of blocks round-trip. People build entire communities around their cars. Americans are also, by the way, over 61% obese and growing (pardon the pun). The two might just be related. Who knows...

What I do know is that attitudes such as "everyone NEEDS to drive to work or wherever" become a self-fulfilling prophecy and lead to more suburbs, increased air pollution, less respect from drivers towards those of us who choose alternatives and greater dependence on oil (which can lead to fattening the checking accounts of people who want to kill us)

Mod me off topic. But I had to reply.

--

I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.

Foxtrot strikes a chord... by Demodian · 2003-07-29 03:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Seems like Foxtrot from Monday did a good job of making fun of this whole silly mess. Too bad we can not turn the tides on RIAA as easily as Jason.

schooled! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:57 · Score: 0

Touché!

Re:Bite me, assmaster. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 03:58 · Score: 0

And who appointed you the final determiner of which laws are worthwhile and which aren't? Don't blame us if some rabid extremist (on either side of the political spectrum) has you tossed in jail for doing something against the law that you though was "superfluous or inimical."

Just my luck... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:00 · Score: 0

and to think this morning I was quite pumped to discover I was immortal.

i was wondering by pimpinmonk · 2003-07-29 04:01 · Score: 1

if I encrypted my mp3s via rot-13 filename methods, shared them all, and got sued by the RIAA with an unencrypted list of files (that's all they check, they don't listen to the songs), would their court case hold any water? Besides not *REALLY* knowing if the files are indeed the songs in question, couldn't I counter-sue under the DMCA for reverse-engineering my encryption technique?

Re:i was wondering by c0d3fu · 2003-07-29 04:06 · Score: 1

I dunno - rot-13 is a well known encryption algorithm. Would not still have the charges over your head, despite your counter-lawsuit?

Don't expect to be sued anytime soon; the situation for the American government and mp3s is far worse than prohibition.

--

[c0d3fu]: jwjb62@umr.edu || james@macrohub.com
Re:i was wondering by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-29 04:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've suggested before that someone do the following:

1. Record yourself dropping some friends off at the pool.
2. Find out the track length for the latest Madonna album
3. Make copies of your recording, all with the name, track info, etc. like it was ripped using CDex.
4. Share them.
5. Wait for the RIAA to subpoena your records
6. Wait for your courtdate.
7. Ask the RIAA lawyer to play the tracks in open court
8. Bring your copy for comparison
9. Sue the RIAA for malicious prosecution and have them labeled as a vexatious litigant (I'm sure I misspelled that..)

Of course, there's nothing saying they couldn't simply supply the legit version to the court.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:i was wondering by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-07-29 04:15 · Score: 1

Don't you think that when the RIAA is cruising around P2P networks, if they find someone sharing what looks like a copyrighted mp3, they download it and check it out? I know there was the incident with the Professor in Pennsylvania named Usher but I would imagine that if they were going to go to the point of a subpeona, they'd at least listen to the mp3.
But your idea would have the effect of introducing mislabelled junk to the P2P network, something the RIAA would love you to do.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Re:i was wondering by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-29 04:27 · Score: 1

Don't you think that when the RIAA is cruising around P2P networks, if they find someone sharing what looks like a copyrighted mp3, they download it and check it out? I know there was the incident with the Professor in Pennsylvania named Usher but I would imagine that if they were going to go to the point of a subpeona, they'd at least listen to the mp3.

You'd think so, right? The Penn professor is prime example of when they don't.

Hopefully the RIAA would have enough smarts to check the 'infringing' content prior to the lawsuit. But with the number of people they're targeting, I doubt they're even downloading the songs. Likely, they're just dinging people who are sharing files that appear to be in violation.

This is all speculation. We'll see once some of the lawsuits actually appear in court.

Which makes me wonder: Is CourtTV going to cover any of them?

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:i was wondering by upplepop · 2003-07-29 04:30 · Score: 1

If I download any mp3's of people dropping friends off at the pool, I'm comming after you! For goodness sakes, please stop suggesting this, the P2P networks already have enough junk on them.
Re:i was wondering by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-07-29 04:32 · Score: 1

I think CourtTV is going to be really busy with the Kobe trial for awhile. I mean, when O.J. was on trial - that is all they showed, all the time. I think this trial is going to be of similar size and circus-like proportions. Of course, this fact actually hurts the RIAA - unless the trials get widely publicized the whole idea that they can scare people off falls apart.
But you may be right, they may just be doing searches for Madonna and grabbing the user names and IPs. And if that is the case, the RIAA is in some serious trouble. Bring a few cases against music fans who have done nothing wrong and we'll quickly see a backlash - after all, Americans don't like corporations, for the most part.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Re:i was wondering by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-29 04:38 · Score: 1

Doing this would frustrate users, yes. But it would also throw a wrench in the RIAA's ability to get accurate info.

The P2P networks are already crap-flooded anyway.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!

wow, great article. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:03 · Score: 0

Somebody performed division, news at 11. Good thing there are editors around here -- if this is the good stuff, I'd hate to see the quality of the articles they reject ...

Re: Even Stupider analysis by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:05 · Score: 0

Downloading and listening is a legal gray area.

However, on a moral level, the difference between listening to the radio and listening to a file you download is that in the former case, money has been transfered to the artist. In the latter case, you're making use of someone else's work without it being paid for in any way the artist is happy about.

Windows and the year 2100 by The+Lynxpro · 2003-07-29 04:06 · Score: 1

Interestingly enough, Windows (98) will not operate in the year 2100 AD. My BIOS somehow got messed up and was reporting the year as 2100 (before Y2K happened). This was after I reformatted my hard drive. I kept on trying to re-install Windows98, but it simply would not work. Two days of frustration later, I finally broke down and called Microsoft customer support and spent $25 for them to figure out what was going on. They figured out it was the BIOS and the year 2100 problem. Just something to ponder.

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

Devil's Advocate by gwydi0n · 2003-07-29 04:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'll play DA on this one for a sec...

However, the RIAA's strongarm, bullying tactics are pissing me off.

How so? Admittedly, maybe you weren't one of them, but the masses here at /. have been crying for so long to the tune that the RIAA needed to start going after people stealing music by using existing copyright law. They are, and people are still whining, or saying "yea, but" and generally trying to backup a few steps and justify their downloads. (again, you may not be one of these, just using your post as a kickoff point)

... people also have a right to such as "innocent until proven guilty," and "freedom from unwarranted search and seizure" and a dozen other rights the RIAA, MPAA, and their highly funded Washington lawmakers would trample on in the rush to stamp out music piracy.

Yes, they do, but they also waive that right to privacy with the 'thou shalt not do anything untoward or illegal on our network' clause of the ISP's TOS. This fiasco with the RIAA could also turn into a test of ISP TOS agreements on the side, with this particular point. I wouldn't be too surprised to see a few attempted lawsuits against the providers for giving customer information to the RIAA. Although Verizon lost, some private citizens agains a provider may get somewhere.

The whole point is to (hopefully/not likely) get people to stop and think about arguments similar to yours. Frame the objections in terms of changing the infrastructure, instead of a knee-jerk reaction & blaming the RIAA (evil bastards that they are). They are operating within the law, as many people have been screaming and challenging them to do for the longest time, instead of their groundless suits against the p2p companies.

final disclaimer: I personally hate the RIAA as much as the next person, but more for jacking the prices on cds more than is justifiable, than going after people illegally sharing music on p2p networks.

Re:Devil's Advocate by KrancHammer · 2003-07-29 07:50 · Score: 1

I'll try to articulate my thoughts on this. RIAA-backed proposed legislation is way out of proportion to the crime committed. Copying and distributing those copies is copyright infringement, not theft, as the RIAA would call it. And in addition, the act of merely copying a cd is not any kind of infringement at all, its fair use under any rational interpretation of copyright law. Burning those songs into cd format and underselling the record labels would be a more serious offense, of course, but that's not what's got the RIAA's panties twisted! Its Joe Schmoe, ripping the songs, then giving those copies (for free!) to his buddies. That's who they target, cause all of Joe's buddies no longer have to go buy the (overpriced) cd! And when Joe's buddies extend to everybody with a P2P program, the RIAA starts to see Red Ink (or decreasing margins, anyway). As I see it, the RIAA labels have no competition at all, no way for a free market to regulate cd prices more reasonably... except for those mp3s.

--
Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.

Ha! What a maroon! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:07 · Score: 0

When it gets down to where the rubber meets the road, we're each the final arbiters of our own behavior. It's your basic risk vs reward analysis. Your description of the situation is factually correct, but you're putting the cart before the horse, son.

so far, distributors by jatencio · 2003-07-29 04:07 · Score: 1

I think if they sue enough people who share their content, enough people won't risk it and suddenly there is a shortage of users who share and downloading will go to the servers who still operate. However, these will be so overloaded that downloads will take too long because there is not enough people distributing closer to home.

Not only can you ask for a jury by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:09 · Score: 0

You can also declare bankruptcy and walk away paying nothing except your assets which might just be equivalent to nothing if you're in college. In a criminal case, you could still be forced to pay, but for civil procedings they can't touch you after you declare personal bankruptcy. This is something that the RIAA understands well and it's the best evidence that this is just a scare tactic. Targeting people who don't have significant assets with lawsuits in the hundreds of thoudsands of dollars is frivilous nonsense. If it was a criminal case, they could garnish your wages for life, but it's not a criminal case and if you declare bankruptcy, it's over.
There is a rule that goes like this --you don't tort someone to teach them a lesson, you tort for money. This is a simple idea that most lawyers would agree with and that's why you know the RIAA is just blowing smoke.

Re:Not only can you ask for a jury by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-07-29 05:18 · Score: 1

Actually while it's not relevant _here_ do note that some civil damage awards are not discharged by bankruptcy, e.g. alimony, child support, death or personal injury damages resulting from DUI accidents, etc.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Why do I owe damages? by SirChris · 2003-07-29 04:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not sure why they can sue me. They are not losing any money off of me. If i didn't download I just wouldn't listen at all. Whether I download MP3's or not has no affect on the money I spend on CDs. I will not buy them either way. So they are not losing any revenue over me. However, if I do end up listening to the music (mp3) then at least i'm more likely to go to a concert that comes to town becaues i'm familiar with the music. So by me downloading, i'm more likely to spend money towards the artists. So where is the loss of revenue?

Re:Why do I owe damages? by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-29 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

This argument has been said before.

I downloaded a bunch of instrumental jazz - a totally different direction from my normal music taste (which ranges anywhere from KISS to Mudvayne, CCR to Techno, etc). I like the tunes I downloaded, so I bought some Jazz CDs.

Had I not been able to listen before I bought, I likely would've never purchased them as I, like most people, don't blindly purchase something without having first been exposed to it.

Unfortunately, the RIAA doesn't see people like me as a consumer. They see me as a pirate, despite the fact that the eventual outcome was that I purchased the music I 'stole'.

I don't listen to the radio, with the exception of two local stations, and even then some of what they air is utter crap. I only purchase music I've heard via the rare times I do listen to the radio or via exposure to music through a friend (like with Insane Clown Possee).

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!

let's recall the RIAA... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-07-29 04:17 · Score: 1

Since Governor Davis is being accused of losing $38 billion from California's coffers and is facing a recall, why can't we do the same to the RIAA? They themselves have lost billions in the past few years simply because they couldn't (or wouldn't) come up with a sound distribution model for downloading music. Perhaps the EFF and other groups online should start purchasing shares in each of the RIAA member megacorps and then seek out aid from the large pension funds like CalPERS in order to unseat the boards of directors and replace them with progressives? Sticking Steve Jobs on the AOL Time Warner, BMG, Vivendi, Sony, and EMI boards sure couldn't hurt matters...

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

In my day... by Sage+Gaspar · 2003-07-29 04:18 · Score: 2, Funny

We didn't have these newfangled P2P file sharers back in dubya-dubya-one. In my day, we had to scratch the grooves into records ourselves, and WE LIKED IT! The point being that if you can't get your music through networked P2P, how about trying my new service? I'm calling it RLP2P. In this fantastic new model, you invite your friends over with their files burned to CDs/CDRWs and trade them your own. I'd like to see the RIAA stop that! Or here's a novel one for those college-folk. Once a week make a trip with the rest of your floor/group of friends to Wal-Mart. Everyone buys a CD and a pack of CDRs. When you get back, everyone goes to their rooms (or their friends' rooms if they don't have a CDRW drive) and makes as many copies of their CDs as people want. That way you can get 15 CDs a week for a little over 20 bucks, with no chance of getting caught. The best part is that you get one CD that's CD quality (being your CD) and the rest just slightly under, having been directly copied from the master instead of converted to MP3 in the interim. PS: PayPal donations can be addressed to me.

How ong until they sue someone who can fight back? by markh1967 · 2003-07-29 04:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

The RIAA seem to be playing a very dangerous game and we have to make sure that they can't back out if things don't go their way.
What I mean by that is that they are picking IP addresses at random and starting legal procedings against the people these IPs belong to without knowing who they are.
We should really be making sure that every IP that is listed is followed up on. We can't let them discover that one of the IPs belongs to someone with power and money and let them quiety drop that case while still prosecuting people who are unable to defend themselves.

If they want to play Russian roulette like this we have to make them suffer the consequences if they pick the wrong IP. We can't let them find out who these IPs belong to and then cherry pick cases to fight - it should be all or nothing.

--
Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.

Lawsuits.slashdot.org by colk99 · 2003-07-29 04:24 · Score: 1

I belive that virtualhost should be made and all the RIAA sco lawsuits should go in there. and also have the option to exclude it from the home page. Everyone is sueing everyone nowadays of course in 2191 years money wont exist then. and we might have been wiped out already:)

Have you seen...? by FifthRayne · 2003-07-29 04:25 · Score: 1

Have you seen how long they have extended copyrights? Pretty much at this rate, the RIAA will actually finish suing everyone before the Mouse is in public domain. :-D

july 4th by rebelcool · 2003-07-29 04:26 · Score: 1

one analyst group that monitors this stuff attributed the dip in users to the fact it was the 4th of july weekend and people were out doing other things.

--

-

Re:july 4th by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:36 · Score: 0

Wasn't that just people on slashdot that attributed the dip to the 4th of July?

Because it IS. by 72beetle · 2003-07-29 04:28 · Score: 1

Why does our world increaseing sound like a combination of "Logan's Run", "1984", and "Brazil"?

what, you didn't think those were works of FICTION now, did you? Those stories aren't prophecy, they're ROADMAPS.

-72

--
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.

A lawsuit against E-Books by nvermor · 2003-07-29 04:29 · Score: 1

I guess this means that sharing E-books will be frowned upon. Steamy, hot paperback books start losing profit so the Paperback companies sue E-Book writers. And so a judgment goes in favor for the paperback companies then they can sue all forms of media that display words other than paper. Therefore no more web pages, the Internet crashes, and we all go back to our Playstation 3's.

payback plan?? by pair-a-noyd · 2003-07-29 04:31 · Score: 1

They flood p2p with fake stuff, why not rig some bots to flood p2p with fake USERS??

Fake IP addresses and fake users that appear to have real files. Let RIAA stew in their own juices as they go sue happy filing lawsuits against non-existent users..

They'll overload themselves and the court system so hopelessly that there will be no other option than to just give up..

In effect, a smokescreen..

Uhh, anyone else realize that... by athlon02 · 2003-07-29 04:33 · Score: 1

figure is ignoring one very important factor? I'm sure the RIAA is thinking of just using intimidation to try and keep people from doing any more P2P and delete any MP3's they have...

Just a reminder... by mcp33p4n75 · 2003-07-29 04:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Now is the time to boycott the RIAA. It's not that difficult, really! If you're going to buy a new cd, check against this list. You'd be surprised how much good music doesn't belong to those labels. If you MUST get that Avril Lavigne CD, buy it used. Sites like SecondSpin have a fairly large collection, or you can get it off ebay, or at your local record store. If you can't manage to find a used copy, pat yourself on the back. You found a CD published by an RIAA company that is actually good. That surely has to be a sign of the end times. What do you do then? I guess you'll have to exhibit self-restraint. Or if you have a peg-leg, resort to less-legal means.

The point is, don't let the RIAA get a dime of your money.

/me waits for obligatory comments about boycotts on /.

So you're saying... by filmsmith · 2003-07-29 04:34 · Score: 1

Geeks aren't men? ...sound about right

What do ppl shair by ThePilgrim · 2003-07-29 04:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

What are people using P2P to share.

Is it nSync, Britny and the rest of the modern pre packaged cr*p that is produced thease days. Or are people shairing back catalogs of songs that are hard to impossable to get.

And yes I know I'm showing my age now :)

--
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns

Re:What do ppl shair by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 22:47 · Score: 0

Well, based on your spelling I'm hoping you're at most eight years old.

Re:There is an obvious solutionde by Pendersempai · 2003-07-29 04:41 · Score: 1

Maybe the most effective resistance against the RIAA would be for 10,000,000 people to voluntarily go to the authorities and confess to having downloaded exactly 1 song. "I did it, and I can't sleep cause of the guilt, please punish me."

Yeah right. The authorities would say, "That's great, but with those parameters, it's a civil offense. Go bother the RIAA with your confession."

Maybe the most effective resistance would be if everyone did the equivalent: logged onto Kazaa and started blatantly sharing files. With 10,000,000 users, the RIAA couldn't possibly confront them all, could they?

Oh wait -- they already are. And the number is closer to 80,000,000. And that's not stopping the RIAA. As long as we're assuming that these tens of millions of protesters are organized and willing to make personal sacrifices, perhaps a better course of action would be for every one of them to donate $100 to a presidential candidate like Dean. 80 mil * $100 = $8 billion, which is far more than Pres. Bush could possibly hope for. If that happened, the world would change.

No proof by then anyways by AwesomeJT · 2003-07-29 04:42 · Score: 1

Think about it, how many original texts do we have from 2100 years ago? Thanks to the DMCA and the evils of copy protection, the RIAA and MPAA have make it so the media cannot be copied (legally) from one media to another. So, even then the songs currently in question goes public domain, no one can transfer it to other media to preserve the evidence.

Of course, that is beside the point that everyone that is a part of the current lawsuits would be DEAD by then.

And, of course, the damages seeked would be chump change by then (probably won't keep up with inflation).

I wonder if a lawyer could get disbarred for spamming the court system?

--
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.

Just do what the MPAA does by Guardian+Hacker · 2003-07-29 04:42 · Score: 2, Funny

If my observations are correct, the MPAA has come up with the perfect method for stopping people from stealing their works... and, with groups like O-Town it looks like the RIAA has begun to catch on:

If you make a shitty product, nobody is going to want to steal it.

Last time I checked, 2001: A Space Travesty (2000), From Justin to Kelly (2003), Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde (2003) and Santa with Muscles (1996) aren't exactly topping the p2p charts.

Status symbol? by LooseChanj · 2003-07-29 04:43 · Score: 1

I wonder if winning this lottery will become some sort of geek pride status symbol.

--
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.

No solution. by Demon-Xanth · 2003-07-29 04:46 · Score: 1

Factor in the growth rate, and you end up with an equasion without a solution.

Also, it's likely that in that time, they'd have to sue people multiple times.

--
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard

OH BOY! SOMEONE CAN USE A CALCULATOR!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 04:54 · Score: 0

I love it when someone posts a story to Slashdot which basically amounts to someone doing a completely useless calculation. If I had a nickle for every time someone posted one of these lame stories, I'd be a billionaire in 823,120 years!

sueing grandma by bobsalt · 2003-07-29 04:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hope they realize that about %60 of the people have no idea they're sharing mps's. When I used to do cable installs I would ask the customer if they wanted to leave kazaa running. Most of the responses would be "whats that? oh my nephew/kid/grandkid installed that last summer." so they installed it then downloaded some music, then they go home leaving a nice little sharepoint of mp3s.

What happens when this happens to a big fish? A technically clueless senator's nephew installs kazaa on their computer and it runs for 6 months and then THEY get sued!!! One can only hope...

Re:sueing grandma by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 06:23 · Score: 0

1. Start a record label.
2. Write a virus/worm that installs kazaa and shares a few of your mp3s.
3. Release virus onto the internet.
4. Hire some lawyers.
5. ???
6. Profit!!!

Turn off file sharing nationally? by Tongue+In+A+Box · 2003-07-29 04:58 · Score: 1

So basically, if the RIAA's holy war does work and turns off filesharing in the US, you'll have a hundred other countries where files are still being shared. This means that that the average intelligence of a p2p person will go up by about 30%. So maybe no more movies with the wrong title? No more german techno songs that turn out to be britney spears newest wretched creation. I could maybe deal with this... I love being Canadian.

Re:How ong until they sue someone who can fight ba by Mr.Spaz · 2003-07-29 04:58 · Score: 1

I think they're heading that way regardless. How long until they choose some basket-case to sue, ruin his credit and his life for a few MP3s, and then wake up one morning to find said nutcase strolling into their corporate HQ with 50 lbs of dyn-o-mite in a rucksack and a bad attitude?

They're targeting a lot of people. They're either going to find the loony or at the least breed a big, angry mob of people who will remember how their lives were destroyed every month when they write a check to pay their "settlement" for the next 30 years or more. How can they think these people they're slating for judicicide are just going to quietly slink away and hide and not poison the name of the RIAA and its member companies every chance they get? Just imagine the near future when the guy standing on the street corner is holding a sign that says "Made homeless by Sony Music and Vivendi Universal. Please help, God bless." There's an image I'm sure any megalithic corporation is just itching to create for themselves.

Re: Even Stupider analysis by mcb · 2003-07-29 05:00 · Score: 1

well last i checked radio stations don't pay to play music. artists want their songs played on the radio to get more popular, why would they charge?

That's silly by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:01 · Score: 0

"download and possess the song on your hard drive."

You can't possess a song; you can only possess a copy of a song.

Seriously, I don't see that a song on a hard drive is any different than a song I downloaded off the radio on a cassette deck.

Re:That's silly by jbottero · 2003-07-29 05:13 · Score: 1

Please don't be stupid.

And, if you record a song off the radio and then make lots of copies and pass them around, I would guess this too is illegal.
Re:That's silly by cornjones · 2003-07-29 06:17 · Score: 1

is it even technically legal to record a song from the radio? I know "everybody" does it but how is it different from recording the ball game on tv (which, i believe, is also illegal)

This is sort of the crux of the problem. Nobody had a problem w/ making mix tapes and giving them away. I used to make an audio tape copy of audio tapes/CDs/Albums owned by friends and family all the time. Technically this is illegal, but it was such a common practice (think jaywalking) that nobody paid much attention to it. The network/computers just makes this easier and better quality but it is still the same thing.

I guess what I am saying is, you lost me at audio tapes.
Re:That's silly by jbottero · 2003-07-29 07:11 · Score: 1

...is it even technically legal to record a song from the radio...

I think it is, but remember that mix tapes from radio never had the sound quality of the vinyl, and they sold singles back then also, so if you liked the tune you had a good probability of going out and buying the album or single.

But with almost CD quality sound of mp3 and other digital formats, you no longer NEED to buy the product to get a good quality recording.

This is why record companies say p2p file sharing effects sales. I tend to believe it.

Maybe the law could be used against them... by Beige · 2003-07-29 05:02 · Score: 1

Perhaps the DMCA could be used against the RIAA. This idea may need some fleshing out, but in the US it is illegal (under the DMCA) to decrypt things you have not been given authority to decrypt, right? I suggest, every time someone gets an MP3 file from someone, it should be encrypted at the source (so you can't tell whether it's copyrighted or not) using a key which can only be retrieved from an encrypted file attached to the MP3, and permission to decrypt the key file is only given to people with no association with the RIAA. So if an RIAA spy tries to spy on what people are transferring, they are in breach of the DMCA and can be sent to prison. It needs some work but I think the basic idea might be sound. Suggestions anyone?

--
pandnotpian.org. The untruth will set you free!

So? by kermit6306 · 2003-07-29 05:03 · Score: 1

First, somehow this article gives me the impression that you're saying it's OK to break the law because the chances of getting caught are slim. Next it's me telling that they're buying into the RIAA's "sue everyone" philosophy. Studio heads and big labels didn't get rich by dreaming up preposterous solutions to non-problems which sound like they shot right out of the MTV mind of your average file sharer. Are P2P networks going to put anyone out of business right now. No. Does digital freedom have the potential to undermine part of the established business flow? Yes. That's why the Industry is taking steps to stop pervasive freedom. Copyright litigation grabs headlines. It's also a red herring. The RIAA is making deals with computer hardware manufacturers, software vendors and tech industry standardizing bodies. They will simply have everyone implement DRM. Do you really think Dell is going to sell computers that will keep the Justice Department at their door? So, you can sit around and read peoples fantasies about how they think P2P's days of reckoning will play out in court, or you can do something only slightly more productive like contact your representative.
One a different note, not all agendas pushed by the RIAA are this bad, DVD-Audio sounds pretty damn good.

Deterence.....it's SO effective. by zerofoo · 2003-07-29 05:06 · Score: 1

It's obvious this tactic works! Have you ever driven the Jersey Turnpike? I think the minimum speed is now up to 80 MPH. So much for deterents.

C'mon people, capital punishment and the RIAA have one thing in common....it's revenge, not deterence.

-ted

2192 year long queue? by dr_eaerth · 2003-07-29 05:12 · Score: 1

That long, huh? That takes a load off my mind. I thought I was in trouble for a while there.

Whew,
Tony Zzugman, Esq.

File Sharing Copyright Violation? by orb_fan · 2003-07-29 05:13 · Score: 1

I'm no lawyer, but just having the files available for download, IMHO, doesn't equate to copyright violation. Here's my reasoning...

If you own the CD you have fair-use rights that would allow you to change the media into another format (MP3) for your own use.
Letting others see what you have in your music collection is fine, you could have an online database, but some choose to use kaaza for this.
If anyone downloads your music, then THEY are violating copyright, not you.

So the RIAA have to prove that you downloaded illegally all the music that you show in kaaza, just having a list available is not enough.

Of course, I'm probably missing a crutial point somewhere...

Addendum. If this is true (that you have to download the files to break CR, what if you allowed people to upload files to you?

A server that can beat the slashdot effect??? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:13 · Score: 0

That page came up pretty fast, even though I was the 10,000,000th visitor to that site!

that's not the point.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 05:16 · Score: 0

the RIAA's lawsuit tatics are starting to work, many of my peers are worried about the lawsuit from reading the paper and watching the news. i know quite a few people who were parnoid to the point of deleting all the mp3s off their comps, and i myself have stopped sharing(not necessiarily talking about downloading though)... when enough people get scared, panic and irrationality sets in, which will eventually cause an overall decline in p2p usage, and the RIAA will have atleast partially met their goals.

even if only 1/6000th of the P2P users get sued, many people would not want to take the risk of being that unlucky 1 out of 6000 and stop sharing all together. and when people stop sharing, the quantity of media avaiable on p2p goes down, couple with the fact that the RIAA is already "poisoning" and spoofing the latest mp3s on Kazaa. the overall result is an increased difficulty in getting the newest and latest songs off the P2Ps... i.e. just try downloading any of the billboard.com's top 10 songs off Kazaa... you'll probably run into a good 20 or 30 copies of spoofs and corrupted songs before finding a listenable one.

Re:File Sharing Copyright Violation? by BlueTrin · 2003-07-29 05:17 · Score: 1

If you give for free copyrighted work (software, DVD rips, ...), I think that you could be attacked in justice in real life.

So why not on Internet

--
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?

Hahaha! by Jagaast · 2003-07-29 05:23 · Score: 1

ha

Imagine if the Scriveners tried to sue? by asscroft · 2003-07-29 05:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Remember scriveners? They used to hand-copy important legal documents because there was no other way? They were paid fairly well too, and had great skill and talent to copy with speed and legibility. Imagine if they sued to prevent Carbon Paper or Type Writers or Xerox Machines or scanners or Magnetic Media. I mean, hell, you can copy a 1000 page document in a matter of seconds on most modern HOME computers. There's no way even the fastest scrivener can compete. They could have formed an Association of America back in the 1800s and passed some DMCA-styled legislation making carbon paper illegal and we never would have progressed past the 1800s. Sure some people in free worlds would have used carbon paper, but the Interpol treaties and such would have made it clear that they were rogue states full of pirates. No God fearing American would have ever been caught using such a terrible device. Not only that, but these laws would have saved and entire industry and tons of jobs nation wide. Instead, look at the way things are. Most of you didn't even know what scrivener meant and those that did owe it all to Melville, not because you have ever met a scrivener. Can we allow the RIAA to go the way of the scriveners? I think not. We need to legislate their existence for eternity. After all, that's what this is all about. They are as obsolete as the scriveners. I need to pay the RIAA to make a CD as much as I need to pay a scrivener to make a copy of a document. All I need is talent and an IMac and I can record, encode, market world-wide and distribute world-wide and the RIAA doesn't need to be involved at all. That's what this is all about. It's not piracy and never has been. It's about losing their stranglehold on the market, and losing their usefulness all at the same time.

Face it RIAA, you're dead as you exist today. You can sue all you want and claim Piracy all you want and hire as many republicans as you can afford, but you'll never ever ever be the necessary evil you were for most of this century. Take your money and get out of the cartel business. The world is wise to you, and all it wil take is a few brave musicians who won't use you to make millions and you'll never survive the blow. The people you're calling theives today are the musicians who'll drive the nails in your coffin tomorrow.

--
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre

Re:Imagine if the Scriveners tried to sue? by deanj · 2003-07-29 06:42 · Score: 1

"hire as many republicans as you can afford" Whoa there buddy....Hilary Rosen contributes to the Democrats almost exclusively.
Check out:
this link
and type in Recording Industry
If you want to lay this at the feet of a particular political party, don't do it here, because you won't like what you find.
Re:Imagine if the Scriveners tried to sue? by asscroft · 2003-07-29 08:31 · Score: 1

You're right. good source too. It is also worth pointing out that senator hollins and that other guy (I think the one that wanted to allow the RIAA to attack filesharers computers) are also dems.

But my comment was regarding the recent news that Hillary Rosen's replacement is a former bigshot in the republican administration. I think this was done in hopes that ties to the current administration will help them out. What with the TIA and the homeland security and the friendliness of big business that is so ever conservative. I don't intend to pretend that the dems care about consumer/personal rights at all. They don't. But the new republican replacement for hillary will be as bad if not worse than the democratic hillary, if only because the republicans are the ones currently in charge.

My extended point was that they can hire as many new republicans to replace the democrats on thier payroll - or even to support the dems on thier payroll and it won't stop progress from making them history. their business model is soon defunct and working deals to make laws to prevent this is only going to impede progress in america much like laws protecting scriveners would have done.

I'm not trying to blame the republicans any more than the democrats. They're all a bunch of money hungry sell outs. Even still, they won't win this fight in the long run. I just wonder how much damage they'll do trying.

--
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
Re:Imagine if the Scriveners tried to sue? by cryptographrix · 2003-07-29 08:41 · Score: 1

Ok...you will be deified for this perfect analogy of what it was like back then to what it is today....by the way, was that a sheet of carbon paper I saw you use to write this here?

How long by Fjord · 2003-07-29 05:31 · Score: 1

if you use a beowulf cluster of lawyers.

*ducks and covers*

--
-no broken link

True.

But what if someone takes your bought CD - then it's theft.

What I'm saying is that just having MP3s of songs doen't mean that you violated any copyright. I have plenty of MP3s, all ripped from CDs I bought so that I can listen to my music how I want. If someone happened to download a copy, then they are actually stealing from me.

What really gets on my goat is the fact you can walk down just about any street here in NYC and buy CDs and DVDs that are obviously illegal, right in front of the cops. Why not shut these people down first?

2200 years... by Quixadhal · 2003-07-29 05:36 · Score: 4, Funny

That seems like about the right amount of time to finally play something original on the radio. I'll consider that a promise!

In other news... by Sancho · 2003-07-29 05:44 · Score: 1

80% of Slashdot headlines also appear on Fark.

unrealistic by waspleg · 2003-07-29 05:46 · Score: 1

no one on /. has 15 close friends

hell most of us dont' even know 15 people

(but i run out of machine names at 10 ;P)

For when P2P gets crushed (yeah, right) by Windcatcher · 2003-07-29 05:54 · Score: 1

Just got CDs for these indy bands in the mail...

- Drive-by Truckers, Alabama A** Whuppin'
- The Windbreakers, Time Machine
- Drunk Stuntmen, Iron Hip

I haven't gotten to the Drunk Stuntmen CD yet, but the other two sound terrific. Got them from www.milesofmusic.com.

Take that, RIAA.

Pirates unborn by eddie+can+read · 2003-07-29 05:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

That time-to-completion no doubt ignores future generations of pirates. The war on music piracy will in reality never end (sort of like the war on terrorism).

they didn't get irony by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 06:08 · Score: 0

if they were anti-capitalism (and from the looks of their lyrics, they were sincere). Stupidity like that plus money can be very dangerous -- but fortunately stupidity like that usually REPELS money!
me

Re: Prior Prior art: by Jaysyn · 2003-07-29 06:09 · Score: 1

Don't they have a song called "I am One" as well?

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.

You mean that I can't buy books, CDs, and DVDs to give to my friends and family this Christmas? Damn! Now I'm out of ideas.

Look at it this way... by dcmeserve · 2003-07-29 06:12 · Score: 1

... There's a 1 in 2191.78 chance that you'll be sued by the RIAA this year (if you're a file trader).

Those odds are high enough to have the "chilling effect" that the RIAA seeks. Even though the odds aren't *that* high, they're easily within comprehension, and considering the severe pain of being sued... well, I know I wouldn't want to risk it.

I actually aggree with this approach to an extent -- it's the "carrot and stick" approach. Of course, there's the little matter of there being NO CARROT to go with this "stick". Which means this is going to be a much harder fight than they'd have on their hands otherwise. They really need to wake up to reality and play the game right.

--
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell

Re:Why do I owe damages? & who do we owe them by kolombangara · 2003-07-29 06:17 · Score: 1

I feel downloading music is just like listening to the radio, except the radio is commercialy primitive and plays only a few songs they want me to buy one at a time; sometimes over and over-then I get sick of it, and I won't buy the CD, because it's on the radio every hour.

I buy CD's. I can't hang out at the music store and ask the clerk to unseal and inject/eject 200 unheard unknown CD's so I can skip through the albums. The 'Net does this at my convenience.

I buy lotsa CD's--the amount of my purchases has gone up-and I downloaded them and listened to them first. Didn't cost the artist or label a penny. Why don't artists release their album music on the Net for free, but less quality, or trimmed, confusing the legit burn copiers, mixing it up with the other files named the same name?
I'll tell you why-cops and lawyers are traditionally pretty dumb when it comes to "real world senses", all they know is the bust, or the crack.

Who is losing money? Old ignored question. Who is now making money? Lawyers of course.

Music should be FREE. If you use Gods sound waves, make music with His aurel spaciousness, the music man should make it for free. I also think their product and package should be paid for. But I want to listen first.

I buy CD's all the time. Take away my test drives, and those CD's gather dust on the store shelves. The bottom line is that the market is moving and the dawgs are pissing on everything they can and could care less they are pissing on their own mothers-the goal is absolute power.

I'm totally with you about the guys who sell illegal copies, but in fact compagnies are fighting the ones who provide them the copies. Many copies come from China, where some illegal factories make cheap copies CDs and DVDs with fake authentification stickers for software and print their own covers for DVDs.

I do not know about legal issues for sharing files, because you are still providing an easy way to download the files. Nobody forced you to provide an access to these files. The editors could say that you have given an access to copyrighted work without checking if these people had the right to download them.

I understand your point of view, but it will be hard to make understand a juge that you may provide a way to get copyrighted work and still respect the law. IMHO sharing copyrighted files on any P2P network should not be legal, because you know that anybody can download it.

Still, when RIAA or any editor attacks a particular, it is more to scare the other people than anything else. It is like the protections on DVD (especially for XBOX and PS2), they may not be unbreakable but if it stops 95% of the people from copying it, it is a success, these protections were done to stop M. Average Joe from stealing copyrighted work.

Aside from that, I think that audio CDs should be sold track per track, many times, I do not buy an entire album because I know that 15 of the 20 tracks are total crap and I feel ripped when I listen to the other tracks than the ones I like.

--
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?

Don't be naive! by werdna · 2003-07-29 06:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is a well-understood problem: enforcement of intellectual property rights at a large, national scale. ASCAP and BMI have been doing this for decades (except for a brief 4-5 year hiatus while successfully challenging a statute outlawing the practice).

BSA has been doing likewise.

This kind of litigation becomes a commodity practice, easily executed because of the verisimilitude of the litigation facts. Indeed, with a decent database and document assembly program, you can pretty much automate this, and train lawyers to do it at relatively low cost.

Because prevailing plaintiffs collect attorney fees almost 100% of the time, the hammer of this kind of litigation is significant: "Here's the deal, you can settle this case in advance for $XX,000. We can do this today, if you like, or if you would rather firght, tomorrow. I'll leave this offer open until a week before trial. The difference is that the clock is running -- the offer goes up as our attorney fee bill goes up. Let us know when you are too tired to go on."

Oh, and by the way, a judgment for Copyright infringement is not dischargable in bankruptcy.

Re:Don't be naive! by vegetablespork · 2003-08-01 13:10 · Score: 1

Oh, and by the way, a judgment for Copyright infringement is not dischargable in bankruptcy.
Citation, please?

--
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

Heh, still you would not be allowed to copy the books/CD/DVD for yourself and give the original to your friends/family.

The same for P2P networks, if one buys the material, it does not give the right to millions of people to get it and one could argue in justice that providing a way to access to it, is like providing copies.

--
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?

Another geeky Foxtrot strip by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 06:34 · Score: 0

This has to be my favorite Foxtrot cartoon. Got it hanging on my wall.

Re:Why do I owe damages? & who do we owe them by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-29 06:49 · Score: 1

I feel downloading music is just like listening to the radio, except the radio is commercialy primitive and plays only a few songs they want me to buy one at a time; sometimes over and over-then I get sick of it, and I won't buy the CD, because it's on the radio every hour.

I couldn't agree more. Except I'd add that if you happen to hear a song you like & rush out to buy the album, you run the risk of buying a CD full of crap minus the one good song.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!

Making copying easy and having someone actually copy are two separate issues. In fact the RIAA have already gone after the P2P companies and lost. I think it was unfortunate that the students running the search engines settled, rather than fighting in court as I reckon they had a good chance of winning.

My point is that allowing people to see what you have legally is different from downloading illegally.

The RIAA's "saving grace" with these court actions is probably due the fact that these people never owned the CDs in the first place, and everything that they have available was downloaded by them in the first place.

Personally, and I mentioned this in another post, I would have liked to see the RIAA set up a scheme where people who have downloaded music can buy a licence for it - I know that I would be willing to pay for any music that I downloaded, I've looked into buymusic.com and other ofderings, but they generally are to narrow on what is available or wrap up the music in crappy formats with DRM all over the place.

True, some people would abuse an honor system like this, but I think that most people are honest enough that it would work, and they can always go after the people sharing music they don't have licences for.

Reality ??!! by shatten · 2003-07-29 07:01 · Score: 1

I been reading the comments and really think some poeple suffer from a lack of reality.

1. RIAA is only pressing cases against people that share files, NOT people downloading the files.

2. The isp has the current subscriber records for billing purposes and RIAA is after that.

3. Exactly how do the paaniod people think RIAA can see what their downloading? THere is no easy way but RIAA can download illegal songs which it makes easy to sue that person.

4. Most studies of P2P networks suggest that 1% of 1% of users share 99.9 % of the files. Strange thought there, humans being selfish and greddy. :)

5. RIAA has ony to sue 50% of 1% of 1% of illegal P2P users to stop the problem.

6. From the article in NY times the formula to win this lottery is unknown. It does appear that the cutoff point is 150 songs.

7. And answer this question, Do you ever want to pay for music. My guess is no. The music houses didn't blackmail the artist, they presented an contract to the artist and the artist signed it.

sigh

Donaldson

Flawed reasoning by rramir16 · 2003-07-29 07:07 · Score: 1

This article seems to suggest that since it will take a long time to get to everyone, that legal action will be ineffective. I think that anyone who is sued, and forced to settle for thousands of dollars, will disagree.

As I understand it, fines are set with this situation in mind. The people who make laws understand that not everyone is going to get caught. Thus, the fines are multiplied by a probability that you will get caught.

Thus, to use a non file-trading example, a fine $20 would be sufficient reminder to keep you from speeding. However, it is understood that only 20% of people will actualy be caught in the act of speeding. The fine is thus actually five times what it needs to be at 100% enforcement, or 5 x 20 = $100.

This is probably why the amount that the RIAA can sue for is in thousands of dollars PER SONG.

Likely courts can't handle more... by hastings14 · 2003-07-29 07:16 · Score: 1

75 is probably just a number they picked. In my experience, most of the time this stuff is done randomly by some mid-level person who wants a round number.

But courts are NOT designed to handle this sort of thing. Remember that traffic courts and small claims courts are kept separate precisely because they deal in volume of cases rather than large amounts, and even then its very small. Most cases settle out of court and the courts encourage arbitration and mediation rather than going to court. Courts are a conflict resolution method of last resort.

This is the RIAA's biggest problem. Since we are not a police state, courts in this country are designed to deal with the abberrations. As a democracy, when the majority of people do not agree with a law to the point of being willing to ignore it, the system breaks down. The RIAA will never win as long as most people do not see any ethical problem with copying. Most people aren't going to, because consumers have never been subjected to copyright law before and don't feel that it applies to them. Hey, even businesses weren't subject to copyright law until a few hundred years ago. Compare that to, say, "though shalt not steal" which has been part of our culture for thousands of years and which everyone pretty much agrees to.

Very simple... by writermike · 2003-07-29 07:17 · Score: 1

The RIAA simply brings a suit against "The Human Race." The Human Race will be defined as anyone who have used, uses, will use, tinkered on, mulled around, thought about, fathomed P2P networks that have at any time in their existence, include the future up to and beyond the Apocalypse, been used to trade one single song, even if it's Ernie's "Rubber Duckie."

People who sign onto their favorite P2P service will have a document immediately sent to them which will be entitled, "Red Head Raging Orgasm.pdf."

Simply downloading the document means you have been served.

Opening the document and clicking "Yes" on the 37-paragraph long EULA means you accept responsibiility to pay damages.

The RIAA can sit back and watch the checks roll in. Yay.

m

--
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.

Re:Very simple... by BeefyOne · 2003-07-29 14:42 · Score: 1

Earnie never got a penny for that little gem. They played him like a puppet.

--
/* No Comment

The RIAA's daily income by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 07:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

$4,522,500,000,000 now divide this by 2191.78 and you should get $2,063,391,398.77 now if you take out about lets just say 700 million for the lawyers you should get 1,363,391,398.77 now divide that by 365.25 you get $3,732,762.21 a day that is a shit load of money ppl. There is no way they have lost that much money on files sharing. Oh yeah this isn't precise but it gives us an idea on what kinda money the RIAA is making. Well I'm off to go invest in some music stocks.

I can see it now by Laconian · 2003-07-29 07:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Hello,

You've been sued by the RIAA! We've provided a means for you to be sued quickly and securely through our website. Click on the link below:

http://www.riaa.org/sue.cgi?ticket=A1847XZ54

and enter your payment details. You ordered these songs:

Linkin Park/Generic NuMetal $250,000 Britney Spears/Am I Still Popular? $250,000 Shipping $0.00 Total $500,000

Please send payment within 7-10 business days or be subject to serving life in prison.

Thanks again for stealing from the RIAA!

Speed Limits by EgoBoy · 2003-07-29 07:28 · Score: 1

Speeding Limits have nothing to do with Saving People. Actually they were first really encorced during the OPEC Oil Embargo way back when.

The purpose then was to reduce gasoline consumption. Soon after that, many of them were increased but not to their original levels. Why you ask. Because they became a good source of revenue for small counties.

Hasn't anyone noticed, all the speed traps are out in the middle of nowhere, and usually occur soon after you enter a poor small county?

A Different Perspective by Neo's+Nemesis · 2003-07-29 07:45 · Score: 1

RIAA assumes that suing every P2P user would confirm the revival of "Legal" music trade.

They are in a world of dilemma. Totally single-headed thought

What they don't realise is that curbing the exchange in U.S. won't be followed by every country. This will open floodgates for other broadband-blessed countries and their users.PIRACY OFFSOURCING will become the new field. Thanks for being so threatening, now RIAA would lose even what it earned from sales of cheap CDs and networks, because I'd simply need to get a Music DVD, pirated from outside instead of hoggin on to my PC and searching for them. Of course, other file types/sharing techniques will also develop over the years which will make the objective of RIAA more difficult.

SO WHY DO THEY BOTHER SO MUCH????

It's a Whole New Industry! by vosbert · 2003-07-29 07:46 · Score: 1

Imagine the income this will provide! Imagine all the employees that will be hired! This will be the start next big tech boom that will drive the economy out of this recession. Or create a whole army of lawyers... just joking around... or maybe not

RIAA by infiniphonic · 2003-07-29 07:48 · Score: 1

The RIAA has undermined my consumer confidence.

--
Crisis is the rule, not the exception.

OOPs messed up on that one by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 07:50 · Score: 0

oops the begening didn't get in so here is what it said. average the amount being sued (150000+750)/2 and you get $75375 now times that and you should understand where I started before

evey by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 07:54 · Score: 0

evey evey

finally i can calculate my probability of .. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 08:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

Finally i can calculate my probability of being sued!

For an average user it would be something like that:

probability of being sued = (1/2191,78 - years/2) * years

GREAT!!! This will hopefully be the next feature implemented in DC!

But i still haven't looked at the increasing number of users of p2p networks, so i think the probability will get smaller and smaller, instead of greater and greater ..

Let's create an alternate WWW by picardsb · 2003-07-29 08:27 · Score: 1

More roadblocks! I'm tired of this information highway. Let's build another WWW without RIAA and Verizon and AOL and all the rest.... I can donate a pc node to begin with.

Re:Let's create an alternate WWW by BeefyOne · 2003-07-29 14:50 · Score: 1

O.K., me too. How about we call it the 'STBTWWW' or soon to be the world wide web. In fact, I'll offer two nodes here.

--
/* No Comment

Maybe I'm just lucky by fendel · 2003-07-29 08:31 · Score: 1

People that make a habit of driving more than 10 miles over the speed limit (give or take, it depends somewhat on the area) almost certainly have several speeding convictions no matter what sort of gadgets they own.

I don't, and practically the only time I'm going the speed limit is when either (a) weather conditions or traffic do not permit going faster, or (b) I'm stuck behind some law-abiding citizen doing 55 in the passing lane...

Subtracting out the years I rode the bus, that's with about 11 years of driving experience. Half-hour commute each way, usually running late in the morning and trying to make up time. 65 to 70 in a 55 zone. Never had an accident, never had a ticket. And I hope I didn't just jinx myself...

Keeping an eye out by fendel · 2003-07-29 08:34 · Score: 1

The only time I see people driving the speed limit is when there is a patrol car going the same direction.

That reminds me of the "Are you an unsafe driver" quiz I saw, where one of the questions was, "Are you always keeping an eye out for police cars?"

Well, of course I'm keeping an eye out for police cars. I'm speeding. Duh!

Young people DON'T VOTE (in general) by Cryofan · 2003-07-29 08:50 · Score: 1

You ever go to the polls? It's all fuckin' OLD PEOPLE! All the politicians have to do is promise the old voters that they will keep squeezing you young guys for ever more money for drugs to keep the old people alive. That way the old people (WHO ALL VOTE) will vote in anyone who promises that. It doesn't matter to them if the RIAA and other corporate interests are wrecking the Constitution. They just want their medicare and lower property taxes.

If you YOUNG SHITHEADS would just vote, there WOULD BE NO RIAA!

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon

Re: Even Stupider analysis by mfrank · 2003-07-29 09:13 · Score: 1

Yeah, they *do* pay to play music. Not much, but they do pay. There are jobs where people are paid to listen to tapes of radio broadcasts, identify songs, and collate the data so the stations are billed properly. You need to be able to identify a wide variety of songs within ten seconds or so, though.

Can they... by Zonaflash · 2003-07-29 10:09 · Score: 1

Class Action the world and get it done in one lawsuit?

--
SoftBank Haiku: The bandwidth broadens; Users sign up in millions. Where are the profits?

Just say no by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 10:41 · Score: 1, Interesting

First: I just don't understand why all the people who are fed up with the RIAA don't just quit buying CDs/DVDs for 6 months. Just don't buy anything! The drop in revenue would be so great that the RIAA would have to back down, and 6 months is such a short period of time, that nothing you would have bought during the period would not still be available at the end.

Second: I don't understand why you couldn't run these P2P networks with PGP-style encryption. That way, the RIAA and sleuths would have a massively harder time determining if one mass of seemingly random numbers was equivalent to a file originally found on a CD/DVD.

Third: as for myself, I don't buy things from thugs (and the RIAA certainly qualifies as a Thug).

Re:How ong until they sue someone who can fight ba by mrobinso · 2003-07-29 10:44 · Score: 1

The end-run around this of course is to bring a class-action suit against the RIAA on behalf of all users of ip addresses and seek an injunction or other order where the IP addresses are chosen at random, and a failure to file against owners of randomly picked ip addresses precludes any further suits.

On the other hand, thinking the RIAA doesn't want to get a hold of a high-stakes player and make a long, incredibly public federal case out of it is a tad shortsighted. My bet is they'd cut an arm and a leg off (someone else's of course) to get to a user with enough money and willpower to make it past slashdot and onto the front page of the NY Times with a war of attrition on the legal fees. Their moneybag, filled by said users no less) is bottomless, and that sort of press scares regular people into compliance.

Let's face it, when the slashdot gang gets a whiff of an "RIAA Beats Up Little Guy" story they flood email boxes with nasty notes, launch an innocent enough DoS or two with just a link, and rant with their keyboards. The Average Joe hears the same story, has a shit, throws out all his MP3 CDRs and runs over to HMV with his credit car to attone. The long and short of it is, the RIAA cannot and will not lose while they have product to sell.

--
-- Karma whore? You betcha. --

I wouldn't know. by rebelcool · 2003-07-29 10:44 · Score: 1

I wasn't around on the 4th, either :)

Seriously though, I read the statement in an article on CNN. I forget the analyst group.

--

-

If that makes you feel more comfortable by cyril3 · 2003-07-29 11:20 · Score: 1

then you go on thinking that. But consider this.

If the RIAA keeps suing people the drop off rate of users will increase dramatically. No hard evidence on that but its a reasonable assumption. So if you continue to use your chances of getting sued goes up dramatically.

So you have to balance the increasing risk of getting sued with the attendant hugh monetary loss, against the decreasing benefit of downloading files at no gain (remember how you wouldn't have bought them anyway so having them is of pasycological benefit only, certainly not monetary).

Humans are notoriously bad at making these judgements and have been shown to consistently under estimate risk and over estimate rewards. Even when they do judge the overall risk well, they often then add the caveat 'but that won't happen to me' and go and do it anyway. Shit, the Darwin Awards rely on just this trait as do most TV Gameshows.

Re:If that makes you feel more comfortable by BeefyOne · 2003-07-29 14:29 · Score: 1

... so do casinos. They too are big and not built on those who have won.

--
/* No Comment

Where do you live? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 11:21 · Score: 0

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but if you're an American, you are not allowed to shoot someone breaking into your house... you can only do it in self defense if there is sufficient reason to believe you or your family is in immediate danger.

Re:Where do you live? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 12:44 · Score: 0

"Sufficient reason to believe," such as, oh, say, for example, they broke into your house.

P2P Insurance by Avsen · 2003-07-29 11:21 · Score: 1

The RIAA should maybe adopt a business model (helping slow transition into a pay/month service) where they sell insurance for getting sued. Given the current sue rate (100/day or so) and assuming an average settlement cost of $1000 dollars (and a total number of P2P users at 60 million). You'd end up w/ the probability of getting sued /day at 1.66 * 10^-4% (assuming the 60 million stays constant) with an expected loss of $0.0016666/day Over a year, that's $0.6083333 (fair premium). OK -- not very much. Now, eventually, they'll sue more and more people (and the 60 million would decrease [fear or otherwise] -- not including those who bought the insurance) leading to an increase in premiums -- until they have a pay/month service for music around 19-20 dollars -- like internet access). I mean, if sharing slowed to 5,000,000 uninsured people, and they upped the sue-rate to 4000 people, that would be 4k/5000k * $1000 * 365/12 = $24.333/month (fair premium) + some premium loading.

--

Massive networking attempt for friends

what if that offender was a well known musician? by MoreDruid · 2003-07-29 12:48 · Score: 1

Heh... it would be very _very_ ironic if Madonna or Cher or (insert famous artist) would be caught sharing some files... I say if there are any artists out there that don't condone with the way the RIAA is acting: put your own full songs online... so the RIAA would be sueing the original musicians for sharing their own material.

On a side note... this sueing will in the foreseeable future only affect US-based filesharers. I think there are enough Europeans sharing tons of mp3's (remember, it's only the music sharing that the RIAA is after), so Americans may download the songs and put them in another - not shared - folder. That way, they do have the music, but are not liable to get sued - as far as the RIAA can tell.

--
The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.

go buy a lottery ticket. by twitter · 2003-07-29 14:08 · Score: 1

Lottery Stats. I'm willing to bet that your chances of being served by the RIAA, in any form, are about as good as winning the lottery.

I like the idea of sharing files by musicians who give you permission. Besides promoting the right people, you make it harder for these dummies to do their impossible job. Shutting down all such alternate distribution is what this all about anyway. Give them exactly what they don't want.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

How can they prove it? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 14:08 · Score: 0

Let's say they sue me. Many people have access to the computer in my house, especially since it's a "secure by default" Win98 box. How can they put me at the keyboard? Honestly, anyone on earth could be sharing files through that computer...

Hmmm..... by BeefyOne · 2003-07-29 14:22 · Score: 1

So I was at work and I was humming a song. As I finished, the guy next to me started humming the same song and I couldn't help but wonder. Had I illegally transmitted that tune and was a subpoena waiting for me in the mailbox at home? Hmm. hmm.. hmmm.. WAIT! Don't listen!

--
/* No Comment

Re:Hmmm..... by BeefyOne · 2003-07-29 14:26 · Score: 1

Sing, sing a song. Make it simple to last the whole day long. Don't worry if it's not good enough for anyone else to hear, just sing, sing a song. Perhaps we are seeing the first good evidence that copyright is too contrived in a changing world of open ideas. I hope patenting software falls next.

--
/* No Comment

Percent of sued users who have posted to slashdot by BeefyOne · 2003-07-29 14:45 · Score: 1

Has anyone run the list of subpoenaed userid's against slashdotters ids? It wouldn't be perfect(and possibly very innacurate I grant you), but I'd just wonder how many match.

--
/* No Comment

SWEET!!! by AlexMax2742 · 2003-07-29 14:53 · Score: 1

Lawsuits have been mostly targetted at Verizon users and have been 'mysteriously' targetted away from AOL/Time Warner users. (Hmm... I wonder why?)

SWEET! (turns SuperNode and Share Files back on)

--
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion

See also loss from price fixing verdicts by xixax · 2003-07-29 15:02 · Score: 1

Plus the record companies have presumably stopped illegal price fixing that delivered them record profits during the pre-P2P era. That is, we'd expect a decline in revenue because they were stealing money.

But I'd say th reality is that the record industry is as lucrative as it was before. Small wonder they want to kill anything that threatens it.

Xix.

--
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"

The RIAA cant sue every P2P file trader... by SpiritedAway · 2003-07-29 15:21 · Score: 1

...dnd thats a fact.

Not all P2P file traders live in the United states.

Most countries have their own market for music and their own record body.

And they are going to have a hard time sueing someone for copyright, say in in Asia for example.

Estimate may be off by one by tpledger · 2003-07-29 15:34 · Score: 1

Beware that the estimate may be too high by one file-sharer!

Once they stop the second to last person, surely there is no more sharing?

--
You have received this message in error.

Re:what if that offender was a well known musician by MacrosTheBlack · 2003-07-29 15:35 · Score: 1

The problem with this is that the Artists don't usually own the copyrights to the songs. The Recoding Company does.

Sharing their own songs would still be breach of copyright & they'd be breaking the DMCA. Thus they would be sued by their own Recording Company.

I'm sure this wouldn't happen... dunno what the consequences would be though... Fired? Loss of earnings? whatever.

Iron Freaking Maiden by grokmiskatonic · 2003-07-29 16:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Just want to say, I saw Iron Maiden tonight, and their singer (Bruce Dickenson) gave a 5 minute or so monologue about how he didn't feel threatened by file sharing.

His reasoning was that they were selling more albums now than ever before, and this was due to fan loyalty. He said that if people wanted to tape the show and share it on the internet, that is fine (this before they played a yet unreleased song). He reasoned that since they were connecting with the fans, and making album that were made with the fans in mind, that is why they continued to sell. His message to the record companies was to have original music, not music that was copies of the hit band of the moment.

This went over pretty well to the PACKED house of fanatical fans (to say the least, as many cheers to this, as anything else). I don't think these guys are going to have problems selling records, file sharing or not!

RIAA take a lesson from Iron Maiden!! Say what you will about the intelligence level of heavy metal bands and fans, but this was about the best
advocacy of file sharing that I have ever heard.

I'm not really sure of the ethics of file sharing myself. I am an amature musician myself, and I feel musicians do deserve compensation. I just wanted to point out that I don't think that bands that are really connecting with the fans on a long term basis (Like Iron Maiden, Dio, and Motorhead playing on this tour) have a lot to worry about! I know I want to support them!

I read a while back that their has been a dip by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 16:39 · Score: 0

"I read a while back that their has been a dip in kazaa usage," you say.

True, but it's currently holding steady at 3 million users on line at any one time. More to the point, I was able to download a few songs (e.g. "My love is like wo" by Mya) with little problem.

So what if it drops to 100,00 users on line and only non US sites sharing MP3s if I can painlessly overnight or in the background download the song I care to add to my collection?

And if I can't do that , other systems will evolve into use.

And if all internet sources die out , there is radio, music television, and CDs at the library and friends houses.

I've listened to cassettes with songs taped from radio in the seventies and CDs with MP3s in the zeros and all manner of paid and free music inbetween and NOTHING they do will stop free people from enjoying music as they see fit.

Sue enough people, and congress will repond to the hue and cry by taking away their voters pain by enacting copywrite laws with due process and penalties that make sense in place of the overbearing penalties that were bought by special interests recently (Congress never STAYS bought).

Encryption by Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 16:40 · Score: 0

The RIAA strategy of lawsuits depends on the lack of anonymity. Right now, filesharing like Kazaa do not provide that. The technology for anyonymous filesharing does exist however (e.g. Freenet). If using Kazaza actually becomes dangerous, new systems based on encryption will suddenly become popular.

As I believe Tycho of Penny Arcade pointed out, the Napster lawsuits worked as a massive advertizing campaign for peer-to-peer fileshairing. Napster died, but alternatives like Kazaa sprung up in its place.

Does the music industry really want to make completly anonymous internet traffic a household familiarity like fileshareing is today? That doesn't just mean music stolen, it means criminals plotting, terrorists scheming, and kiddie pornographers distributing.

Does anybody really want that?

Re:Doing the math - Impossible... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 18:54 · Score: 0

... This is impossible as everyone knows attorneys don't get laid.

Maybe screwed, but never laid.

Re:Book sales down too...Potter = Clinton by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-07-29 19:44 · Score: 1

few guaranteed big sellers like H. Potter and H. Clinton.

Yes, fiction does sell well these days.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Make my Day laws by Ex-MislTech · 2003-07-29 21:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Alot of the Midwestern states have the "make my day laws",
ALOT of criminals have been shot because of it .

Some innocents and even cops have died too, but they
intend to keep the law on the books .

The cop that died here did, the knock, yell, bust door
down real quick and rush in . What he got was a sleeping
person on the couch with a double barrel shotgun .

The dead cop was the district attorneys son, the guy on
the couch got away with it .

Makes the cops a little more careful about busting into
houses, deserved or not . They also carry lexan shields
and body armor on entry crews now .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

Are those "cops" of yours ... by jotaeleemeese · 2003-07-29 21:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

... Taliban or members of the Ba'hat party?

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Re:Are those "cops" of yours ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-30 02:27 · Score: 0

When the rules are fucked up, you don't play by the rules.
Re:Are those "cops" of yours ... by ryanwright · 2003-07-30 06:04 · Score: 1

The AC said:

When the rules are fucked up, you don't play by the rules.

Damn straight. Cops know what's up when they show up to your house. They're human beings just like you and me, and they deal with the scum of the earth every day. Broken window, known criminal lying dead in your house, distraught wife & kids, upset husband. They know the asshole broke into your home. They may even know that you placed the knife in his hand to cover your ass. But you know what? They're not going to say a damn thing about it. The police report will show that you simply defended yourself.

Why? Like I said, they deal with these lowlifes every day. They know good and well that the scumbag was there to rob or kill you and that he deserved what he got. Hell, they probably know the guy's name - 9 times out of 10 he's been in trouble before. They're not going to give anyone any ammunition to come after you, even if that means overlooking some details.

Are those "cops" of yours Taliban or members of the Ba'hat party?

Obviously, you're one of those clowns who doesn't believe I have the right to protect my home. That I should be arrested and thrown in jail for harming someone who has broken into my home and woken me from a deep sleep at 3 in the morning, and whom I, half asleep, scared for my life and full of adrenaline, find in a dark living room with absolutely no idea what his intentions are.

The next time some cretin breaks into your house and proceeds to take your belongings (or worse), please, by all means, just ask him politely to leave. I'm sure he will apologize and do so.

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig

Why should I pay anything per month? by jotaeleemeese · 2003-07-29 21:38 · Score: 1

I don't want to subscribe to any music service.

Why should I suscribe if currently I have in excess of 500 CDs with all the music I am interested on?

I spend on CDs around 50/year (tops).

Want a business model? Buy an album for 10 bucks (CD, downloaded) and you get unrestricted access to a given area on a big music archive for one year (let say you buy latest Brittney's crap, then you choose to have access to all the recordings of Sir Simon Rattle).

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Re: Prior Prior art: by McWilde · 2003-07-29 22:01 · Score: 1

U2, Metallica and probably others have songs called One.
It's not the title that counts for copyright. The guy is making two digital songs with only one bit in them. Any other digital representation of a song will be heavily infringing on his copyrighted 'music'.

--
Maybe

The rest of their lives? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 22:14 · Score: 0

Maybe your friends should get involved in live performance, instead of expecting to do a small amount of work once and get paid for it the rest of their lives.

You do realize you only need to buy an album once, right?

If an album is good enough that people continue to enjoy it one or two (or more?) generations later, why shouldn't the artist make the extra money?

are these suits juried ???????? by pensivemusic · 2003-07-30 00:04 · Score: 1

i have not seen whether the RIAA has to appear before a jury to present and win their cases... how many of US would convict our peers --- knowing that we were on the list somewhere? would anyone who knows what an MP3 is be disqualified? would the basis of the suits only be decided by non computer literate people?

United File Sharing Defense Fund by mmerlin · 2003-07-30 03:45 · Score: 1

If you want to help, contribute to the United File Sharing Defense Fund

--

smile, it makes everyone else wonder what you're up to :-)

more of a threat by JohnDoe69 · 2003-07-30 09:30 · Score: 0

i would guess the lawsuit claims are more of threats to get ppl to stop STEALING music and they are within their right. We should use the "pay for downloading" music sites which are cheap and safe.

Not the Point by Redbw6 · 2003-07-31 02:41 · Score: 1

Suing X amount of people is not the point...the point is that the RIAA wants downloaders to realize that what they're doing is illegal!

If they go alphabetically then the estate of Douglas Adams may have a copyright violation case against them.

Slashdot Mirror

2191.78 Years for the RIAA to Sue Everyone

636 comments