Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the thats-a-lotta-legal-fees dept.
este writes "According to an article in the Inquirer, if the RIAA maintains its rate of lawsuit issuance, it will take more than two millenia for them to sue evey P2P file trader. The author accounts for many additional difficulties facing the RIAA in this daunting task."
Why even try?
by
mschoolbus
·
· 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
Kneo24
·
· 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.
It's the deterrent, stupid.
by
LazloToth
·
· 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
Dutchmaan
·
· 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
·
· 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
·
· 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
Bonker
·
· 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.
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
jmo_jon
·
· 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
dasmegabyte
·
· 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.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.
by
theLOUDroom
·
· 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.
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.
The real reason CD sales are down!
by
Wacky_Wookie
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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.
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.
A Different Approach...
by
mgcsinc
·
· 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...
There is an obvious solution
by
heironymouscoward
·
· 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
Unfortunately they don't need that long...
by
Alkarismi
·
· 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:I told ya so
by
KillerHamster
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Who will they sue when they can't sue the p2p or it's users?
The ISPs.
Lawyer's Job Security
by
LoneStarGeek
·
· 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.
Re:if their objective is to sue everyone
by
LostCluster
·
· 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.
Slashdot Mirror
As put by Rage Against the Machine:
"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."
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.
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.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=3654 4&rel
.5 pence ;)
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
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.
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...
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
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!
Who will they sue when they can't sue the p2p or it's users?
The ISPs.
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.
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.