2191.78 Years for the RIAA to Sue Everyone

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."

Comments

At that rate...

[mattyohe]

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

Re:At that rate...

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

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.

Re:At that rate...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[gilesjuk]

Maybe they'll send a terminator back from the future to take out a branch of the family tree? :)

Re:At that rate...

[Geek of Tech]

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?

Sounds like a profit model to me...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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

Re:Sounds like a profit model to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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

No wait, don't answer that...

Re:Sounds like a profit model to me...

[i8urtaco]

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...

[Rhubarb Crumble]

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...

[Divide By Zero]

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.

Re:Sounds like a profit model to me...

[ediron2]

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...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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

Why even try?

[mschoolbus]

As put by Rage Against the Machine:

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

Re:Why even try?

[KReilly]

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?

[M. Silver]

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?

Re:Why even try?

[Kneo24]

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?

[RightInTheNeck]

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?

[felis_panthera]

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."

Re:Why even try?

[ahfoo]

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?

[shane_rimmer]

We're working on it. We just need more lions.

Re:Why even try?

[Lemmy Caution]

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.

When am I gonna get served?

[JDark]

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

Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[cheeseSource]

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

if their objective is to sue everyone

[civilengineer]

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.

Re:if their objective is to sue everyone

[LostCluster]

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

[felis_panthera]

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

It's the deterrent, stupid.

[LazloToth]

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.

Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.

[darien]

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.

[Dutchmaan]

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.

[garcia]

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.

[91degrees]

...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.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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.

Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.

[Bonker]

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.

Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.

[dlur]

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?

Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.

[Dutchmaan]

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.

[91degrees]

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.

[jmo_jon]

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.

[garcia]

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.

[deke_2503]

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.

[civilengineer]

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?

Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.

[BrynM]

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.

Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.

[Cyno]

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.

[DarthWiggle]

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.

[dasmegabyte]

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.

[I8TheWorm]

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?

Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.

[theLOUDroom]

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.

Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.

[ryanwright]

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.

Prior art:

[Thud457]

Jason Fox has them flummoxed.

Excellent!

[Lumpy]

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

Stupid analysis

[JohnGrahamCumming]

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

[squiggleslash]

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.

The real reason CD sales are down!

[Wacky_Wookie]

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

[felis_panthera]

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.

Yes, I realize

[TedCheshireAcad]

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 ;)

But won't most of the copyrights expire by then?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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.

What bothers me

[phorm]

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...

[mgcsinc]

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...

[Alton_Brown]

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 ;)

There is an obvious solution

[heironymouscoward]

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.

Re:But won't most of the copyrights expire by then

[Rhubarb Crumble]

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.

RIAA is turning me pirate.. arrr

[KrancHammer]

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.

Unfortunately they don't need that long...

[Alkarismi]

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...

[garcia]

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+

Imagine...

[SharpFang]

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?"

Question

[tomstdenis]

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

Distributed Sueing !

[da5idnetlimit.com]

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...

Re:I told ya so

[KillerHamster]

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

The ISPs.

That's better than winning the lottery

[NetDanzr]

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.

the solution is obvious

[leekwen]

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.

Doing the math

[borkus]

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.

Let A Man Do The Calculations

[tds67]

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.

Lawyer's Job Security

[LoneStarGeek]

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.

Terrorism

[lpret]

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.

Re:Terrorism

[pebs]

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.

When they file the BIG one...

[r_j_prahad]

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.

Re:What song is that from?

[mschoolbus]

The song is Untitled, but unofficially called Revolutionary. The song is also played with Tool.

Here are the lyrics.

Re:There's a cheaper alternative...

[The Masked Fruitcake]

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.

60 million minus one

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Book sales down too...

[frenchgates]

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.

Re:Book sales down too...

[Frac]

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.

I suggest an opt-out model...

[jkrise]

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.

-

Faster Development

[rigga]

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.

You'd be more believable

[Microsift]

If you weren't bragging about your past sexual conquests on a site whose subtitle includes the words "News for Nerds"

Re:Why is 75 a magic number?

[Snags]

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.

How to profit from the RIAA

[tekrat]

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".

Selective enforcement == CORRUPTION.

[Thud457]

"The goal here is to create a scare tactic."

Isn't that loosely equivalent to barratry? Shouldn't they sue everyone that they catch?

Re:I told ya so

[Snags]

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.

More Realistic Analysis

[Kaz Riprock]

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...

Statute of Limitations?

[schalliol]

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? ;)

File Sharing will Evolve

[merkel]

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

[MImeKillEr]

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.

Re:File Sharing will Evolve

[oliphaunt]

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.

Foxtrot strikes a chord...

[Demodian]

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.

Re:Buying the CDs after they sue you

[MImeKillEr]

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?

Devil's Advocate

[gwydi0n]

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:i was wondering

[MImeKillEr]

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.

Why do I owe damages?

[SirChris]

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?

[MImeKillEr]

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).

In my day...

[Sage Gaspar]

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?

[markh1967]

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.

Re:Buying the CDs after they sue you

[merkel]

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...

Just a reminder...

[mcp33p4n75]

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 /.

What do ppl shair

[ThePilgrim]

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 :)

Just do what the MPAA does

[Guardian Hacker]

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.

sueing grandma

[bobsalt]

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...

Imagine if the Scriveners tried to sue?

[asscroft]

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.

2200 years...

[Quixadhal]

That seems like about the right amount of time to finally play something original on the radio. I'll consider that a promise!

Pirates unborn

[eddie can read]

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).

Don't be naive!

[werdna]

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.

I can see it now

[Laconian]

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!

Iron Freaking Maiden

[grokmiskatonic]

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!

Make my Day laws

[Ex-MislTech]

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

Are those "cops" of yours ...

[jotaeleemeese]

... Taliban or members of the Ba'hat party?