Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Prepares Legal Blitz Against Filesharers
Sayonara writes "The RIAA are now well and truly gathering their forces for a financial onslaught on file sharers in the US, with a "fear and awe" campaign targetting college and high school students in particular. The strategy can be reduced to 'We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded. Pay us $50,000 now, and we'll say no more about it.' In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"
I really can't see anything positive coming out of this, people are going to be screwed (pay up because they can't afford the lawyer), the pblic won't care, and the RIAA will just gain more momentum.
The laws that make it possible won't get changed either.
*sigh*
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"
God, I hope that gets tossed out. Well, actually, I hope it all gets tossed out, or 'nycfashiongirl' gets a small ($1/song shared) damage against her.
Repeat after me: You have no privacy on the internet. Any privacy you think you might have is simply you being too small and insignificant for anyone to bother to look. Consider your activities to be taking place on a sidewalk using postcards and loud voices--and act accordingly.
*sigh*
They're targeting high school and college students... Who tend to not have much money... Will they really be allowed to ruin the lives of hundreds (if not thousands, or tens of thousands) of people, just so some execs can make a little more cash? And also, don't college students have a tendency to rebel against things like this? There's going to be a gigantic uprising...
Except these guys are actually dangerous. Can we stop feeding the SCO trolls, and have more articles about this? Maybe some ask slashdots with actual lawyers about what to do if they sue you, what they can actually legally do, etc.?
Someone's really gotta put a stop to this. Where are they getting this $150,000 number from? If you go into a record store, steal the CD, go outside the store with your laptop, and start burning free copies for people walking in, would you fine be nearly as high?
Why the bias against people who "steal" (or infringe copywrites) with computers?
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
The tactic is broadly to remind those it catches of the truly draconian penalties the law in the United States allows ($150,000 per song - and you don't have to be a Berkeley mathematician to multiply that a few times to get more dollars that any student loan could cover).
...
Then when the poor student has picked himself up from the floor and the blood returns to his face, the lawyers will say broadly: "OK, we'll let you off the fine if you agree to pay, let's say, a mere $15,000".
Furthermore, in one recent case, a college student was told that just by filing an answer in court, the cost of any final settlement would rise by $50,000.
If this isn't extortion, By God, I don't know what is.
Most High Schools use proxies...if the kids are running Kazaa at school and using a proxy, then it would be unethical and highly illegal to divulge their names to a non-law-enforcement-entity such as the RIAA. Anyway, an intelligent administrator would flush their logs every day.
"Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies."
By that logic, everyone is open to whatever searches of other people's systems they want. Why is the US gov't going after people for "hacking", if the intent is just to look around then all is fine according to them.
"Shallow" as in based on that worthless piece of over-valued toilet paper also known by some backwards thinkers as The Constitution. This in vivid contrast to the deep and meaningful music they peddle on the consumer.
"When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
This isn't an issue because they are targeting users who share MP3's, ie make them available for upload. Though one can argue that downloading an MP3 is legal and fine if you already own a CD with that song on it, but it's hard to argue that it's legal for you to make that freely available for download on the assumption that whoever downloads it is doing so legally.
./ crowd has said all along that the tools shouldn't be attacked, the violators should be attacked. That's what the RIAA is doing. They're not targeting downloaders (yet).
I don't know why anyone is complaining about this campaign... the
Well done RIAA! You've successfully embedded the "evil recording industry" image into the hearts and minds of the youth of today, your primary consumers. You may prevent some people sharing your music but you've turned millions more from ever buying a RIAA artist's CD ever again. Previously, people might have felt bad about depriving the artist of income but now, they'll just think "screw them". Well done.
Someday, someone with several thousand songs will call their bluff, and challenge them. Perhaps in court, they'll point out how stupid the RIAA looks demanding more money than the entire record industry is worth in damages. Perhaps.
The thing is, even if a court does rule that you owe the RIAA $100 000 000, what would happen? It's not like they could ever collect. I never expect to own that much money.
At least in my case, yeah, you hit the nail right on the head.
I think copyright is evil. In its original form it might have been argued to at least be a practical good, and thus worth keeping around, but in its current form it is out and out evil, in that it attempts to squash the development and exchange of ideas in favor of the development and exchange of profit, and ideas are a fundamental part of the development of civilization.
Seeing as I think civil disobedience was one of the better ideas developed lately, I'm pretty much likely to support any user who shares just about any file.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
[RIAA vice-president] Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.
So if I hack Mr. Oppenheims computer and "unreasonably" search it (i.e. rifle through his private data) I am immune to rules on unreasonable searches because I am a hacker and not a cop? Nice to know.... Now where did I put that SubSeven kit.....
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
While I applaud nycfashiongirl's stand, it appears to me that it may indeed be "shallow." The RIAA is not a law-enforcement agency, so is not bound to regulations regarding surveillance. And more importantly, she chose to share her many pirated files on a file-sharing service. How could they have violated her privacy when she decided to publicly display the files to the world? They didn't have to violate anything.
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
But the RIAA isn't invading anyone's house or computer, they're just going through the public directories of shared files that people put up on p2p networks. I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but this is not an invasion of privacy.
Why are they just going after P2P filesharing? Why not vigorously prosecute those who download music off of Usenet? Or those who copy CD's from friends? How about people who make bootlegs?
I'll tell you why. It's because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business (in the long term) much much more than a little music piracy by college students who wouldn't be able to afford to buy the thousands of songs they steal anyway.
This is, and has always been, about controlling music distribution and not about stopping piracy. Piracy is a side effect of the real problem: Loss of Control.
I would venture that the number of posts on /. concerning the RIAA is directly driven by the level of stupidity that the RIAA touts to the world. As the stupidity goes up, the amount of posts should go down, as there really isn't much else to do these days other than shake your head with the silent understanding that the RIAA is killing those that they represent.
Don't they understand that college students and high school students download songs because they are broke? Now with the continued slash and burn method; once the college student graduates and finds a job, this new generation of 'pissed off at the RIAA' simply are not going to purchase music legally simply out of hate, spite, etc...
Since they have declared war on us with this scare and awe bullshit, this only will speed up their own demise. There was once a time when the RIAA had a chance to actually take their piece of the pie and keep some market share by selling music to consumers embracing the new technology, but the RIAA has totally fucked it up and ruined their chances of actually surviving this.
So here is what will happen, the RIAA meaning record companies will cease to exist. I dont know how they figure they can sue people into buying music, or scare people into buying music, all this will do is make us boycott. I was not boycotting the RIAA until they started doing this, now I will never buy another RIAA CD. I will buy used CDs from ebay, I will pirate, I will do whatever it takes to keep from ever supporting the big record companies again.
I will support small record companies. I see it like this, why support someone who wants to sue me? Why should I support someone who is damaging the music industry for the musicians as well as the consumer?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Uhh, new?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Public libraries make books easily available to the masses...these works are legal for them to own, but they are copyrighted and it is illegal for someone to copy them verbatim. If someone did that, the person who copied the book is held liable, not the library.
Show me the difference.
They aren't going after people for what they download. They're going after people for what they're sharing.
Technically it's illegal to even make copies for your friends but the RIAA (or anybody for that matter) can't feasibly do anything about it. But when you share your CDs (whether you own a legal copy or not is irrelavent) for millions of your closest "friends" then no duh you're looking to get in trouble.
It's idiotic that people think they can put CDs on the black market for the whole world to see what they're doing and then expect that their ISP is going to act as some kind of security guard to prevent them from being arrested.
Putting copyrighted materials on Kazaa is no different than firing up a burner and setting up at a street corner selling or even giving away copies except that your production costs are practically $0 with Zazaa.
You have no legal grounds to aquire anything you own from an illegal source. It doesn't matter if you own the CD. If you buy (or are given something) from the black market you've just committed a crime. Unless a company gives you a Lifetime Warrenty you haze ZERO expectations that what you bought is going to last forever. And if it becomes unusable then you have no legal recourse but to buy another if you didn't have some form of backup that you made yourself from your legal copy that you originally purchased.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
As far as I know, *no one* with any legal sense (including the EFF, Lessig, etc.) thinks that distributing copyrighted files is legal. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. The people the RIAA are going after are making hundreds of files available - they're not just downloaders. So I have no sympathy for these people, especially since they were warned. It's like hearing the cops say "we're going to set up a speed trap here" and then complaining when you get pulled over for going 90mph.
The library has one copy of the book. When they loan it to you, they dont have it anymore. They make you give the book back.
Anyway, there's an easy solution: quit downloading RIAA stuff and go for independent music instead. Artist-approved downloads. If you absolutely must have an RIAA tune, buy it, but otherwise ignore their stuff entirely. They'll be bankrupt in no time, with no legal recourse whatsoever.
And the best part is, we don't need any special boycott campaign. The RIAA is taking care of that for us. All we need to do is publicize the alternatives, as vigorously as possible.
Want to do your bit? Link to independent music on your weblog. If the RIAA isn't completely braindead (which is an open question), then this is what they're afraid of more than anything. Piracy is nothing compared to irrelevance.
Oh, and these four 80's compilations I bought trying to find Der Kommissar by After the Fire? They don't have it, so I downloaded it. Here, I'll give the RIAA back three copies of She Blinded Me With Science in exchange.
Oh, and I bought the Steve Miller Greatest Hits, but they shafted me with the short version of "Fly Like An Eagle", so I downloaded the full version. Fuck 'em.
So they're going after high school and college students for $50k? Yeah, right. The RIAA might actually succeed at causing these people to get a free college education... if they have a college debt and the RIAA comes after them for $50k they might just have to declare bankruptcy and their higher education turns out to be free.
This is all just absurd, of course. The penalty does not fit the crime. If I were one of them and received a judgement for $50k, I'd be quite tempted to move to Cancun and just forget about it. :)
I can't speak for others. But I can tell you about myself. The fundamental issue here is not whether somebody breaks they law or not. RIAA's business model is outdated. The digitalization of property is a reality and they have not yet contained it or accustomed to it. Have you ever wondered why nobody is bothering to take xerox copy of newspapers and sell it even though its possible? beccoz they cant . Newspaper industry (which see some real competetion unlike music industry where collusion and price fixing is rampant) has adapted itself to the time and developed a succesfull business model. They are no more depenedednt on advertisement revenue rather than the price of a physical copy. They have successfully contained internet too. Untill and unless RIAA make fundamental changes in their business model and adapt like this, this issue is going to continue . People WOULD share music regardless any amount of litigation or anything else. Victo Hugo had said it long back "You can stop an invading force, but you cant stop an idea whose time has come "
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
But not for corperations. People are free to not buy you products. They don't buy your stuff, you don't make money. You don't make money, you go out of bussiness. Companies must be careful about not making their consumers angry enough to start a serious boycott. Thus far, the RIAA has been fine, the geeks boycott and everyone else goes about their merry way. However if they anger the public at large, they'll quickly find they have no market to sell to.
Will this do that? I don't know, but it is somethign they have to consider.
I mean they already blame piracy for the recession, so who cares? Lets actually give them a reason to blame it on piracy! Lets directly take their profits away.
"Either way they'll be portrayed as victims and filesharers online as the ones who killed a benevolent organization. Either way, they win."
They just declared war on us!!! Does it matter? In a war only one side can survive. The side which survives usually writes the history books, not the loser.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
And Caligula had such a long and prosperous reign.
Oh, wait, no, he was assassinated by the entirety of the Praetorian Guard when they revolted.
Maybe it's not a good idea to take political advice from him after all.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
You cannot scare a person into buying music, you can scare them into not listening to your music anymore, but hey if they dont listen to your music anymore they wont buy your music.
So its a lose lose situation for the RIAA. They wont have any customers left to sell to. In the end their industry will die and be replaced by internet companies like Napster, Kazaa, Mp3.com, etc.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Well then I guess, how can you complain if you send non-encrypted emails and I read them? Afterall you're on a public network sending a non-encrypted email. How about I follow all your online activities? Does that bother you?
We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded.
Ok, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has been charged with a RIAA lawsuit on dowloading alone. Downloading digital music might be a legal activity under so many circumstances (you have a legal CD, the file is not copyrigthed, etc.)
All of the RIAA lawsuits in the US are targeted towards file sharers, not downloaders, but uploaders, if you will.
Why? Simple as it is, the companies belonging to RIAA are the sole entities allowed to distribute and license distribution of their music. The label has indeed a shallow argument if it tries to sue anyone for downloading, but sharing music with others is violation of this exact premise, and the law is clearly on RIAA's side in any country where the property laws are upheld.
He seems to be saying IP addresses aren't private, in the way credit card numbers and even telephone numbers are.
Is he wrong?
Sorry, pal. You're a VP. I'm an engineer. I've had an email address since 1988, and I was using ed to write homework papers formatted with roff in 3rd grade on an ancient Unix system. You do not know how the Internet works.
And apparently you don't either. By sharing files, she allowed the Kazaa to publish her location and the files available. By sharing files, she immediately removed the cloak of anonimity.
That's how the "internet" works, and Oppenheim is correct, nycfashiongirl is mistaken if she though her nick would keep her anonymous.
My MP3s sit behind a firewall. There's no link to those files on the internet, no way for the RIAA to find them without hacking through my firewall and into my system. If I share files with my friends through an encrypted VPN, there's no way for the RIAA to know I've shared those files. If the RIAA were snooping in on that VPN traffic, then yes, that would be illegal because there's no reasonable cause for the RIAA to be sniffing my private communications. That is what nycfashiongirl is trying to claim, and that is truly shallow. If you can't see the difference between the two examples, then you don't know how the internet works.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
This isn't a fine that is being handed down by the government for a criminal offense; it is damages being awarded in a civil lawsuit. Thus, the burden of recovery of the money is on the plaintiff; not the government.
What?
Oh, wait, no, he was assassinated by the entirety of the Praetorian Guard when they revolted.
Not only that - they killed his wife and bashed his young daughter's head open.
People will only put up with fear and hatred for so long. Then they tend to get angry.
Think like a person of action, act like a person of thought. --H. Bergson
..to get access to information they would otherwise not possess, through the DMCA.
To take the classic car trunk analogy. In this case, the police officer would open the trunk for the RIAA, but not actually look into it himself. Would that be legal? If so, the 4th amendment is basicly worthless.
Then you can simply create a force that is not officially a part of the government, but that would be able to inspect your trunk at whim and report whatever they find to the legal system (or worse). But it's still government force that facilitates this.
There is no doubt in my mind that the 4th Amendment should apply to a DMCA invocation like this. Whether that stamp from a judge's clerk is sufficient to be allowed under 4th amendment is a more complex problem, but the amendment itself applies. IANAL, but that's how I read it at least...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Actually, according to the CD insert, I've purchased a license to use the works on the CD. Therefore, as long as I retain the CD insert, I'm free to redownload and reburn the works provided.
Doesn't matter anymore anyway, as I have encoded all of my music CD's and store the originals on a spindle where they can't get damaged or stolen. But I still am owed several CD's that I still have the inserts for, but the CD's have gone damaged or missing. I have the license to use the music, so I can either download, copy from a friend or pay the RIAA to send me another CD and duplicate license. Guess which one I won't be choosing.
They are not doing this because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business. If that were all there were to it, they'd probably quickly change business models, and be done with it.
Rather, our system of law has set up a structure for their sales, and they were following it. Yes, the structure, known as copyright, is flawed, but it is the structure that they, as a legal business entity, have to deal with.
Now, P2P is not following the law. They are breaking the law. (rewind) Bzzewwwpt (Vol up) THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW (Vol down). So the RIAA is going after them in the only way that they can.
Now, if you want to bring in a better business model, which is legal, then please go ahead and do so.
BTW, I've posted in my journal under "Public Domain", one idea on how to do just that. Since I did PD it, you can use it, without paying me anything.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.
so, because i'm not linked to law enforcement does that mean i'm immune from rules on searching the internet... say for some rolling stones songs?
2 1337 4 u!
$150,000 per file is NOT a fair punishment for the crime, espicaly given the non-injury of it. It would be perfectly reasonable to complain if the cops said "we're going to set up a speed trap here" and then had an M60 gunner killing anyone who sped in that zone. When someone infringes on copyright in this manner, it causes no one (the labels included) any serious harm. It is therefore totally unreasonable and unjust to demand fines like this.
We not only have a concpet of fair punishments in the US... IT'S IN THE DAMN CONSTITUTION.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
a) read slashdot and have the benefit of all this occasionally thoughtful discussion
b)think about much other than "DAMN!!! Christina Aguilera is HOT!"
(feel free to substitute the pop idol of your choice in b. above...christina does it for me, personally)
That said, there appears to be a market for overpriced CD's. Probably not as much of a market as there once was, but a market nonetheless.
In my personal perfect world, I'd hope for the following: If they knocked, say, $5.00 off the price of the average CD (make 'em an even $10.00 and I'd be happy) and went to a higher-quality, more data-hungry format, they might accomplish something.
They'd make average consumers happy on price, and audiophiles happy on quality, while making it more of a pain in the ass to download your favorite song in all of its nice, high-quality, multichannel, holographic, blah, features, glory.
They're not doing that now, which is irritating a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they're not making plenty of money, just that they're not making as much as they'd like. Don't count on the RIAA going away while there's a commercial radio station in your neighborhood that plays top 40 "hits".
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
A civil court is not a credit card company. There are a number of things a judge could do to you if you refused to pay, including garnashing your paycheque and any capital gains for the rest of your life, or until you pay off your debt, whichever comes first.
Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.
So if you aren't affiliated with a law enforcement agency, you can do whatever you want online? Seems to me they could be charged with a real crime then. What's the on-line equivilant of being peeping tom?
Reminds me of the story (urban ledgend?) about the lawyer who insured his cigars, smoked them, and won the insurance claim in court because the contract didn't specify what kind of fire. Then the dumb bastard was charged with multiple counts of arson and fined 10x what he got from the insurance.
You're never as smart as you think you are.
"Furthermore, in one recent case, a college student was told that just by filing an answer in court, the cost of any final settlement would rise by $50,000."
This is perhaps the most disturbing quote for me. Translated: "If you dispute this in any way, it will cost you another $50,000.00."
Who could afford to fight this, even if you were innocent?
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.