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'm not affiliated with any law agency, so if he leaves his door unlocked, does that mean I can walk in and search his house. I won't take anything, but since the address would be public knowledge, then hey, it should be just fine. After all, I am not affiliated with anyone that can't do this.
Would anyone be interested the creation of a web site/community/forum that specifically focused on non-RIAA member label artists?
Or is there such a thing and I should be contributing reviews to it already?
I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
Machiavelli:
..does the RIAA?
It is good if your subjects love you.
But better if you can make them fear you.
But you do *NOT* want them to hate you..
Tested with time, over the centuries...
I can already see where this is ultimately headed...
You should check out the site http://downhillbattle.org/ and see what the RIAA is doing. They are only making the revolution more organized and more powerful. The more people they sue, the more who will join the boycott, the more hated the RIAA will become.
And for them to DARE use the "scare and awe" crap, thats like declaring we are all terrorists!
"Buy our music or else you are supporting terrorism!"
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I've neither downloaded nor bought music for years. I don't want to drain my savings on the off chance I'd win the lawsuit lottery, and I don't want to pay the RIAA members any money to fund their racket.
They live in a dream world, thinking that all business problems can be solved by legal force. Bright idea! If they won't buy our stuff, let's sue them to get the money anyway! Whatever happened to studying the consumers and trying to develop a product they will buy?
The problem is this: they don't want to study the consumers. They want to control them. They are terrified that they are losing the ability to make and break artists, and define what is popular and what is not. Their whole business model revolves not around creating a quality product, but creating a slightly different product and brainwashing the consumers to buy it.
...
Just who do these people at the RIAA think they are? Trying to extort money from 60 million people? They want to use laws they've bought to push us around, tag us as criminals, and take our freedom away?
Well, folks, I think it's time to put the fear of god, or rather us 60 million people, into the record execs and heads of the RIAA. If they think it's cute to illegally root through our files and information, then let's see what they think about some payback. Let's put our considerable skills to work and dig up all the dirt (tax evasion, fraud, marital infidelities, etc.) we can on them. Let's expose them for the criminals they really are. Shoot, we could nail them on violating payola laws alone.
On the political front, let's get our acts together and start making the politicians who do their bidding feel the heat. We've seen how the Howard Dean campaign has been able to raise money over the net and sign up armies of volunteers, so let's do likewise. Imagine how quickly the tables would turn if a thousand protesters showed up in a flash mob in front of our representatives' family homes every time the RIAA turned the screws like this.
Enough whining and doublethink on Slashdot. Let's DO something about this.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
And what is my response to "scare and awe"?
My response is, Boycott and Copy.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
"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. "
I understand this is a civil case, not a criminal case, right? So-- if this isn't extortion, what is??
Honestly, I want to see one of these go to a jury trial. If 50+ million Americans really are filesharers, then it's going to be DAMNED tough to find a jury that's not chock full of EM!
Seriously, this is such a travesty. People should be liable for the actual damages (ie the cost of the CDs) not the "potential" losses. You can sell a gun to a minor that's used in a murder and only get a year in jail, but if you make a file available, they charge you more than the loss could ever possibly cost them. We need some balance here.
>
> It is good if your subjects love you.
> But better if you can make them fear you.
>
> But you do *NOT* want them to hate you...
I'm a Machiavelli fan, but the Prince and I would part company on that last line about not wanting to be hated.
I believe history sides with Lucius, who was reputedly quoting Caligula when he penned the line "oderint dum metuant". Let them hate, so long as they fear.
Bravo, I agree, to a point. Myself, the main reason I use Kazaa or something like it is because the majority of albums suck, imo. If I here a song I like, I'm not going to by an album of crap for that one good song. I would, however, purchase or pay to download, a single .mp3 version.
I believe the real reason RIAA is doing this is because they realise that, "if the technology takes off" (re: IT ALREADY HAS STUPID RIAA,) they won't be able to conscience making consumers purchase a $15-20 cd. Instead, it'll be cents per song.
Personally, I'm gravitating toward the independent artists, some of whome produce much better music than the studio monkeys create, and charge a fee to download or even allow free downloading because their reward is appreciation for their music, and hopes that people who enjoy them will attend any events if they are close enough.
I'm an ambient fan, and a lot of the music I listen to is available for free from the get go, just for the recognition factor. And if said artist would have a show, concert or what-have-you close enough to my location, I'd most certainly attend. /ramble
I've always been amused by this sort of thing and a thought that goes with it:
If I already have nothing to lose, what if I just continually refuse to pay? The court can TELL you to pay up, but it can't really MAKE you do it. The worst they can do, IIRC, is ruin your credit and whatnot. Could they actually repo things to try and recover the "damages" the plaintiff was seeking? I got sued for a couple hundred bucks. Ultimately, the nasty little JP upped it to 1200, but from what I was told, it sounded like if I never paid it I could just be reported to collections if the plaintiff so desired. If 15000 RIAA victims all refuse to pay, what are they going to do, send 15000 people to collections? That's a pretty big group of people. Big groups engaged in active civil disobedience can get media attention... but then, I could be wrong about that - maybe they CAN make you pay up somehow.
I used to be one of those people who came on /. and argued that stealing songs was wrong regardless, but as the RIAA abuses got worse, so did my attitude. Frankly, I don't give a fuck anymore. Put all of them, "artists" and all out on the street. If the RIAA wants war, they can have it. And it's time people got off their high horses about 'not going down to their level' and fought it.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
I think people understand the concept of having the right to make money off what they create.
What seems to be the major issue is that the RIAA, without having any solid proof, is claiming that filesharing is the sole cause of the music industry's financial losses.
They believe that the economy's downturn, does not apply to them, that sales should be constantly rising every year. When they don't rise, they look for a scapegoat.
Rather than studying the download model, they attack it because it threatens their distribution cartel. They don't care about trying to find out how the filesharing phenomenon works. Are people truly using this to sample music and then purchase accordingly? Or are they just plain theiving?
It's wrong to go into a music store and pilfer a CD as much as it is to download an MP3 version of a song. But, is that download occuring because someone wants to sample some music? Or is it just plain theft?
Are there any studies on this?
God I hope an uprising is in the works!
Our entire "Intellectual Property" based system that we (US and much of the world) is putting in place will merely continue to entrench the "privileged" in thier positions of privilege.
Large corporations who "own" the polititions will only continue to try and (successfully) force the masses into submission.
Governing by consent of the governed is no longer the case. Instead, it is governing by consent of those who would be most suited to profit by your governing.
We need a revolution of sorts.
Alternatively, we need tech-savvy reps and lawmakers!
I, personally, will vote for anyone who guarantees a priority of drastically reducing or eliminating the entire concept of "Intellectual Property" and the sham of goverment endorsement that accompanies it.
This endorsement is used and abused in situations such as these. Ask any 20 people on the street if a corporation should have the legal rights to behave in the fashion RIAA is. Should anyone have the legal rights that led up to this situation? I say no! There is no good reason that I should repress myself from consuming or otherwise using a piece of information.
Period.
If it can be reduced to bits, then you do NOT own it! Simple as that. Or, say that you "own" it if you want, but you do not own "exclusive rights" to it to the exclusion of others. At least, not any rights that *I* will recognise or support.
I know I am not alone in this either.
Lets get someone in office who agrees with this viewpoint and begin to push back the tide of "Intellectual Enslavement and Combat" that is occuring, waiting for newcomers into the barratry game.
-dave-
Shameless plug:
Use BearShare for all your peer-to-peer needs!
The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
[scroll overlay against dark space to Pink Floyd's "Signs Of Life"]
And so, with the passage of time, we find the landscape changing in the outer worlds. The heyday of digital smuggling began to change as the RIAA overloads rachetted up the penalties for those caught. Eventually, entire square parsecs were left empty, encircled by only the empty hulls of caught offenders. Husks of empty steel that once held a fortune in content formed a warning sign to those entering the fray.
But the rebels of the age were smart. They turned to deeper methods, encrypting their content, running private servers, and WAR driving. The random element of physical contact reduced the smuggler's domain to a fraction of his former, but the overlap of these small circles kept fresh booty flowing. Content was still open to move, simply the transfer couldn't be without extra steps to know the receiver and secure the path.
Meanwhile, the RIAA replaced the existing law enforcement for tracking and penalizing those still foolish to appear on the public channels. No judge, no jury was required as the cost for including them in your defense were too high for all but the wealthiest. Given that smuggling was done on the cheap, for the masses, suffice it to say no one could pay for such accutrements. Although the Creators approved of the tactics, they continued to fight for slimmer traditional channels.
As the Age Of FAIB (Free As In Beer) came to a wane, the inner worlds continued to bustle with mass marketing and pop culture. The outer worlds succumbed to the MPAA/RIAA stormtroopers' patrols. Surprise searches and constant paranoia crept up on those who stayed too long in the toughest zones. Eventually, the smuggling became "wiped out" publicly, and the inner worlds no longer sent the curious making the journey to grab a piece of the action along the rim. But for those who knew the newest tricks, adventure and discovery continued to be the drug that filled their libraries with the Creators' best output...
[fade to black]
the Riaa vs Napster case have "generated" serverless gnutella-like P2P system.
This "war" against filesharers will "generated" anonymous freenet-like filesharing systems.
The new systems will be stronger and stronger.
Great !!!
RIAA is dead (MPAA aswell)
I'm downloading AC/DC's Back in Black. My first one got stolen out of my car, and my second one is so scratched up as to be unlistenable.
Actually, this would be a good way to "legalize" your music. Call up your friends, record stores, etc, and buy all their damaged CDs/tapes/lps/etc. Now you own the music and your get your fair use rights.
The best part is this:
You're buying on the used market so the RIAA doesn't get any new income from the sale! And you can probably get a great deal because all you want is the "license" to the song.
Think about this. For a minute. The RIAA wants to sue everyone who trades copyrighted songs over the internet. Let's just low-ball that number at 1 million. These are average Joe Blow citizens. They want to sue them for $50,000 on average. Since no one can afford to fight them off, they have to fork up the cash.
How many people can afford to willy nilly give some organization fifty thousand dollars for trading a few songs?
As such, these people have no choice but to pay. Since 99% of people sued can't afford it outright but can't afford to have their paycheck docked either, they declare bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy declared by hundreds of thousands of people.
All at the same time.
How can the government sit by idly when one organization wants to put all of their citizens in the poor house, and more importantly, collapse an already unsturdy at best economy?
the $150,000 number is the fine for piracy, stealing a CD is a different crime, that is larceny. burning free copies would net you the $150,000 fine. different crimes come with different penalties. and Property theft is different than copyright infringement. regardless of what the RIAA says. with stealing the CD you're not hurting the RIAA just the record store. the record store has paid for that cd already, and the crime is against the record store not the RIAA. hence the different crime.
Sorry, but in the US under chapter 7 bankruptcy, student loans are not eraseable. You will come out of bankruptcy with those intact. And they'll raise the interest rate later on as well.
Going after a college student for 50K is pretty brutal. I have a hard time understanding how a single instance of copyright infringement causes a 150,000 USD in damages when the song is on an album for about 20 USD. And the law, as i recall, states that the fines may be upto 150,000USD. Not necessarily 150,000 USD per event.
Besides, Chapter 7 won't preclude you from buying a car, finishing college, buying a house, etc. It just makes it more expensive. If I were a freshman targetted I would fight, maybe lose, and then declare bankruptcy and leave the RIAA with a nice big fat nothing. This is not legal advice, and these tactics would have to be discussed with a lawyer.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
Yeah, I know you'll flame me for this but, we ban all PtoP activity here - now more than ever.
:P So, in the general interest of the school and bandwidth, we now block where we can and bandwidth limit the rest. This isn't college mind you, this is a 6-12 boarding school, so we do have a little more control here.
I used to allow it - sorta. Basically, if a girl here could figure out how to get her PtoP app to work through our proxy I let them do it - until last year. Last year, I received a cease and desist order from the RIAA. Apparently one of our girls had left Bearshare on all day... Uh... For two weeks! And had transferred some 2.6 GB of music (mostly Blink 182).
After studying the order I also thought about how slow the net had seemed lately.
But imagine this scenario for a second. Imagine being subpoenaed by the RIAA. I keep logs because I HAVE TO. While we might be able to avoid direct litigation with the RIAA and parents, it would sour relationships - not good for a reputation. The girls hate the ban, and I'm not too happy about it either, but we simply have to play it safe.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
An interesting thing happened on 30 Aug, 2003 at the Sleep Train Amphitheatre in Marysville, California. A band called Ironmaiden's lead vocalist, Bruce Dickenson had some shrewd words of wisdom that he felt the music industry basically isn't friendly to music, and the big bully's in the front can Bring him their Maiden CD's he'd BUY them back, and then told the Bully's never to come to another concert ever again. Then he said that they've got a new album coming out. (something something something Death Something - I forgot the name now) And that if you want to record this song and upload it or download it or send it to all your friends to just start recording right now and go for it.
He was Angry with the idiot's in the Concert, and Angry with the music industry, and stressed quite a bit about freedom and how it's all in OUR hands to get it.
Why don't P2P apps use a disclaimer to put the responsibility in the hands of the downloader instead? for instance, each user can configure their own disclaimer in the settings somewhere. Upon downloading from me, a message pops up with the disclaimer text. the client would prevent the download unless you agree to the terms of the disclaimer. Mine would be simple: "by downloading from me you accept all liability for the use or storage of data received from my computer. you also agree that said data will be used or stored in full compliance with federal, state, and local law."
wouldn't a system like that make it more difficult for the RIAA to continue like this?
Ever get fined for quoting a source in a paper? Ever get threatened with legal action for it? Well, you may soon...
Worse, the amount of possible copyright violations in all of our lives is growing. There is even debate that linking to a copywritten site may be a copyright violation. Should that be judged true, do you really want the RIAA "skirt the law" tactics to be the standard? This isn't about who's right or wrong anymore, it's about how the legal precedents will be set.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
I recently received the following letter from my Michigan Senator Carl Levin. It shares his views on this matter. Unfortunately, I was writing to him about the "Public Domain Enhancement Act", which has nothing to do with the RIAA or P2P. Nevertheless, it was at least enlightening to hear a government official respond, so I'm posting it here, even though he is an uncaring dolt.
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) recent decision to issue subpoenas to gather evidence for potential lawsuits against Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing software users. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.
The P2P exchange, also referred to as swapping, of certain types of files over the internet poses serious questions regarding existing copyrights. Digital media files, such as MP3s, e-books, and digital pictures, often contain copyrighted material. As a result, the free exchange of these files raises concerns among copyright holders. Meanwhile, some consumer rights groups and civil liberties organizations argue that P2P software promotes free expression and is capable of substantial non-infringement uses.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced on June 25, 2003, that it will file suit against people who use P2P file-sharing systems to create unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials. Since then, the RIAA is reported to have won hundreds of subpoenas in order to collect information for civil lawsuits that could be filed against individuals who are alleged to have illegally used file sharing programs.
I believe the recording industry has raised legitimate concerns about copyright infringement and, of course, that they have the right to take appropriate steps to protect their legal rights. However, I also believe that the privacy rights of individuals should not be compromised.
I will continue to carefully review this matter as the Courts and Congress further addresses these issues. Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
If the RIAA was even remotely interested in using a carrot, it would say, "Keep using KaZaA and we'll sue you. Stop using KaZaA and switch to our new high-speed online distribution service and'll be able to download low-quality versions of our products for free to sample and also buy individual songs for chump change or get whole albums, complete with cover art, behind-the-scenes documentaries, and interviews with band members for a couple of dollars."
And of course, the article totally misses the point that it's not really possible to track down downloaders, only uploaders.
Dyolf Knip
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.....
There was this case, where a hacker posted trojaned applications to kiddie porn newsgroups. He then gathered evidence on those stupid enough to install it, and provided the information to law enforcement agencies. Even after he told them that the information came from hacking, it was not thrown out on the 4th amendment defense. I tried to submit it to slashdot but it was rejected.
So, if you hack Mr. Oppenheims computer (and/or torture him until he provides you with the password for any containers, appearantly), you can submit it to the police, and Mr. Oppenheim can't use the 4th Amendment defense. However, nothing prevents you from being prosecuted under any hacking/torture law though...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why don't we just use freenet? As far as I understand each person has a segment of the collective on their computer. Sort of like a gigantic RAID 5 array. Think about it, according to copywrite law it's fair use to only have small segments of copywrited material to use. Examples, you can use something like 30 seconds of a second or so many lines from a book. Because each person would only have that part everyone would get of scot free? Or no?
Sock puppets stole my sig.
Instead of resorting to terrorism, maybe the RIAA should leave catching criminals to the police, then we can see how much the local law enforcement agencies actually care that some 19 year-old is downloading music. I think you'll find they dont give a shit.
If not then sometime in the future "The Worlds Wildest Police Videos" will have some kid who has taken to his car because the police smashed his door down at 6am to confiscate his computers and arrest him - not for terrorism, child-porn, or drugs but for mp3's. Then he drives off and ends up causing numerous crashes and deaths as the police tail him before the police flip his car, drag him to the ground and beat him into submission (and smash his ipod). I'll be laughing my ass off as that retired sherif presenter Bunel? says with complete seriousness "This young criminal thought he could listen to music without paying... but after crushing 3 kids to death and causing 1000's of dollars worth of damage and millions of dollars worth of record company loss... he is shown, that music pirates, always end up in jail!" and at that moment, i will know that the US has completely lost the plot.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Pop up a warning on any P-to-P server/client to the effect that "Employees of the RIAA, their servants, contractors and affiliates or former such may only upload or download using this program but on condition of a $250 000 payment for initial use of this program and $150 000 per song title examined prior to download.. to *both* the authors of this program and to the person they are P-to-P ing with. Furthermore, by installation of any such program, the above said RIAA employees, servants, contractors, affiliate or former such may only run this P-to-P software after payment of $1 000 000 to the authors/programmers of said P-to-P software..." This not only solves the previously mentioned "problem" of "authority to search" because "we are not a law enforcement agency", but also provides a significant financial disincentive for the RIAA to go rummaging through the hard drives of others.
So, get in on the best act in town.. fill your hard drive with Peruvian flute players playing tunes with names like "Satisfaction" and "Like a Rolling Stone" and church choirs with names like "Madonna"... then cash in, or watch the RIAA take a step backwards.
If you support file-sharing and want to cripple the music industrym the best thing you can do is to not make a big deal out of the RIAA scare tactics. I have a friend who used to work for RIAA and they tell me that this legal blitz has been in the works for several years. It's a last ditch effort, which won't work as long as people don't get scared by the threats. The folks inside the RIAA are of the opinion that they have lost the file-sharing war, but are continuing this fight to please the companies which give money to the RIAA. In fact, it wasn't uncommon to see RIAA employees several years ago wearing Napster t-shirts around the office.
This legal terrorism by the RIAA will only work if people get scared and change their file-sharing activities. I'm a webmaster who has gotten cease and desist letters from companies over alleged intellectual property violations. After consulting with lawyers, I took these stupid legal threats and filed them in the trash.