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, for one, welcome our new Record Executive Overlords.
Why dont we get SCO to join the RIAA, and anyone using Linux to swap songs, they can just nail them with a double suit.
I think its pretty 'shallow' of them to bring people to court over this issue. How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...
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*
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...
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.
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...
"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.
First, when the RIAA went after Napster, and the p2p software makers, you people were crying for them to go after the individual pirates, instead of the technology that facilitates the piracy.
Now that they are actuallly employing this strategy, the cry is noo!! It's wrong, it's bad, or, or something.
What's the deal here? Do you people just don't care about copyright infringement? You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it.
How on earth do they think they are going to get $50k out of a student? I certainly don't have $50,000 in the bank, nor will I have it anytime soon. I think this is more of a case of going after those least able to defend themselves.
$50,000 per song. 6,000 songs and 100 full length movies...yeah, excuse me while I pull that money out of my ass. Hasn't the RIAA ever heard the phrase "blood from a turnip"? What are they going to do, rob piggy banks? I'm sure their lawyers will be really satisfied with the $300 most college kids have in savings.
Because due process is shallow and boring and not really necessary, right? If the RIAA says you're doing something bad, well, that should be all the proof the government needs!
Sheesh. If they're breaking the law to catch people breaking the law, they're still breaking the law.
"You can go f*ck yourselves."
Hey, shallow legal advised is suppose to be posted in Ask Slashdot only!
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
believe me, I've tried.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
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.
[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
RIAA Strategist #1: Wait! I got it! Let's put our future customers in financial ruin!
RIAA Strategist #2: Brilliant! Then they'll have more money to buy from us!
RIAA Strategist #1: What should we do about the rampant piracy in eastern europe and asia?
RIAA Strategist #2: Sorry, repeat that? I was listening to the satisfying sound of ruining everyone's lives.
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.
RIAA vice-president Matt Oppenheim...added that the claim about violating the woman's internet address "reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works".
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.
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
You're thinking of criminal law. When the government is brining a case against you, there are far stricter rules.
When it's a private party, the rules aren't _quite_ as tight.
How are we susposed to take this all serious that ohhh they are loosing so much money when they put shows like cribs on tv... I hardly afford rent yet I go and spent $20 on a CD.. Go over to my parents (cause i cann't afford cable) and see the show cribs... see the artist who's cd i just bought in this big huge house just blowing away all this cash.. Ya sure.. he certainly needed my money.. I understand he only even gets a fraction of what I pay for the record so if he has say 20 million then the record company must have made like 100 million... hard to feel sorry for them when they live much better than I
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
Here's a free and easy tool that will let you know if a cd is from an RIAA affiliated company:
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
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.
I don't see how it applies.
If you put your files, publically, on a public peer2peer network, what's there to complain about when someone sees what you're sharing?
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.
I use this so called Kazaa backup software to back up all my mp3s. I just put them in my "to be backed up" directory, also called "My Shared Folder", and automagically they get backed up (sometimes quite a lot!). In fact, it is so secure, there are multiple copies, redundancy as I like call it. There's even stuff I don't remember backing up! Anyway, I don't know what all the commotion is over this peer to peer backup software, I'm SOLD (ok, it didn't cost me a thing...sshhh).
JWall: GUI client for IPTables
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.
So for $50,000 I get unlimited downloading of all music past, present and future....
I guess that seems like a fair deal given the price of CDs.
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.
Read. Sign up. Send email to your representatives.
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. :)
Has anyone considered the possibility that NYCfashiongirl may really not want to be found out? I mean, suppose NYCfashiongirl was really Madonna or Brittany Spears, or someone else with more to lose from file sharing than they could possibly gain... ...this could be really embarassing. Especially if it was Justin Timberlake.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The defendent is claiming their 4th Admendment right was violated (unreasonable search etc...). RIAA is saying that they are not a goverment body so it does not apply to them.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
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!
That is the day that the RIAA will be sueing some of the people they subpoena'd. According to this article.
I can't *wait* to see what happens. Of course, this is only because I'm not on the list.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
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
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?
Wow!
According to RIAA accounting methods, I have almost 2.5 BILLION dollars worth of music on my hard drive!
$2,434,950,000.00 to be exact.
Good thing I haven't shared them, I don't think I could scrape up that kind of coin easily.
This space available.
They could care less how much money they actually get from the student(s) they target. If they destroy a few kids' lives for uploading (not downloading), far more people will turn into leeches on the p2p networks. By increasing the number of leeches and simultaneously flooding the networks with false files, they're in effect causing a massive DOS on the p2p networks, making them far less useful than they had been. Their goal is to make it cost more (in terms of time and frustration) to download the song than it does to buy the album-- if you're making $10 an hour and it takes you more than 2 hours to download an album, then they've won.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
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.
[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 parent didn't say it was about artist's rights, just that it's not about money. More correctly, it's not about the settlement money. It's about running a few kids into bankruptcy (and hence about a decade of financial ruin) and getting those cases well publicized. Their hope is that this'll scare their peers into not sharing-- and when enough users stop sharing, the system breaks down.
Of course, you have to question how their logic bridges the gap between stopping sharing and getting college students to each shell out $20 for all the CDs they want. It's pretty much the legendary step 2: ???
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
This is why the RIAA calls her arguments (and those like them) "shallo" -- because they show no knowledge of how the law works, and scant common sense as well.
When I sent an email, just as when I send a (snail mail if you will) letter to someone, I have the expectation of privacy. Tampering with mail is an offense. Intercepting email likewise is not acceptable.
But were I to create a website...a PUBLIC website...and put messages to people on there, I would have no reason to complain if I left private information there that somehow got out.
Likewise, when I'm sharing my files, WITH THE INTENT that other people both view and download them, when someone takes me up on that, I have no room to complain. This is very, VERY simple logic folks.
This exact thing took place in Denmark in November 2002.
Here is what happened:
'Antipiratgruppen' (Danish RIAA organisation) scoured KaZaA for Danish users sharing files and took to court a database of IPs and the contents of shared directories.
Danish court granted them a per-case order forcing ISPs to resolve IPs into real names.
The ISPs coughed up, and the anti-piracy group sued 100 kids for their illegal MP3s.
Each sharer was offered a deal - pay a substantial fine, or be dragged through court and be hit with serious financial ruin.
A few people got nailed pretty hard, and the story got the large amount of press that had been planned. One college dorm settled at $15.000 per user on the network.
(...and one friend of mine stayed up one night, destroying 150 CD-Roms in his possession with a rotary sander *hehe*).
The Anti Piracy Group did NOT get what they have been campaigning for all along - vigilante powers: They still obviously have to go through court every single time they want ISPs to resolve an IP number into a user name.
This ruckus has just had the effect that people turn off sharing and turn to the encrypted P2P clients.
Now is the winter of our disco tent
Ruled for just 4 years and murdered by two of his closest advisors.
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
You don't want a bankruptcy on your record for 7 years unless you plan on being completely liquid (cash/checks) or buying a car at 15% interest.
More than enough BS
That's not what they're saying and you know it. It's more like putting a kiosk up in a mall with your CD rack with a burner and blank CDs sitting next to it.
there both wrong.
If someone fears you, they will do what you want, for a time. When they have nothing left to loose, they will come after you.
If someone hates you, they will do what they can to get you.
If someone loves you, they will stop at nothing to protect you. That includes looking the other way or making excuses for you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
BOYCOTT MAJOR LABELS Boycott major labels, please please please please please.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/artists/
PLEASE!
And remember thats part of CRIMINAL law.
I could sue you for unlawful access to a website (slash). It's civil then, and bill of rights does not apply.
So let's switch to Communist America, where no one is allowed to start their own business, no one is allowed to innovate, and the government has final say over everything you can legally read, hear and see. That would make sense.
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.
Actually, you cannot add student loans in a bankruptcy. Your stuck with them. The govn't won't forgive loans from them.
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
..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
Tell that to John fucking Ashcroft.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Under some circumstances they can dock a big percentage of your pay for the rest of your life.
Seriously. I know a guy that was accused of a hacking type crime by a large company, he will be paying off that $2 million for the rest of his life most likely.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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
$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.
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..."
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
Let's assume that I want to be a nice law-abiding consumer. (quit snickering) When I find a file on Kazaa Lite how do I know whether the copyright holder wants to express their free speech right to be heard or they want to assert some obscure federal statute preventing me from hearing what they have to say?
You can't expect those who wish to use their free speech rights to put up notice. That would chill their rights to free expression in an intollarable way -- especially if what they wish to express is a political condemnation of the notion of IP.
I am put into a legal quandery. Even assuming I wish to do the right thing both morally and legally I cannot do it. Not only I, but the author have a constitutional right to free speech and assocation. The author also has a statutory right to copy. But there is no way I can distingush between the author who is asserting their constitional right and the author who is asserting their statutory right.
If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
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
Under federal copyright law, the statutory damages for a knowing and willful infringement are $150,000 per infringing event. Because the damages are statutory, there technically is no need for the copyright holder to prove harm. From a practical perspective, however, judges will look at a number of factors when determining whether or not to go the entire $150K route (including how many copies were made, whether the infringer sold them, whether the infringer stopped once the holder made an express demand, plus a few other factors).
Even if the nature of the infringement does not merit an assessment of the full $150K statutory damages, please also keep in mind that the statutory damages are generally only the tip of the iceberg. Copyright holders who prevail in court will invariably have their attorneys fees awarded to them as well, which is often much more of a hammer to use against infringers than the potential for statutory damages.
So no matter how you look at it, being named as a defendant in a copyright claim really sucks.
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
Snopes is your friend
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
There are obviously bands out that allow taping of their shows and release royalty-free music. I'm curious if there are any web sites that specialize in distributing high-quality versions of songs that are free of the copyright issues?
I think a very effective backlash against the RIAA would be to support sites and artists who make their songs available without the restrictions. I firmly believe that free trade of music in many cases is more beneficial to the artists than otherwise. This is especially true in times such as now where big corporations own a lion's share of media.
If you look at a band like the Grateful Dead, who chose not to follow the path of rabid control over their publishing, that looks to be a major contributor to their success.
Most people are sympathetic to the artists, but not the corporate entities which end up getting most of the money and taking advantage of the artists.
If we all rally around sites, companies and artists who abandon the traditional extreme proprietary nature of their material, this would send a clear message to the RIAA that their acts will hurt them more than us, and we could care less about the next major-label-boy-band.
IANAL.. but
One of our corporate lawyers, who have won many cases against the dark forces in our companies industry (telecommunications), once read a cease and desist letter that a local bank had their lawyers send me. The bank wanted to seize a domain name I owned, which they said was confusing with their business name.
His response, and obviously the proper form for lawyers, judges and juries, was "I would tell them FUCK YOU VERY MUCH".
Now that we've blurred the lines with the NET ACT (trading for other copyrighted works = 'for profit) and civil suits vs. criminal suits, I can't believe the price range isn't lower.
As far as number of copies goes. I imagine the RIAA thinks that the one song 1 person downloaded from you then gets downloaded by 10 people, which then gets downloaded by 10X , etc, and will say 1 million copies are your fault. But in all actuality, you shouldn't be liable for OTHER people's illegal distribution too! Anyway, that is just my thought. I figured it was 10 to 20 times the actual cost (about $20 per song) but no matter how much math I do, I don't get to $750, let alone 150K.
(By the way, the $20 per song is from an actual article I read where they were trying to define how you could fall under a felony -- something like over $2000 worth of theft becomes a felony. Why oh why does the RIAA get away with their own math?)
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
there is a penalty??? I dunno... it kind of looks like the RIAA and SCO are going to get away with it...
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.
I agree with you. It's the authors right to publish his works (speech) how he sees fit. He can put it on T-Shrits, the web, or hand out CD's like AOL. Go to town, this is America after all, have fun.
However, by downloading files from a file trading service you are no longer an "hapless bystander", you are part of a transaction. The transaction is between you and the person you are downloading from. Someone has to be responsible for that transaction as far as copyright issues are concerned.
Now is it you, or the person your downloading from? Honestly, I'm not sure. However, the reality is, the person providing the file can't possibly know if all the many downloaders actually own a license to the tracks they are providing. So practacly, it falls to you to make sure all is well.
"Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
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.
For those interested, I contacted nycfashiongirl's attorney and asked how to help pay her legal fees. He sent this information. I'm going to send $50.
Please note that donations are not tax deductible.
McDonough Client Trust Acct. f/b/a Jane Doe
McDonough Holland PC
555 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814.
Only on