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.'"

Comments

RIAA and SCO

[suedehed]

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.

Re:RIAA and SCO

[BrynM]

That would just lead to the RIAA claiming that Linux is theirs and SCO claiming that music is theirs. Then again, if there's a way to get them to fight eachother...

Re:RIAA and SCO

[rearden]

No, what would be great is if we could convince RIAA that SCO has an immense collection of copyprotected MP3's. Then we need to convice SCO that RIAA is running hundreds of Linux servers to search for violaters.

Then stand back and let them sue eachother into oblivion.... ahhh we can dream!

Re:RIAA and SCO

[David Gerard]

Serious discussion and comparison of SCO and RIAA.

Damn I'm a pessismist

[3.5 stripes]

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*

GOOD!

[Planesdragon]

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*

Non-RIAA Music Reviews?

[Malic]

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?

Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews?

[Anonymous Coward]

One already exists.

It's called CD-Baby.

Sooo...

[Tyrdium]

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...

Re:Sooo...

[vDave420]

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...

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!

Re:Sooo...

[Awptimus Prime]

Yeah, let the uprising begin.. I mean, nobody goes to Metallica concerts anymore, right?

Last I heard, they were still selling-out stadiums across the country.

Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers

[Jonas the Bold]

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?

Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers

[cpt kangarooski]

what to do if they sue you, what they can actually legally do, etc.?

Well, if you actually did it, and they sue you, you're pretty hosed. Your best bet is to settle. There's little chance that you'd win if you went to court, and the expenses of a court battle are significant anyway.

As for what they can do, they can sue you, civilly, for copyright infringement. And there might be some other possible causes of action related to what you're doing, but the copyright one is the biggie.

As for the $150,000 number, that's from 17 USC 504. Basically, copyright infringement causes some damage to the RIAA members in terms of their ability to commercially exploit the works they hold copyrights on. They can sue for either their actual damages, or since that can be difficult to compute, statutory damages. The maximum possible statutory damage amount is $150,000 per work infringed upon. Of course whether the maximum will be applied is largely up to the judge. In these sorts of cases, it could be as low as $750 per infringement. But you'd be taking a big risk if you were betting that you could get it to be that low.

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?

Hm. Maybe.

Stealing the CD is a fairly minor act of conversion. I'd be more worried about criminal penalties for shoplifting than for a civil action.

Burning it though for others is certainly a copyright infringement again, however. Depending on the precise circumstances involved, there might be a defense based on 17 USC 1008 (but you HAVE to read 1001 for the definitions of the terms used in 1008) but I doubt that a court would accept that defense if it saw any way around it.

Anyway, the big difference between SCO and RIAA is that RIAA appears to have a legitimate complaint, and is not doing this to make money, but to discourage infringement. I suspect they're losing money doing this. SCO is less likely to have a legitimate complaint, and is really after money.

It's been said before, but...

[pdbogen]

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.

High Schools...

[BJZQ8]

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 and the RIAA

[takochan]

Machiavelli:

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... ..does the RIAA?

Open season?

[bmf033069]

"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.

Re:shallow?

[Lawbeefaroni]

"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.

Re:shallow?

[Planesdragon]

How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...

They don't care. Unless I missed something big, they still aren't suing you for DOWNLOADING anything--I don't even think that they can track what you download. AFAIK, they're going after folk who SHARE the files--i.e., what they've got for upload.

You may very well have a perfectly legal reason to download that MP3--but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network.

Re:shallow?

[syntap]

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.

I don't know why anyone is complaining about this campaign... the ./ 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).

"go fuck yourselves" doesn't hold up in court

[SweetAndSourJesus]

believe me, I've tried.

well done RIAA

[nocent]

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.

Extortion

[91degrees]

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.

Re:I love this hypocrasy

[Snowspinner]

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.

Immunity???

[Savage-Rabbit]

[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.....

"Futile"

[barryfandango]

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.

Go after the real source of profit-loss

[Supero100]

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.

shared public files

[reptilicus]

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.

What about other activies?

[Dr. Bent]

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.

Replies per post compared to RIAA stupidity level

[Genjurosan]

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...

Death to RIAA.

[HanzoSan]

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?

Re:Death to RIAA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. The RIAA is obsolete, everyone knows it. We should destroy their effective method of providing music to everyone via widely available CD vendors and replace it with a mechanism that only allows a tech elite with access to broadband Internet connections to listen, with all new music being recorded and produced in people's garages using the very highest quality Radio Shack $10 microphones, by performers who get a chance to compose music about once in a blue moon given they work nine hours a day doing "real" work - presumably on something much more useful and enriching to society than music, say, lawyering, or providing tax advice.

That'll make the world a much better place.

You know, if the RIAA and the anti-RIAA weren't being such destructive, pointless, vengeful, nutjobs, maybe something sane and wonderful in the world of music might happen.

Re:Death to RIAA.

[letxa2000]

When they do go out of business they'll just cite piracy as the reason... Either way they'll be portrayed as victims and filesharers online as the ones who killed a benevolent organization. Either way, they win.

No, if they go out of business they lose. I could care less what an expired, non-existant bankrupt recording industry cites as the reason for their demise. They can say whatever they want. If they no longer exist, they lost.

Re:Death to RIAA.

[Angostura]

Your logic is, unfortunately predicated on belief that the RIAA's policy will trigger a large scale consumer backlash, an anti-record company jihad, if you like. Well, it may, but it may not. I suspect that the wider non-Slashdot-reading audience, the small-scale downloaders already feel uneasy about the morality of 'stealing music' they've done it because: (a) it has appeared to be a victimless crime (b) they have had a feeling of invunerability to capture. The RIAA's tactics are designed to eat away at both of these perceptions. I suspect that they will work well enough to make a goodly proportion of file-swappers more nervous and reduce activity on the networks. So far so good for the RIAA. I'm dubious about there being a widescale backlash, however I'm also very very dubious about any consequent increase in music sales. The RIAA believes that filesharing is the main culprit slowing industry sales, I think it is wrong. It needs to realise that the idea of packaging artists works into monolithic albums was an accident of format, and not something that its customers really want.

Re:Death to RIAA.

[og_sh0x]

Hey! If you want to buy music but don't want to give the RIAA any money, go to one of those used CD stores. The RIAA hates them more than they hate you, because RIAA can't do anything about them... They're 100% legal! As an added bonus, you don't have to feel the slightest bit guilty or worry at all about being sent to a federal, p2p-me-in-the-ass prison.

Re:Death to RIAA.

[Red Pointy Tail]

Hey, why don't someone set up a CD exchange facility? We can all swap CDs, and of course, relinquish all rights to what we had previous owned, and of course swear that we didn't make a copy of it first? ;)

Re:brockman

[gosand]

I, for one, welcome our new Record Executive Overlords.

Uhh, new?

What happens when we stop buying from the RIAA?

[HanzoSan]

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!"

Re:What happens when we stop buying from the RIAA?

[RickHunter]

The problem is that its hard, if not impossible, to stop your money from flowing to the RIAA, especially if you want to compete with them. Blank media taxes, recording device taxes, professional recording device taxes, and a few dozen other hidden fees go straight to their coffers.

Use RIAA Radar

[reptilicus]

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/

Pushing a rope

[cybermace5]

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.

Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves

[Phoenix666]

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.

Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves

[charliedog]

What the community needs is to organize along the lines of the take no prisoners and scorched earth policies of the NRA and ABATE-IL. The NRA, with a few million committed members has managed to hold onto the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. ABATE of Illinois, with only a handful of members has maintained a no-helmet law for the state. Whether you agree with these grass-roots organizations or not, they are extremely effective. Both have legislative alerts (here and here) and the NRA has a "contact your lawmaker" page. Does anyone know of similar organization(s) that fight for sanity for file sharing ($150,000 per song is not sane)? Am not sure if the Electronic Freedom Foundation is focused enough. I would like to join and support an effective organization. Alternatively, I would be happy to join with others to found such an organization. Instead of whimpering and complaining, it is time that we joined (or formed) a strong counterbalance to the RIAA. It is, in fact, time to do something both with our time and money. Until we do, the RIAA or the MPAA will simply do what they want.

Re:shallow?

[(trb001)]

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.

not download, sharing

[KalvinB]

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

Break the law...

[no_opinion]

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.

Re:Break the law...

[WildBeast]

Neither do I but then again I have even less sympathy for the RIAA who are even worst criminals.
In short, I side with the lesser evil.

Re:Break the law...

[TopShelf]

While I might equate the severity of the crime with speeding, the severity of the punishment that's currently being meted out is hugely excessive. To extend your analogy, people would be (justifiably) upset if they got pulled over for doing 90 and were fined $150,000...

Kazaa Backup Software

[TheZax]

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).

Re:shallow?

[Gaijin42]

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.

How to fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

Lessig just posted a good comment on the draconian fees.

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.

50,000$

[Sophrosyne]

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.

oderint dum metuant

[Tackhead]

> Machiavelli:
>
> 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.

Re:oderint dum metuant

[Snowspinner]

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.

Re:oderint dum metuant

[PollyJean]

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.

Re:shallow?

[TClevenger]

Uh, yes, really. 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. So, yeah, I'm downloading it; I'm not paying another "RIAA tax" for music I already own.

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.

How to Not Get Sued By the RIAA

[Gareman]

Go here now: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php

Read. Sign up. Send email to your representatives.

Re:Joy

[letxa2000]

"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.'"

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. :)

Just for musing...

[MickLinux]

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.

The reason why they said it was shallow

[GoofyBoy]

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.

Re:I love this hypocrasy

[pirhana]

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 "

What If I Just Don't Pay?

[the_mad_poster]

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.

Re:What If I Just Don't Pay?

[Peyna]

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.

Re:What If I Just Don't Pay?

[jpmorgan]

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.

Might work for governments

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Might work for governments

[mike77]

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.

Unfortunately, in the united corporations of america, all you have to do is go to your local congresscritter, tell them, we're losing money becuasse people are downloading songs instead of buying them, and they prop up your failing business model.

you've heard of subsidies for farmers? welcome to the world of subsidies for failing corporations

Re:Might work for governments

[Sphere1952]

"Thus far, the RIAA has been fine, the geeks boycott and everyone else goes about their merry way."

You seem to be totally unaware of the major labels' sales figures verses the sales of the Independent labels over the last year.

While the RIAA members are whining about poor sales the independents are having a banner year.

My daughter uses Kazaa to hunt down really strange stuff from individual artists, and has been doing this for years now. (Why not Kazaa Lite, I ask?) I'd guess that she has an occasional song the RIAA would have claim to, but the ratio is certainly less than 1 in 10.

Furthermore, how are you to tell if the author is asserting their free speech right to be heard or is asserting some obscure federal statute?

If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.

Re:Might work for governments

[mike77]

you have a point about people making illegal copies and getting their product for nothing, but...

1) The recording companies have been convicted of pricefixing and keeping the cost of cd's inflated.
2) Their numbers are suspect at best. I can't remember where it is, but I've read several reports that shows similar declines in "sales numbers" for other industries since the bottom fell out of the economy.
3) Mp3's are not perfect copies. They're pretty good, but not perfect.
4) Many people use file trading services to determine if an album is any good before they go buy it.
5) Many customers only want the music, not the CDs (I myself fall into this category) and until recently (iTunes) there have been no good online music content providers.
6) Why do consumers have to pay a tax on CD-Rs, to "combat online piracy", when they may use the media for anytything, not necessarily on burning copies of illegally downlaoded songs?

My point being there are always going to be pirates, Always, but they are not doing themselves any good with the methods they have chosen to combat it. They're in the digital age, they need to figure that out, and give theit customers what they (the customers) want, and not try to shove what they want us to have down our throats.
\end rant

did I make any sense, or am i still suffering from lack of caffienation?

Let them.

[HanzoSan]

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.

Re:I love this hypocrasy

[zipfaust]

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?

And thats the exact problem.

[HanzoSan]

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.

Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous

[WildBeast]

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?

I'M RICH! I'M RICH!!

[Jafafa Hots]

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.

Downloading vs. sharing

[prostoalex]

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.

Re:They KNOW how the Internet works?

[Effugas]

He seems to be saying IP addresses aren't private, in the way credit card numbers and even telephone numbers are.

Is he wrong?

Re:shallow?

[Le Marteau]

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?...

The RIAA is not going after downloaders, contrary to what they, and the media, would have you believe. The ONLY people they go after are those who OFFER tunes for OTHER PEOPLE to download, in other words, distributing.

I don't care what the headlines say, read between the lines for gods sake and check it out. In every case where someone has been threatened legal action by the RIAA, they were DISTRIBUTING, not just DOWNLOADING.

Re:They KNOW how the Internet works?

[Tenebrious1]

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.

BOYCOTT MAJOR LABELS

[nooboob]

BOYCOTT MAJOR LABELS Boycott major labels, please please please please please.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/artists/

PLEASE!

Re:Bill of rights - Amendment VIII

[Creepy Crawler]

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.

However, they invoke legal power

[Kjella]

..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

Re:shallow?

[TClevenger]

By your logic, if your television got stolen, or if your television was "so scratched up as to be" unviewable, then you would steal another television because you don't want to pay a "tax" on something you already own.

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.

Not quite correct.

[MickLinux]

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.

Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA.

[Frymaster]

from the article:

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?

Does no one have a concept for FAIR anymore?

[Sycraft-fu]

$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.

Re:Does no one have a concept for FAIR anymore?

[bennomatic]

This ammendment only applies to CRIMINAL cases. I don't think there are any such limitations on civil cases, as that might be inviolation of the first ammendment.

No, it won't...

[drakaan]

The main problem about these discussions (and I'm as guilty in this as any other slashdotter) is that we get so caught up in being (rightfully) pissed at the price-gouging bee-atches at the RIAA, that we forget that most people don't do the following:

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".

Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA.

[BLAMM!]

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.

Re:Joy

[queequeg1]

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.

Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA.

[The Unabageler]

This is similar to a U.S. Supreme Court case, Gouled vs. U.S. Army, from the 1921. Some dude went into Gouled's office and took some papers without asking. He turned them over to law enforcement, then criminal charges were made against Gouled based on the stolen documents. They were ruled inadmissable because the man who took them at the time was not acting as a government agent, but when he handed them over he became one. Gouled (my great uncle) was found not guilty.

IANAL but I'd say that RIAA, by the terms of the DCMA, becomes an agent of the government and therefore is violating the fourth amendment.

Re:try this reworded approach...

[Peaceful_Patriot]

"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?