Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues 261 Major P2P Offenders
circletimessquare writes "Yahoo!/Washington Post is reporting that the RIAA is suing 261 fileswappers whom they consider to be 'major offenders' in illegally trading music online. Remember to visit the EFF when full lawsuit details are released, and see if you're one of the unlucky few." Details of the amnesty program reported last week were also released, with the RIAA announcing it "...would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."
Last count 4+ million users on Kazaa. It looks like the RIAA is having an effect. Too bad it's the opposite effect they want. M
A demand to sign a notarized admission of guilt is just _not_ an amnesty (literally -- a forgetting). Is there no limit to the way in which these people will twist words so that they are not saying what they appear to be saying?
I'm not sure how justice works in the USA, but here in the UK you are notified if someone initiates legal action against you...
Alternately, you'll end up with sharers in countries where the RIAA doesn't have a legal way to mess with 'em. The US will likely become 100% leech on the public P2P networks, sadly--but you can't really blame leechers when legal threats are flying, right?
Go one better--stop downloading and stop buying. Let 'em sue themselves right into the dirt.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
Even if you won't donate, at least go to the action center and send some angry letters to your senator.
EFF Action Center
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
PR. Offering the "amnesty" looks like they're willing to work with consumers. They'll still screw them but they hold up the amnesty as a concession.
Giving someone a temporary break from extortion is hardly amnesty.
"When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
"Is it purely a move to allow easy prosecution should they offend again?"
Yes. If you sign the aggrement they no longer have to rely on copyright law. They have a binding contract with you to abide their terms.
Debt collectors who buy up bad paper and then seek to recover use this trick too. The law has very carefully prescribed limits to the actions that can be taken to collect a debt, even in cases where judgement has been found against the debtor.
If they can get you to sign a contract expanding their rights to collect, by your own volition, than they can hold you to that contract.
Then you are, as they say, "hosed."
KFG
Unfortunately, the output remaining tends not to be compelling, their target audience has a number of other venues for their spending (video games, DVDs, online activities) and the economy goes south.
So which Business school teaches that the best way of addressing these sorts of problems is to spread fear/resentment/anger amongst the audience you are attempting to win back?
And as a side note, if getting the music listened to by potential buyers is such a bad activity, then why to record promotion people give away free singles and CDs at events? Why do companies allow songs to be played on the radio? And if pirating is such a depresser of CD sales, why was one of the most pirated CDs around, The Eminem Show, such a sales success? Could it be that people liked what they heard and were willing to pay for it?
Yes, the obligatory +5 interesting spiel for donating to the EFF. And, of course, it is +5 Incorrect. Yes, the DMCA allows copyright holders to supboena the names of people from ISP's without bringing a case first, or getting it signed by a real judge, but that doesn't mean that the system of innocent until proven guilty is out the window. These people, if it goes to court, will have the same rights afforded to them as in any other legal case.
There are problems with the DMCA, but can we cut out the FUD please?
Forget the whales - save the babies.
OK, fine. Then I want my money back for all of the piece-of-shit CD's I purchased because I had no means of sampling the music first due to them prohibiting me from listing before buying.
After that, I want my money back from the illegal price fixing that has gone on for years. Then throw those execs in jail because after all, if you are willing to do the crime you should be willing to do the time.
Additionally I want my money back on crap CD's I bought that had noise added in to the songs to make MP3's I burned useless. I wanted to listen to those in my MP3 player while I excersised but apparently they knew better.
Finally, I want an apology from the execs themselves for all of the misery I have to endure when flipping through the radio channels and I hear the SAME music for the past 5 years with an occasional new tune thrown in for a little spice.
we should be screaming. They can take our money, pull us into court, and wreck our lives witn no proof.
A corporation should never have the ability to do criminal investigations. ever. It totally circumvents the constitution.
These people are running amok, with no checks and balances. All this for possible copyright infringment. Copyright is the will of the people, enacted through congress, perhaps these people had better remember?
distributing music, in and of itself, is not always infringement. Used music stores come to mind.
The real problem for them is that the same music can be redistrbuted over and over again, easily. This is no different then any other advances where information can be spread more easily. There model needs to change, and it will. Unfortunatly lives will be dis-perportionaly destroyed in the process.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
..remeber that these people, however you feel about RIAA and their bussiness, have actually distributed music that they don't have the rights to. If you do the crime; you should be willing to do the time.
That's right. Copyright infringement is the biggest threat to the free world as we know it today. These evil villians must be put away for a long time and/or made to work in toil the rest of their natural lives to repay the enormous damage they have done to the recording industry. For such a heinous crime, it is fitting that their entire lives and even careers should be completely destroyed.
While I'm at it, let me propose some changes to our lovely mandatory sentencing guidelines. How about $10,000 per incident for jaywalking, which is much less serious than copyright infringement ($150,000 per incident). What should be the penalty for smoking in the non somking area?
For all of you who were hoping to get rich through the wonders of P2P file sharing, may I merely point out that it is much more profitable for those who simply rob convenience stores. And the penalties are far less severe.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Where's the crime? This is copyright violation, not a crime. It's a civil offense, not criminal (since even the RIAA hasn't found a way to invoke the criminal parts of the DMCA). Since it's a civil law violoation, you cannot go to jail. It's not piracy (no ships are involved) and not theft. Words have meanings, you know, and legal words have very precise meanings.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Their own words 'shock an awe' are aptly chosen in this case, and we should see this campain for what it is: legal strongarm tactics.
The RIAA is asking these people to promise something that is not in all cases forbidden by law. How would you feel if you'd find a letter from Microsoft on your doormat, stating
"You have illegaly copied MS products, and thus we are preparing to drag you through legal hell for the next 30 years, at the end of which we will take you you for every penny you own... unless you sign this agreement that you'll never use commy open source products again, and never use Bill Gates' name in vain.". When faced with that, does it even matter whether or not you actually copied said software?
These cases should be decided in a court of law, and with all parties on an even footing. As it is, the stronger party can bully the weaker one into agreeing to basically anything.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
And not legal to *distribute those copies*. How difficult is it to understand this concept? If you're using P2P software and making your 3000 MP3 collection freely available to the masses, you are BREAKING THE LAW.
Ah, we're young and innocent, aren't we?
Here are some quotes by judges I've actually witnessed in court:
"Lady, what do you expect here, justice? This isn't about justice, it's about procedure."
"Yes, you can have some time to get a lawyer, but I'm not going to allow him to examine the plaintiff."
And directly relevant to the issue under consideration in a case where defendant requested that the judge dismiss a complaint because plaintiff had offered absolutly no evidence in support:
"It isn't the job of the plaintiff to prove their case. You are the defendant. It's you job to defend yourself."
The judge then denied the defendant's request for the plaintiff to produce financial documents relevant to the case.
Not do you, in practice, have to prove your innocence, but it isn't at all uncommon to be denied the basic rights and tools to do so.
I guess that's why they call it the legal system now, rather than the justice system.
KFG
Here's some logic, following dictionary.com.
Property, definition 2: The right of ownership; title.
Steal, definition 1: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Take, verb, definition 1: To acquire possession.
RIAA has the right of ownership to the songs. A person distributes through a P2P, which according to copyright law requires ownership or title to do so. Therefor, the person aquired possession of the ownership and distribution rights without permission of the rightful owners (RIAA.)
Ergo, distributing songs in which you do not have ownership from is in fact stealing.
That was a lot of fun.. I'm a touch too bored right now.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Thanks for providing me with the best laugh I have had all day. I don't know what exactly possesses people to compare downloaded music to the US war of independence, but it never fails to amuse me. Then again, perhaps IHBT.
Casting this as a fight between rightousness [sic] and corruption, and of escaping a cultural stranglehold, is dubious at best. There are good reasons for copyright law to exist (remember, without copyright law, there can be no GPL). Most downloaders' motivation is to avoid paying for music, not to bring down a music empire. And most of the songs that are downloaded are the same cultural pap that is marketed by the RIAA.
If you're looking to feed your revolutionary tendencies with a bad law having actual, serious consequences, how about the Patriot act? Or the federal budget, which will lead to a trillion dollar increase in the federal debt over the next ten years? Everyone in the world -- American or not -- should be concerned by that, since if the US pulls an Argentina, nobody is safe. By comparison, the fight over file downloading is a childish spat between spoiled children.
The line of reasoning: "the founding fathers rebelled against laws they disagreed with; I am rebelling against laws I disagree with; therefire, my struggle is as noble as theirs" is as absurd as "they laughed at Einstein; they laughed at me; therefore, my ideas are as important as Einstein's".
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
this is the net result of this stupid campaign: people are setting up FTP servers and snail-mailing each other mp3 compilations. OK, it's not as user-friendly & Napster-cool but the point is: MP3 trading will never stop.
there's no place like ~
Boo hoo. If they can't prove their innocence, they must be, by definition, guilty.
Okay, let's play by your flawless logic. Imagine a hypothetical example as follows. After reading this hypothetical example, let's see if you understand the point.
Okay, you're caught!
According to my records and investigation, you stole my copyright material from my server. You thief!
You can get a lawyer and present absolute incontravertable proof that you did not steal the material alleged in the complaint. What?!? Can't proove it? Then by definition you must be guilty.
And, if that's the case (which it undoubtedly is for many of these people), they must accept the punishment that they (knowingly) brought down upon themselves. After all, it's not like they didn't know what they were doing was illegal, or that they'd be fined massive sums of money if they were caught.
That will be $150,000 please for the single violation that I claim so far. Hey, you knowingly did this knowing you would be fined massive amounts of money.
Your next action is that you could get a lawyer and fight it. Or you can settle with me. In the settlement, you must, of course, admit guilt. Since I'm such a nice guy, and in such an especially generous mood right now, I'll settle if you pay me only $19,999.99. Special today only. I think that is more than generous. Don't you?
On another note, I don't feel there's any reason to distrust the RIAA, regarding who they are going after.
And likewise, you should trust me. I am your friend. Trying to cure you of your evil doings and get you to mend your evil ways. My goals in this, and in my generous settlement offer are above reproach. Just ask anyone here on Slashdot. Really. Honest.
Especially no reason to distrust me considering who I'm going after. (implication: considering what despicable scum I'm going after.)
There is every reason for them to do their best to go after real pirates... after all, it sets an example for other would-be pirates.
I couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly what I'm doing.
As a result, I'm willing to believe the people who are being sued are, in fact, quite guilty of copyright infringement, and as such, such be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
From the defendant's mouth, your honor. I rest my case.
He willingly believes that he is being sued because he is already guilty, before the trial, of the heinous crime of -- gasp! -- copyright infringement. (audible gasps of shock and horror are heard from the judge, jury and observers, followed by a dead silence in the courtroom!)
I would try to explain my point in using the above hypothetical example. But I'm unclear on whether you would actually get my point.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Is it antithetical to the American Dream to say to those dishwashers and Guitar Center clerks that no, even if you succeed wildly, you will only make a few hundred thousand dollars a year? Maybe. But frankly I don't care. If we end up with fewer 14 year olds picking up Fenders with dreams of Escalades and more picking it up because of a desire to make music I'm not going to call it a bad thing.
Besides, as things stand all but the largest acts make their money touring. Record companies provide distribution, marketing and studio time but take nearly all the profit from CD sales. In the digital age the internet can take care of distribution, word-of-mouth unrestricted by geographical space or sampling fees can be a potent marketing engine (as anyone with winamp, AIM and a college broadband pipe can attest), and cheap digital recording will put the ability to make albums into the hands of anyone with $2000 and a friend who can install Linux.
The recording industry's functions are not really needed any more -- and I suspect that the duplicitous way they approached their business and treated their customers will ensure that their demise will be surprisingly quick and violent. Small labels will exist to provide support to bands, of course, but there's no longer any reason why they can't compete with the big guys except for the big guys' anticompetitive practices.
Anyone agree, or am I spouting gibberish?
RIAA free music. I mean its funny they complain about their numbers dropping while attacking some of their most devoted fans.
On the other hand there are lots of musicians begging for exposure that are even willing to give their music away for free.
1sound.com
www.mp3.com
iuma.com
And it just goes on.
Quack, quack.
"Alternately, listen to word-of-mouth from others before you buy the CD in the first place."
Where do those word-of-mouth sources get their information from? Someone has to buy the CD and be plagued with crap. Besides, they play one track on the radio that might be really good and then the rest of the album sounds like the band was learning to play during those recordings.
While there are risks involved in any purchase that does not entitle the seller to categorically screw the buyer. Restaurants can't serve you undercooked chicken. Real estate companies can't sell you a house that has radioactive waste in the basement without telling you. Car dealers can't sell you a car without disclosing known problems. The music cartel should NOT be allowed to sell CD's without letting you sample the music first for which many people use downloads. In a book store you can read all you want before buying. Funny that in a CD store you can't do the same. Wonder why?
More over, remember the people being sued are NOT being sued for dowloading but for sharing.
Suing for downloading would be tough. I have downloaded many MP3s for which I own the CD, purely for convenience.
The point is, the people being sued may not have stolen anything at all and not intended to help anyone steal.
They might not have infringed on copyrights themselves, but by allowing others to download from them, they've opened themselves up to the lawsuit.
If every morning, I made a copy of the Wall Street Journal (to which I hypothetically subscribe) and published it on my website for my own viewing pleasure, I should be obligated to make reasonably sure that unauthorized users can't view it. I should not be able to leave it out in the open with the excuse that "Maybe everybody accessing it is a legitimate WSJ subscriber."
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
DON'T apply for Amnesty! It's a trick! And if you get sued, don't settle! The RIAA is suing people like nuts right now because everyone is settling. They are pretty much getting tens of thousands of dollars for free. Forget selling music, they're making up their lost money by stealing money from college students.
The amnesty is a trick. The way it works is they get you into a contract that says you will stop sharing music. Once you're in that contract you no longer have the option of fighting them in court. They will sue you for breah of contract as opposed to copyright infringement, and then you're screwed.
If you get sued fight them tooth and nail. Get a good lawyer, and some help from the EFF and other folks. We just need one person with balls enough to fight, and when they win it will set a precedent. Everyone else will be able to fight and win by default. If I got sued, I would fight.
Don't let the greedy RIAA get away with this crap. Fight!
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Too mee it looks like many people don't have any faith in our judicial system any more, which is pretty sad when you think about how important these things are.
Sadder still are the people who are willing to ignore the problems in the judicial system rather than try to fix them. Faith will only blind you to the truth.
Like what I said? You might like my music
If the headline of this article read "FSF sues 261 major corporations for GPL violations" I wonder how the comments might differ.
Enforcing copyright is enforcing copyright and if you want the GPL to be enforcable then you better learn to deal with RIAA's copyrights being enforcable too.
Yes, I think international terrorism is an appropriate response to the effort to stop illegal filesharing.
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
Bingo. For years the feds tried to shut down pirate bbses and ftp sites with no luck, because most pirates do it for fun and make no money from their efforts. Judges basically said "no financial gain, no fault" and threw out the cases.
In 97, the whores in congress passed the "No Electronic Theft Act" 17 USC blah blah blah that:
1) changed the definition of financial gain to mean "receiving anything of value" such as a copyrighted work- so running an FTP site that receives files is now financial gain, as is a program that sends and receives copyrighted files- but it's much more complicated than that
2)by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished
however....!
evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.
c) some details
In case it wasnt obvious, the burden of proof to prosecute someone under this statue is pretty difficult to meet unless you are going after a pirate bbs or a pirate ftp site with a permanent address and fairly static library of files.
A sporadically connecting (and constantly moving) p2p client that is only sharing fragments of files is not really an entity that you can easily track. In addition, since the files on any individual client change often, or are (most often) unshared the second they finish downloading, it is almost 100 percent certain that "copyrighted works" (as well-formed files) are not shared by more than a small percentage of users, except perhaps accidentally.
It is also amusing to note that verifying that a user actually has a file is nearly impossible- its hard to distinguish between a client sending you the real file and a client sending you nonsense. Also, what about fakes, and files that dont exist in complete format anywhere? I've come across releases of movies where everyone has 99 percent of the file, but no one has the final 1% and the file might as well be random bits. Actually downloading files from a specific user on a P2P network to verify that it is copyrighted content is very difficult for one user, let alone millions spread across international borders.
To summarize- NET was formed to combat piracy that revolved around whole-file transfer protocols like FTP, HTTP and irc file servers. It is not well suited to prosecuting the massive file sharing networks that exist now. Even if it were possible to do so, it would be political suicide, since a hundred million voters will be a much bigger headache than a few whiny content industry lobbyists.
Isn't copyright infringement a criminal activity?
no. it is not.
See, even you bought into the lies that they have spread and now people are starting to understand this.
Copyright Infringement is NOT A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY that is why they are bringing up lawsuits as that is the only way to defend a copyright.
the cops are NOT SUPPOSED to bash down your door kill your cat and trample your petunias and then drag you naked in the street for copyright infringement.. (Contrary to the BSA's belief's)
all they can do is sue you and have a judge tell you to stop and order you to pay a restitution.
Got the idea yet?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
there's no evidence that p2p has had a negative effect on record sales. in fact, sharing your competition's music might increase interest in that very music. just as radio play would. the effect would be to stimulate music sales for your competition and degrade your own music sales.
of course, you also are making the assumption that there's any sort of competition at all. there's plenty to suggest that the members of RIAA are collaborating to gouge the consumer and keep out alternatives.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Breaking the law, breaking an immoral law.
Any law prohibiting the sharing of information between people, IMO, is immoral and MUST be ignored.
Would you say that the Baath party members, abiding by Saddam Husseins laws torturing law breakers were right?
Any law is always subjected to general human values. And any law that limits the right to exchange information is a crime itself.
You may find my opinion radical, and alas it is not yet very generally accepted. But I am convinced that, once people see what the disastrous results of current "intellectual property" laws are, more and more opposition will come and one day we shall return to the situation like the 17th century where the concepts "patent", trade mark, copyright did not or hardly exist.
Without them our civilization rose, building on ideas of others the renaissance and rationalism got us out of the middle ages (when other monopolies on information existed). Now because of such laws we threaten to slide back into a new era of dark ages, where individuals have no rights and no knowledge, and a few entities can corrupt society, control politics (which merely in name is democratic).
We have been brainwashed that todays knowledge economy needs protection of intellectual property to exist and prosper, but have we seen any prove that it won't work without? I do not buy it any longer. I won't rest until all those who want to implement such laws ara safely locked away themselves, for they are the THIEVES themselves, of democracy and human rights.
That's bullshit. You judge people based upon their looks just as much as everyone else does. You probably, like most of us, will not form a complete opinion of someone based upon their style of dress and their general demeanor (i.e. posture), however I assure you that, waiting at the Flatbush Ave. train station in Brooklyn at 3:30 in the morning, you will be much more comfortable waiting for the train with a sixty-something white-haired man in a business suit than a mid-twenties black or Hispanic man wearing oversized jeans, a blue and white bandana and size 17 Timberland boots. This, I assure you, carries over to the courtroom very frequently.
A sporadically connecting (and constantly moving) p2p client that is only sharing fragments of files is not really an entity that you can easily track. In addition, since the files on any individual client change often, or are (most often) unshared the second they finish downloading, it is almost 100 percent certain that "copyrighted works" (as well-formed files) are not shared by more than a small percentage of users, except perhaps accidentally.
Gee, that gives me an idea... what about a P2P app that only gives downloaders access to a part of the file, while making sure another peer elsewhere share the other parts. The client downloads and merges them automatically, of course, but the shares are never, at any time, providing access to a complete file. Coordinating who shares what might be difficult, maybe those with odd-numbered IP get to share parts 1 and 3, and the even-numbered share part 2 and 4 from a file chopped up into 4 bits? I wonder how lawsuit-proof this idea would be.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!