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."

Comments

Suing?

[Vargasan]

The RIAA sues people?
Never!

Re:Suing?

[Stargoat]

The RIAA will remain relevant as long as they have the money to do so. These bastards are going to get away with it for as long as we let them.

It's really going to take grass roots effort to remove this RIAA threat. It's the only way to really combat a monetarily powerful organization.

Speaking of grassroots, the Dean Campaign should take note of folks distrust of the RIAA. If they promise to do something about the RIAA, then they'll probably wind up with a few thousand more votes than they may have had. If nothing else, bringing this up in a fair political manner about it might put a stop to some of this insanity.

Re:Suing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Dean campaign tells you that they are going to do something about the RIAA then I can tell you they are lying. The Executive branch does not make laws and it does not try cases based on those laws. It is up to the Legislative branch (your senators and representatives) to change the laws or the Judicial branch to declare them unconstitutional. For that to happen it would have to bounce to the top (Supreme Court) which won't happen because nobody has deep enough pockets to fight it that far.

Re:Suing?

[Mikeytsi]

The executive branch has a lot of influence on the legislative branch, due to the fact that the executive has veto power. (You insert and pass this anti-RIAA bill, and I'll rubber-stamp the next "homeland security" bill you want). If you don't think this kind of stuff happens all the time, you're stupid and/or high.

Another thing to keep in mind, the Executive appoints the members of the Supreme court.

Re:Suing?

[cK-Gunslinger]

But why are they suing? Isn't copyright infringement a criminal activity? Why do they not just turn over the list of sharers to the FBI or whoever investigates and prosecutes theses cases? Being charged with a crime by the FBI and fined $150K+ seems to me to be infinitely more damaging/scary than being personally sued by a private organization.

If the RIAA is truly interested in stopping copyright infringement, why are they suing instead of prosecuting? If someone steals my car, and I know who it is, I'm going to let the law handle the situation, not file a civil suit.

Re:Suing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrat (n): Someone who thinks the group you belong to is more important than who you are.

Republican (n): Someone who thinks the amount of money you have is more important than who you are.

Re:Suing?

[cK-Gunslinger]

Ok, after a little bit of research, I see that I had some misconceptions about copyright law. Feel free to mod parent "-1 Wrong."

Re:Suing?

[3terrabyte]

I think it's because of procedure. It's already been mentioned that in Civil suits, you only have to show probable evidence. And that the defendant must prove his/her innocence. In the case of Criminal Suits, you are innocent until proven guilty. To be convicted, there has to be "beyond a doubt" that you are guilty. Much more work on the prosecutors side.

Not only that, but in a criminal suit, if you are unable to afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you. In a civil suit.... you must pay!

Also, as pointed out by the Department of Justice slashdot article last month, for the DOJ to get involved, there are a long list of things that must incur. I do not believe that simple, non-profit file sharing has been proven to be criminal in court yet.

Re:Suing?

[stwrtpj]

Isn't copyright infringement a criminal activity?

It straddles criminal and civil law, depending on the infringement and the scope. I'm not familiar with the exact details, though.

Why do they not just turn over the list of sharers to the FBI or whoever investigates and prosecutes theses cases?

Because you're assuming that the RIAA is doing this purely to stop piracy, which I have my doubts about. $150,000 per offense? What bullshit.

If the RIAA is truly interested in stopping copyright infringement, why are they suing instead of prosecuting? If someone steals my car, and I know who it is, I'm going to let the law handle the situation, not file a civil suit.

And if you had the possibility of suing him instead for 1.2 million and have a good chance of winning, even if it gets settled out of court for $250,000 for a car that cost you $30,000, which would you pick?

Re:Suing?

[cbiltcliffe]

The issue is people are stealing music online, and that is bad, whatever way you look at it.

Copying music is not stealing.
Copyright is exactly what it says: the right to copy.
The owner of a copyright has the right to copy and distribute the work as they see fit. Anyone else has fair use rights, guaranteed by law, and any other rights the copyright holder has given them.
If someone who doesn't own the copyright distributes a work in violation of that copyright, they haven't stolen it....they've infringed the copyright.
Stealing means the rightful owner is deprived of something that belongs to them.
Infringing copyright means you have copied something when you had no legal right to do so.

Contrary to what the RIAA would have you believe, P2P filesharing is not even remotely like stealing a CD from a music store. The two situations are covered under completely different laws, and nothing from one law applies to the other situation.
Stealing the CD is not a copyright infringement, because you haven't copied it.
P2P sharing the track isn't stealing, because you haven't stolen anything.

Re:Suing?

[fenix down]

Well, it's not so much every single one of Bush's nominations as it is 3 out of 100 or so of Bush's nominations. Close, though.

Re:Suing?

[BeerSlurpy]

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.

Re:Suing?

[Lumpy]

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?

Re:Suing?

[enjo13]

it does not try cases based on those laws.

Actually, it most certainly does try cases based on those laws. The executive branch of the government is responsible for enforcement of the laws created by the legislative branch. Which is why the Justice department and the Attorney General are both arms of that branch. In other words, it is up to the executive branch to decide what cases to try (when representing the people) and what means and remedies to pursue for the actions it does pursue. The Microsoft case is a classic example of how the policy of two different administrations (Clinton vs. W) can affect the enforcement of law.

At a more pratical level, the President is very much involved in the creation of laws. The President, with his veto power and general position of the power wields influence over the legislative (and to a lesser extent) and judicial branches of government.

Re:Suing?

[ReaperOfSouls]

There are some additional definitions as well:

Democrat (n): Some one who thinks you are too stupid to make decisions for your self, so the government should make them for you by taxing the living shite out of everyone and creating a vast gigantic pig such that Americans will need to suckle at the teat in order to survive.

Republican (n): Some one who thinks you are too stupid to make decisions for your self, so the government should not tax the rich and powerful top 1% cause they really have everyone's best interest at heart, including bending us all over and giving us what we need, the way they want to.

Re:Suing?

[netsharc]

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. ;-)

Re:Suing?

[CrashPanic]

Why doesen't someone copywrite/patent/whatever a method of encryption that can be used to mask IP's and users over the p2P network, license it to kazaa/morpheus/limewire/etc for free and then DARE the RIAA to crack it and bust users? Doesen't the DMCA prohibit this kind of activity?That way we can play one monster against the other! Either the DMCA will break the RIAA or vice versa. Either way its one less to deal with!
Seriously why wouldn't this work?

My theory...

[bloggins02]

Since they know they can't stop downloaders, they figure if they make it a point to go after the biggest file sharers people will become paranoid and turn file sharing off. They'll become leachers.

Of course we know what happens to a P2P system with all leachers and no sharers...

Re:My theory...

[Zeriel]

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.

Re:My theory...

[TopShelf]

Now here's an interesting point - for firms that compete in the music biz, they generally want overall interest in music to increase, while not allowing their competitors to make more money than them. So what's to prevent someone outside the US, who has some stake in one of the firms (say as a shareholder) from scooping up material from the competitors, and making it available for download via P2P? There's an incentive there to freely distribute the competition's material, if you can get away with it...

Re:My theory...

[Thud457]

So all the p2p nets will go from being clogged up with eight jillion Briney Spear's rips to all David Hasselhoff?!!

Oh the humanity!

Re:My theory...

[Anonymous Coward]

You raise an interesting point, because I don't like to leech from filesharing networks. If I can't share files back at a reasonable rate, I prefer not to download. I know a good many others who feel the same way, even beyond the few that I've set up with a copy of mldonkey or emule and a stern lecture. ;)

I hadn't really thought of it before, but there's a strong moral sense among the majority of people who run P2P software. They appreciate that the system can't work unless everyone shares. The RIAA paints the biggest sharers as immoral renegades because they have a capitalist (nearly Objectivist) code that specifies that everything should be traded for money, but the sharers are just doing what their kindergarten teacher told them to.

Historically speaking, these clashes of different moral systems never end well. :/

Re:My theory...

[madcow_ucsb]

people will become paranoid and turn file sharing off. They'll become leachers.

This has already happened. Truth is, most people I know used to share everything. Now I can quite honestly say I don't know a single person who leaves sharing enabled. In fact, making sure Kazaa has sharing disabled has become as important as making sure there's a virus scanner when any of us has to fix a friend's/relative's computer.

I was talking with some friends about this the other day. While it sucks for the network users, it just comes down to the fact that you would have to be friggin INSANE to leave your computer sharing lots of files right now. Why not just put a sign up that says "Hey, RIAA! Come sue me!" No thank you.

What /. tends to forget is that the VAST majority of p2p users ARE downloading copyrighted songs. And if we got sued, the vast majority of us would lose even if the RIAA had the most incompetent lawyers on the planet (which I'm sure they don't...) It takes someone who really didn't break the law to challenge these suits. For the rest of us, it's simply not worth the risk, so we'll just pull our machines off line and wait for a more secure way to do things. I can certainly do without the music for a while...

Re:My theory...

[salesgeek]

Of course we know what happens to a P2P system with all leachers and no sharers...

It turns into alt.binaries.* ?

Re:My theory...

[fucksl4shd0t]

Could you provide links to substantiate your claims of increased music sales linked to P2P piracy? Thanks.

Here's a start

More on the Ipso-Reid study covered here. The original study isn't available through their website, unless you look a lot harder than I did.

Here's more on the Jupiter study

Still more

Liebowitz writes about it, but his only purpose was to conclude that filesharing doesn't hurt the music business.

ZDNet reports on what is probably the same Jupiter study

This article sits right in the middle of the issue, but certainly hints at an Odyssey study supporting my point.

Here's a study about studies

This came out during the height of the Metallica fight against Napster

You can google for more if you're not satisfied with these. :)

I think

[geekoid]

the EFF needs you donations more then ever. Remember, you don't have to do anything wrong to find yourselves in a position to prove your inocense. Yes, under these circumstances, you have to prove your inocense, simple disgusting.

Re:I think

[ColdGrits]

So the EFF needs our donations to protect people whose intention is to steal?

Sorry, no way. People who amass collections of in excess of 1,000 mp3s (of songs they do not posses on CD) are by no stretch of the imagination "victims".

Although I disapprove of it, I can see at least a hint of validity in the claim "I download to try the song out, and if I like it I buy the album". But 1,000+ songs in one go? Nope, that's just plain piracy, pure and simple.

You do the crime, you do the time.

Re:I think

[M.C. Hampster]

the EFF needs you donations more then ever. Remember, you don't have to do anything wrong to find yourselves in a position to prove your inocense. Yes, under these circumstances, you have to prove your inocense, simple disgusting.

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?

Re:I think

[FileNotFound]

Ah but the catch is that they don't know that you didn't own the CD. 1000 songs is very little when you think about it. You have ~15 songs per CD, so thats about 67 CDs. That not that many.

More over, remember the people being sued are NOT being sued for dowloading but for sharing.

The point is, the people being sued may not have stolen anything at all and not intended to help anyone steal. I have a fairly large CD collection, yet I'd say that at least 20% of my disks have scratches on them. I have copies of those disk that I downloaded of the web. Perfectly legal. I am too lazy to rip my CDs, I have too many CDs and not enough time. I download entire discographies from eMule. Once again, perfectly legal.

Still in the eyes of the RIAA I'm a major pirate because I have a huge MP3 collection of which over 50% is downloaded despite owning the CD.

Thats why I donated to EFF and thats why I urge others to.

Re:I think

[Pig Hogger]

Sorry, no way. People who amass collections of in excess of 1,000 mp3s (of songs they do not posses on CD) are by no stretch of the imagination "victims".

Like hell. Were I live, I have more than 3000 MP3s, most of which LEGALLY MADE from CDs I borrowed from the library. It is perfectly legal to make a copy for your own use.

Re:I think

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:I think

[kfg]

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

Re:I think

[Xerithane]

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.

Re:I think

[mrtroy]

What I dont understand is where all of these pirates are coming from

I havent personally saw anyone with patches over their eyes recently. Or any tall masted ships.

This leads me to believe this is all propaganda to make the average person scared to "surf".

Gibberish.

Re:I think

[OrenWolf]

That's wrong in Canada.

In Canada, I can give my CD to a friend to make copies of all I want. I just can't give him a copy.

In other words, you download from me, it's legal in Canada.

I upload to your FTP site, I've broken the law.

Re:I think

[Citizen of Earth]

Repeat after me: Copyright infringment != Stealing

It's only "stealing" when SCO or Microsoft does it.

Re:I think

[The Old Burke]

These people, if it goes to court, will have the same rights afforded to them as in any other legal case.

Right on spot.
If they are guilty, I assume they are since RIAA would not want to risk anything like going to court without having a bulletproof case, they will get their penalty. If the are not guilty, the court will find out.
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.
if these teenagers are innocent they could choose to fight in court and don't bend over like some easy prey for a legitimate organization like RIAA.
If they can't afford decent legal protections against their crimes they should not have commitetd these acts that hurts legitimate bussiness and artist in such a way they end up broke on the streets.

Re:I think

[FileNotFound]

Yes and no. Did me sharing mp3s aid piracy? Yes.
Was that my intention? No.
Am I responsible for making sure that every person who downloads the song owns a copy? No.
The person who shares the songs is doing so legaly as long as every person who downloads the songs owns a copy.
The person who downloads the songs and has a copy is doing so legaly.
The ONLY person breaking the law is the one dowloading the song and not owning the orignal CD.

I don't see myself a guilty at all, I don't go about burning CDs and giving them out for people, I don't sell the music I download for money. This by the way is a HUGE business in Russia, any CD you want, $5, booklet and everything.

The copyright laws were to prevent the above, not Joe Blow downloading something he heard on the radio to listen to it for 1 day and forget about it. He's no loss to the revenue anyway, he'd have never bought the CD.

The laws are being abused in this case, don't tell me that it's reasonable to charge college kids 100k song. I KNOW people in Russia who make about 160k/year pirating CD/games, thats who the laws were meant for, not for the horribly broke college kids.

Re:I think

[dirk]

Repeat after me: Copyright infringment != Stealing.

While I agree this is technically correct, may I point out that letting millions of people download perfect duplicates of your MP3, while you continue to have full use of your copy is not "sharing". If we are going to be rules lawyers about terminology, can we at least try and get all the terminology correct, not just that which helps the side we like.

Re:I think

[Snaller]

The point is, the people being sued may not have stolen anything at all and not intended to help anyone steal. I have a fairly large CD collection, yet I'd say that at least 20% of my disks have scratches on them. I have copies of those disk that I downloaded of the web. Perfectly legal. I am too lazy to rip my CDs, I have too many CDs and not enough time. I download entire discographies from eMule. Once again, perfectly legal.

It sure as hell isn't in Europe - are you sure it is in the states?

Re:I think

[stwrtpj]

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.

You're confusing civil and criminal law. In criminal law, yes, you're innocent until proven guilty. It does not work that way in civil law, which is what we are talking about here. All you need to show is a small amount of proof to haul someone into court, and then you only need a "preponderance of the evidence" to win the case.

This is why I object to the RIAA's tactics. I agree wholeheartedly that the ones who are actively sharing files are the ones guilty of copyright infringement under the law, but I disagree with subpoenas issued without a judge's signature.

These people, if it goes to court, will have the same rights afforded to them as in any other legal case.

Except the right to a lawyer. Once again, in criminal law, I am guaranteed a lawyer, paid for me by the state if I cannot afford one. Not so in civil law. I have to pay for my own attorney. So I see nothing wrong with the EFF providing funds to help defend people in civil cases, since this helps offset the disparity that exists in the system.

There are problems with the DMCA, but can we cut out the FUD please?

Subpoeans without a judge's approval is not FUD, it's a travesty of justice.

Not being able to pay for your own defense in a country that so highly values liberty is not FUD, it's legalized extortion.

Re:I think

[Dr Caleb]

In Canada, I can give my CD to a friend to make copies of all I want. I just can't give him a copy.

Not correct. You can give him a copy. You cannot sell him a copy.

Re:I think

[kfg]

If, of course, the party has the emotional and financial resources to pursue it that far.

Most civil cases don't come down to a legitimate adjudicated decision. They are resolved by one party (usually the wronged one, since they are naturally the one with the least resources) being unable or unwilling to continue. ( In part because the wronged party is slightly more likely to appear as plaintiff than the other way around. If you wish to get away with stealing from someone civilly, steal everything they have. . .and then file suit against them. They're virtually defensless against you).

KFG

Re:I think

[dboyles]

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."

Re:I think

[dfn5]

I am too lazy to rip my CDs, I have too many CDs and not enough time.

Can I rip them for you? Where do you live? I'll come by and pick them up.

Re:I think

[turnstyle]

"Just because she didn't rip the MP3s to a CD doesn't mean she doesn't own the CD?"

No, but just because she didn't rip the MP3s, well then, she didn't rip the MP3s. And that's what she would have had to do, and what her lawyers implied that she did.

In the slim chance that the RIAA targets somebody that actually owns the vast majority of corresponding CDs, I highly doubt that they would bother puruing that case.

But they might, because the issue is that they want people to stop making those MP3s available for downloading.

Again there's a misconception that this is legal:

1. Download an MP3 for which I don't have the CD
2. Keep the MP3 and buy the CD
3. Decide not to buy the CD and delete the MP3

That's not leagal. And neither is:

1. Download an MP3 for which I do have the CD

Frankly if that's what everybody was doing, I doubt the RIAA would make much of a fuss.

Re:I think

[jdh-22]

Breaking the law?

That is not always true. Think of the independant artist that WANT to get their music out there, so they give it out for free. Yes, most of the shared music is illegal, but what happends to the ones that are not? The music I make is copyright, but what I do with my productions are my business not theirs.

Law suits like this one are deminishing the market for the independant artists. The web and p2p software make it possible for these guys to get their names out. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a law suit against the RIAA for spreading fear among the polutation to download from p2p so that independant artists can't make it.

Re:I think

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm afraid this is highly illogical.

Songs aren't property, and copyrights aren't property rights.

So while your argument is great in the right arena, it's misapplied here.

Rather, what's happening is that while songs are not ownable at all, RIAA members hold copyrights on those songs. While copyright law does not by any means prevent non-copyright holders from distributing copyrighted works via any medium no matter what, in some cases -- perhaps many cases -- it does. It's impossible to steal a song, and it's effectively impossible to steal a copyright. (at least I can't reckon how one would) But it is possible to impermissibly exercise rights that copyright law permits copyright holders to bar other people from exercising. The act of ignoring the copyright holder's desire to exclude one from exercising those rights is an infringement on the copyright holder's right to exclude.

Remember kids, when discussing nonproperty rights, 'infringe' is typically the right word to use, e.g. 'the government made my religion illegal, infringing on my right to worship as I see fit.'

Incidentally, even if we _did_ treat copyrights as property rights, which we don't, there are STILL significant limits on it. Property rights are equally as artificial as copyrights, and numerous doctrines exist for limiting the scope of such rights. P2P sharers would still have arguments available to them to defend their behavior, and might even win.

Re:I think

[fucksl4shd0t]

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.

Re:I think

[Richard_at_work]

Your view on this is apparently totally wrong, allow me to explain my view with a little analogy.

A magazine I purchase publishes an artical in its latest copy that I really like. I take that artical and publish it on my website in its entirety, including origional writer credits, without asking permission. A number of people visit my website and read the artical, and perhaps take a copy for themselves, and a small number of these people thank me for publishing an online version of the article they have in the magazine.

Am I safe from prosecution because I can claim that only people who view my republishing and dont own the issue that it appeared in, are infringing on the copyright? Definately not, I am in a legal world of hurt because i republished the article without permission or thought, and the arguement that I cannot be responsable for whoever downloads it is not a legally admisable one.

If you have copyrighted material available to download from your website/shared folder/whatever then in my view and in the eyes of the (civil) law, you have commited copyright infringement. So i guess you arent responsable for who downloads it, but you are damn well responsable for your own actions, whatever you may think to the contrary.

Yes the laws were meant to punish the big time copiers such as those Russians you mention in your post, but again that same damn arguement can be applied to any law. Is the law not meant to apply to the casual theif who steals your purse from the seat of your car while you are parked at a red light, is it only applicable to the crime gangs who steal thousands of purses a day via organised crime? Do drug laws not apply to the small time ecstasy dealer who sells a tab to a friend, and watches as he/she dies from it, or doe they only apply to the people who bring in $10million of cocain a night from mexico?

Well, those are my views, and please do reply if you feel you can argue a case for your views, i will gladly listen.

Re:I think

[gr0nd]

Can you explain that to the DirectTV victims. Legalized extortion. RIAA's in the same game, and the government is sanctioning it.

If all the people that flew American flags from their cars on 10/1/01 voted, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Re:I think

[Baki]

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.

Re:I think

[jkabbe]

But if you actually get targeted by the RIAA and can prove that you already owned all the CDs, I'd guess that they would drop that case anyway.

But see, that's the kicker. Currently the RIAA does not need to prove (or even provide evidence of the charge) to a judge or anyone else that you did anything wrong. All they have to do is fill out a form and they get to subpoena your contact information from the ISP.

The fact that people are getting sued is a sideshow. The fact that the courts aren't involved in the subpoena process is the real issue.

Re:I think

[Swanktastic]

Any law prohibiting the sharing of information between people, IMO, is immoral and MUST be ignored.

Any law is always subjected to general human values. And any law that limits the right to exchange information is a crime itself.

I think you are being incredibly fast and loose with what is traditionally considered a just and unjust law.

Dr. Martin Luther King writes this about some examples of unjust laws:
1)"An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself."

Not the case here. RIAA is accountable to IP laws just as I am as a US Citizen.

2)"A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law."

Not the case here. Property laws are a fundamental of the US code, which was written by democratically elected officials. IP laws predate the RIAA.

3)"Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest."

Somewhat but not really the case here. Granted, RIAA is using heavy handed tactics which I happen to think may be unconstitutional. People were sharing files though before the RIAA made a stink. Their actions now do not post-facto make file sharing OK. But to the heart of the issue you've addressed, the right to protect one's property is a fundamental right in this country. 95% of people probably are ok with it. If that is the case, and humans make their own morality (as you pointed out), how could IP laws be immoral?

Now, obviously there's some room for manuevering in the interpretation of MLK. But, I don't think that file sharing for personal enjoyment falls into the category of 'crusading for the freedom of information.' Much more likely it stinks of self-interest, ie someone else has something I want to take.

IP laws are in place for a somewhat rational reason. This is that an individual or entity who comes up with a brilliant idea does not have it immediately confiscated by the public. It is in a sense, a freedom to restrict my good idea for my own purposes.

The point made about "Any law prohibiting the sharing of information between people" flies so fundamentally in the face of privacy rights that I can't believe the slashdot crowd watched this comment sail through. YES, I want laws in place protecting patient/doctor, lawyer/client, and similar types of confidentiality in place. You've gone so overboard with your concept of info sharing that you'd end up violating the fundamental rights we now hold dear.

Why the vow?

[adamwright]

"...and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."

If P2P trading of Copyrighted music is illegal (and we know that it is), why require this? Is it purely a move to allow easy prosecution should they offend again? Or do they think that prosecuting under copyright law might not work in some cases?

Re:Why the vow?

[Lawbeefaroni]

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.

Re:Why the vow?

[leviramsey]

It takes away a number of defenses you could use if they sue you for a future infraction. You can't claim that you have no history of this sort of thing (if you do, you've perjured yourself and could be imprisoned for that). It also could be introduced as evidence of your character in the trial.

Re:Why the vow?

[kfg]

"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

Re:Why the vow?

[Abcd1234]

Actually, if anything, it's a PR move. It's basically a way for the RIAA to look benevolent without looking like they're bending over and letting the pirates win. The only other options are to sue the pants off everyone and risk looking like bullies, or to stop pursuing P2P traders, which, of course, is impossible.

Re:Why the vow?

[PainKilleR-CE]

It also makes it a willful offense, which is an important distinction in civil copyright infringement suits.

In other words, you give up a chance at a small(er) fine and possibly even an out, for a chance to get royally screwed if you ever do it again.

Sticking it to da man...

[ScooterBill]

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

'Amnesty' with sting in the tail

[waterbear]

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?

Will that be on my permanent record?

[jroos]

What are the chances the RIAA will become another place employers add to their list of sources for background checks?

Re:Will that be on my permanent record?

[mumblestheclown]

What are the chances the RIAA will become another place employers add to their list of sources for background checks?

x2 Special double slashdot paranoia bonus modifier.

Get your tinfoil hats now!

morally right, but the motivations are not

[humuhumunukunukuapu']

i hear a cash register drawer opening and see an RIAA exec, with his hand out, smiling..

Oh what a beautiful morning...

[Kedisar]

Well... this is going to be a fun morning for those 261 people.

*Random guy turns on computer*

You've got subpoena!

Re:Oh what a beautiful morning...

[cybermace5]

And next, "ENLARE your subPOENA 4+++ inches! MAXXimus V fomular!"

Before you all start to whine about this

[The Old Burke]

..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.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[tarnin]

What time? They are not trying to send these people to jail, they are trying to squeeze money out of them. They know that if they actually had to bring up a real case agaisnt these people then they would, more than likely, lose. So instead, they sue which makes it harder on the defendant as THEY have to prove their innocence instead of the other way around.

Lovely isnt it? Weither these people are guilty or not means nothing. They will be finiancly ruined by either paying out the absurd suit, a lawyer to defend them, or the RIAA's "Ok well just give us THIS much and we'll go away" deal.

So ya, I think I will whine about this thank you very much.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[div_2n]

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.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[DickBreath]

..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.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[cgranade]

Furthermore, how does RIAA know they did? Could the very methods that RIAA uses to collect info is illegal?

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[Abcd1234]

"If they can't prove their innocence, they must be, by definition, guilty."

Actually, forget that... it's totally wrong, and I'm aware of that. :) BUT, I would claim that the RIAA probably isn't going after these folks without a pretty water-tight case, so if they can't disprove the RIAA's evidence, I'd claim they are most probably guilty.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[phliar]

If you do the crime; you should be willing to do the time.

Bullshit!

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.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[Abcd1234]

Hey, if you don't like the law, push to change it. Until then, assuming they are guilty, they will be charged as is appropriate under current law. This is how it should be... again, if you don't like it, *change it*!

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[JaredOfEuropa]

have actually distributed music that they don't have the rights to.

I (and I suspect more people here than you'd think) have little sympathy for people who share music when they're not supposed to. But I would like to see this proven first, in a court of law, that those charged have actually, knowlingly shared music in violation of the law.

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.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[squiggleslash]

I agree that if they've done it, they deserve a slap.

But I'm not entirely sure that bankrupting someone is a reasonable punishment in all instances.

I'm fed up with the pro-infringement people who will make any excuses they can to avoid paying artists for the work they've done, work the artists have done believing that, as the law says, people will pay in some way for using that work. Part of me is glad they're finally getting slapped.

But at the same time, it's undeniable that current copyright law is extreme, and needs to be liberalised with specific rights given to content users; that it is extreme in certain areas (I can't watch a DVD *I* bought under Linux? I can't convert it to a different format? I can't back it up?) unfortunately goes some way to discrediting copyright in others, to the point that people seem to be more willing to engage in the blatent ripping off of artists.

Thousands of dollars in fines per download is also doing nothing to improve the credibility of copyright law. It just promotes an "us vs them" attitude, which is very obvious in the average Slashdotter's blind, uncompromising, irrational, hatred of content producers.

Things have to change.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[PhxBlue]

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.

You seem to think you have some entitlement to only good music. By this mindset, people should never lose money on stock transactions - or someone else should be held accountable if they do. Of course, the mindset itself is baloney.

Any purchase is a risk, whether it's a CD, a mutual fund. a house, or anything else. If you have some information to act upon, you can mitigate your risk by only buying something that gives you a good return on your investment. If you buy a CD and it's crap, suck it up: don't buy any more CDs from the same group, and let everyone you know that they should avoid the same CD. This is known as word-of-mouth advertising, and it's the most effective form of advertising available. Alternately, listen to word-of-mouth from others before you buy the CD in the first place. Then you have more information to work with and can decide whether you still want to buy the CD.

The other points you made were good ones: the execs should be responsible for the crap they peddle to Clear Channel and other radio networks, and they should be held legally responsible for price-fixing CDs. But don't blame them for the crap CDs in your library: they didn't hypnotize you or posess you; you chose to buy the CD.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[DickBreath]

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.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[div_2n]

"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?

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[sorrowsdream]

Ok.....Well.....Can I go to your house and search though your movies and vhs cassettes to make sure you have not recorded any TV shows? Not let some one borrow it? Borrowed one yourself? Hmmmmm

Re:Before you all start to whine about this

[the_mad_poster]

if you don't like it, *change it*!

Have you EVER tried to contact someone of "importance"? I've attempted everything from writing intelligent, professional letters to degrading myself to sniveling begging to get the attention of one of my two senators. I've gotten:

• A response telling me to sod off unless I was a contributor looking for a meeting.
• A snide response telling me I was an idiot.
• A response telling me that, basically, he didn't understand the issue and wasn't going to think about it.

If YOU have a half million dollars to buy some time with a member of the United States government, please use it to do so. I can't afford to be heard by my *ahem* *cough*representatives*cough*. I've tried.

College students are back

[PovRayMan]

I myself just got back into my dorm and seeing this article made me think. Many thousands if not millions of students are going off their dialup/cable/dsl home connections and back to the fat pipes the universities have. As much, I would expect P2P usage to rise again, but how much more with RIAA lawsuits?

The case is clear

[Brahmastra]

All the people sued in this case have been sharing more than 1000 songs. It is clear that their intent was piracy. Whether the RIAA is scum or not is irrevelent. These users took a major risk and are now paying for it.

Served?

[Afty0r]

Remember to visit the EFF when full lawsuit details are released

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...

Re:Served?

[leviramsey]

The process has to be served. If the plaintiff cannot give the court instructions on how to serve you with the suit, the court must throw the case out.

A good example of this is a case a few years back of somebody who filed a suit against the devil, but had it thrown out because they could not give the court the devil's address.

I HEREBY PROMISE -

[Picass0]

I will not ever pay for an RIAA member label music product until such a time that they end their predatory lawsuits.

Frankly, this won't be a hard promise to keep, since most mainstream music sucks.

PS - The radio is still free, and I have an TV/FM tuner/capture card.

Re:I HEREBY PROMISE -

[mopslik]

The radio is still free...

Not for long.

Rate the article

[glenrm]

You can rate this article if you have a Yahoo! account...

You are not safe with the affidavit...

[Robert Hayden]

Filing for RIAA amnesty may immunize you from civil litigation, however that affidavit becomes excellent fodder for your prosecution under CRIMINAL statues. Certainly RIAA owns one or two over-eager district attorneys wanting to make a name for themselves.

The you're off to a lovely federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison, or forking up hoards of fines.

RIAA Math

[mopslik]

261 Major P2P Offenders

So, is that the equivalent of 50 file swappers, downloading really fast?

"File Sharing"

[Slime-dogg]

Every time I see this "Vow not to share files" or references to "Illegal P2P applications," I start wondering if the wording is such that the victim will not be able to share any files whatsoever, legally or public domain. I can see these huge corporations not really understanding the difference between serving copyrighted music and serving a distribution of GNU/Linux over KaZaa. I'm sure that they would like neither to take place.

Da' finga'

[GillBates0]

"We're willing to hold out our version of an olive branch," Sherman said.

...and I'm willing to hold out my version of da' finga'.

is your username subpoenaed? it is now...

[Sajma]

Entering your username or IP address into the subpoena query page seems to be a great way to make sure the RIAA checks out your username or IP address.

Re:is your username subpoenaed? it is now...

[Fulkkari]

When RIAA writes something Anti-P2P they will know that a great number of the readers will be actual filesharers reacting to that article. That will give them plenty of IPs in their server logs... *That's* the real problem if you happen to be a filesharer. Not the EFF. :)

As a side note it could be wise for you filesharers to check your browser doesn't send a Down-with-the-RIAA-KaZaA-rules-forever site as the referring page while browsing. The site itself could also be a trap done by RIAA to get to know as many filesharers as possible. There have been trap sites of such kind in the past... Be careful out there!

EFF Action Center

[FileNotFound]

Even if you won't donate, at least go to the action center and send some angry letters to your senator.
EFF Action Center

Re:EFF Action Center

[PhxBlue]

Angry but well-reasoned. :) Senator Schlamiel isn't likely to read an incoherent rant.

File Sharing Legal in Canada

[ryants]

A quick Google will pull up lots of other articles, I just picked one.

In short, a levy is paid on blank "audio" media (how they tell the different between blank "data" CDs and blank "audio" CDs is a bit beyond me). This levy gets dispersed to copyright holders in some magic way; in exchange Canadians are expressly allowed private copying, including peer-to-peer file sharing.

Blame Canada.

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada

[mrtroy]

Yes, be jealous.

There was rumours cd-r's were going to skyrocket in price as a result of that thought...however prices of cd-r's have dropped like a stone here just as they have everywhere.

So my 50 cents canadian (0.001 american dollars) is letting my have some legal file sharing

Yay for Canada! We also recently got electricity :P

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada

[stratjakt]

That's not true. Paying the levy doesnt mean you have a right to violate copyrights, its an admission that people will violate copyrights, and as a good socialist country, it's up to society to pick up the tab for their losses.

Think of it as a publicly funded insurance policy for the music biz. Nowhere in canadian law does it make it "legal" to copy music or software.

Tax dollars go to drug rehab programs too, but it doesnt mean using heroin is legal.

BTW, they make no distinction between data and audio CDs, because there really is no distinction. It's like ladies razors vs mens razors - the ladies Bic is pink, and thats the only real difference.

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada

[Mashiki]

His legal understanding of Candian law is right. And in Canada, you do have the right when you buy a pack of CDR's to copy music as long as it is for NON PROFIT USE.(Read the laws) The money has been collected by an agency(CPCC) that is directly redistributing back to the artists, they are getting their money wether you are using those CDR's for data or Audio, profit or not. Now, think on that, and wonder why Canada has one of the highest "piracy" rates in North America, it's because people already know they are paying for the goods that they haven't paid for!

I've gone over this a dozen times with lawyers to, the Industry Minister(Rock), to the Minister of Heritage(Copps) both people who are at the top of the new "levy", and the law is on the copiers side on this. I've met them face to face and gotten into nice little debates with them, I'm almost sure that the levy is going through. I love the prospect of dropping a $20 for a pack fo 10CDr's.

A note to my fellow Canadians, if you feel like buying an MP3 player with a HDD in it, do so now. They will be getting very expensive when the new levy comes out.

As for the last bit, ofcourse they don't make any distinction between data and audio CD's, how else could they pillage us at the store and still take our money and give it away to artists when we are doing something buying media for backups.

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada

[stratjakt]

No, you can borrow a work and copy it. You may not copy and then distribute a work, however, which is what file sharing is. Ie; you can leech, but not share.

Which is pretty much the way it is in the states, minus the levy. This is why the RIAA is targetting the sharers. If they could technically identify the leechers, they'd still have a tough time getting a judgement in court - at least not $150,000 a song type of stuff, the best they could get would be the retail value of the downloaded songs.

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada

[jandrese]

If you go into a BestBuy or something, there are two distinct types of CDr media. "Data" CDrs which are US$0.05 each and "Music" CDrs that are US$0.50 each. The Music discs have a few bits burned on them that lets them be used in those standalone CD duplictators, but are otherwise identical. Perhaps this is what they're talking about?

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada

[PainKilleR-CE]

Actually, in the states we pay a tax on music CD-R discs, as well. The money goes to the RIAA.

IIRC, though, they don't apply the tax on data CD-R discs in the US.

That being said, it doesn't permit people to copy music, just admits that they will. It also doesn't mean that people buying the discs are copying music, although buying music CD-Rs is like putting a flashing neon sign over your head that you're either copying music CDs (most likely), or are making your own CDs.

How the RIAA splits up the money is a mystery to me, though some research might dig it up. I'm sure it's a long convuluted series of transactions that eats up the majority of the money long before it gets to any artist, and that any artist that actually receives some amount of money from it is most likely not seeing a sales loss due to people copying their CDs.

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada

[hacker]

The prices on the media have dropped, because the media is manufactured with less protective layers than previously.. making it cheaper to make the disks, and forcing you, the customer, to have to "merge-and-purge" every 2 years or so, because the data on the disk degrades faster now, without those extra protective layers.

See this thread for more information on exactly that.

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada

[Mashiki]

That is the fine difference between laws in the US and Canada my friend. I'm not saying that we don't have our own problems up here with idiots trying to screw us over now(read corps and pollies actually they are much much worse), a new orgaization called the CRIA(sounds familiar doesn't it?), is trying to push for exactly the same laws up here that you have in the US but leave the levy intact.

Sharers right now are free, leechers are free for the time being to carry out what they want because of the media levy we have up here. Until they change copyright law up here, things are good, but the sneaky way that government works in Canada; they can change it before we know what hits us. And unless you pay very close attention to Canadian politics they'll slip it in as a "maintenance bill" or some other crud, in truth it's more of a "screw you up the ass, and watch us reap the profits bill".

I've lived in both countries and I know the laws of the US fairly well. We pay a levy and a tax, and a tax on the levy. Up here you pay out the ass for what you get, and if your going to get raped by the government, trust me the majority of the people will do what they can to reap from it.

I Hope They Don't Come After Me....

[BlackBolt]

I've downloaded gigs and gigs of stuff.

Music Piracy hurts Artists?

[Accord MT]

Boo Hoo! The artists are getting ripped off! Can we keep it real for a moment?

The "Artist" doesn't deserve squat.

There. I said it. You can go mod me down, call me Satan, whatever it is you do to those with opinions different than your own. Or you can grit your teeth and read on:

Most "pop" media (music, movies, even books) churned out today is more a product of the producer/publisher than it is a work of art. Except in rare circumstances, the writers, musicians and actors are merely useful brand names, interchangable and of no consequence to the studio's bottom line. Listen to two supposedly different albums with similar production credits. You'll see! Those identical drum beats and background orchestras aren't coincidences. This canned art is inserted as production's way of applying a dose tried-and-true to that brand new artist. "Artists" rarely exert any creative control over the work that will eventually bear their names.

Brittney Spears is hired for her ability to excite teenage boys (and some adult men) and her ability to sell Pepsi, and she is paid handsomely for it. Like most pop "artists" she is barely a part of the product upon which her brand name is stamped, and deserves little, if any, of the proceeds from record sales.

Re:Music Piracy hurts Artists?

[spamchang]

"The RIAA is the Recording Industry Association of America. It is not the Recording Industry and Artists Association of America. It says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle."

?Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, in an online forum in which he and the RIAA's Matt Opennheim answered questions from readers about the legality of downloading, copying and sharing digital music files.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june03/copyright .html

Re:Music Piracy hurts Artists?

[Patik]

If everyone had your attitude, real bands with musical talent would just stop making records. If you can manage to turn off MTV for a minute you'll see there is still plenty of decent, original music out there, it just doesn't get the same media attention as silky skin and plastic boobs. Just because your radio station only plays Linkin Park and Britney does not mean that's all the music there is. You'll just have to find alternative methods of exposing yourself to new music (talk to friends, attend festivals, mp3.com, etc). Try to put out a little effort of your own instead of sitting on your couch and letting the media and labels dictate what you know about music.

Re:gREAT! i'M ON THE LIST!!!

[BrynM]

Run.

Run fast.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor and retire to the Bahamas.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor and retire to the Bahamas and thank the RIAA for your new life.

yes but...

[fuckfuck101]

What is their definition of 'major offenders', I wonder if that definition changes from 'case to case' so to speak.

Doesn't sound like propaganda to me

[dswensen]

"...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."

Offenders must also confess to having been to the proletariat areas and consorted with the prostitutes, or they go to Room 101...

So let's see if we got it straight:

[burgburgburg]

The RIAA coordinates an industry-wide reduction in the amount of music released to increase the value of output. They do this to shore up the hyperinflated price of CDs (due primarily to collusion for which they have already had a civil judgement against them) and to attempt to make up for the decline in sales of cassettes, a format that they have actively worked at making obsolete. They also hope to continue to command their traditional percentage of discretionary teen/20s spending.

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?

Hypocracy.

[man_ls]

First we cry foul when companys sued and tried to regulate Internet Service Providers, into requiring them to keep the laws for their users.

Then, they became something of a "common carrier."

Now, RIAA is actually going after the people *who are breaking the law* and yet you are still complaining about it?

So what if its some 14-year-old kid in his house downloading the latest MP3 from his favorite band. It's still *breaking federal law* and, under that law, allows monetary damages to be collected by the person whose copyright was infringed.

This right is executed all the time in copyright infringement cases; if it didn't exist, nobody would protect their IP. IP violation fines are the deterrant to copying protected works. Just because the kid isn't even legally an adult yet, doesn't mean he can't break the law just the same.

Federal law allows up to $150,000 / violation. A violation is one infringed work (i.e. 1 unauthorized mp3 file. An "authorized" file is one you have permission to own -- either in writing by the copyright owner, for example, or because you own the CD and ripped it to your hard drive for easier listening.) In this respect, RIAA's $50k and we'll be done with it is more than reasonable, because *the government* would allow for fines of up to $4.5 million!!! for an amount such as 30 songs.

RIAA should produce better music if they want to maintain their customer base and prevent piracy. There needs to be more tangible benefits to purchasing the legal version of the song vs. downloading it. For me, this benefit is the fact that the CDs (1) sound considerably superior to the average 128kbit MP3 file (2) I can feel like I am at least pretending to support the artists I like, many of whom are on indie labels anyways, and (3) I get a physical product that I can take with me in my car to play on my car CD player, which doesn't like burned CDs; and I can make as many mp3s of it as I want, as long as I don't share them.

RIAA could adjust its business model, make it better to purchase the CD vs stealing it. Or, switch to a different modus operandi all together, and provide some new kind of operation.

Freenet!

[magoolsu]

This would be a good time to move to freenet. It might be slow but as more people use it the faster it will get and the less (almost no chance) of a chance that you will get one of those pesky little letters from the RIAA.

Support freenet and end the RIAA's little game!

You don't think.

[kkirk007]

I will rehash the classic argument: is it justifiable to violate the law if the system is broken? Yes, these people have violated copyright law. A copyright law which is profoundly WRONG.

Maybe you'll remember some other instances of people breaking the law...the Boston Tea Party...Minutemen militias...refusing taxation without representation...the Declaration of Independence...the list goes on...

Our forefathers saw that the system was wrong, they rebelled, many died. But in the end justice prevailed. Many people will get sued, bankrupted, go to prison; but I think that it's all our sincere hope and belief that rightousness will defeat corruption and that the RIAA will lose its stranglehold over american culture and society.

Re:You don't think.

[s20451]

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".

Re:You don't think.

[Angram]

You can break a law if you're willing to live with the consequences - many American revolutionaries died for their cause, many were imprisoned, and a few were left to be called "forefathers". If you're willing to face the jail time or shoulder the finincial reprecussions of file sharing, go right ahead. Civil disobedience only works when a huge number of people participate - the US civil rights movement had many casualties, but the majority of those involved were willing to become martyrs, so they were undeterred (or strengthened, perhaps) when their brothers-in-arms (unarmed as they were) were taken down.

You have the right to rebel, but they have the right to stop you. If enough people believe in a cause and are willing to die for it (or go to jail, etc.), they can make a difference quickly.

Whine?

[geekoid]

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.

morality and the law

[circletimessquare]

the law hasn't caught up with changes to morality which technology has wrought (as it has throughout human history)

you can't steal electrons and magnetic spins and bits that are effortlessly reproduced

you can steal atoms, like a car

at the very least, you must admit that they are not the same, and perhaps a new language has to be invented to descrive what file sharing is, for it is certainly not "stealing": you don't go out and physically remove the only file of a song on someone else's computer and leave a void when you "steal" music on the internet

there is nothing morally wrong with file swapping, unless you consider millions of teenager's love of music to be of secondary consideration to the financial well-being of a monopoly/ cartel

Re:gREAT! i'M ON THE LIST!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They ruined your life, you have nothing to live for. Buy an uzi and get them first.

Future of legal approach to piracy?

[strike3]

The "amnesty" program appears to create a cause of action for breach of contract -- kind of a "backup" weapon against these egregious violators.

At first blush this appears to also be a means of getting around the general un-enforceable nature of "shrinkwrap" or click-through licensing. The record labels would love to bind everyone who buys a CD to a contract promising not to illegally distribute its contents... with a liquidated damages clause specifying that should they catch you on Kazaa they get some huge, pre-defined sum.

Such a contract would make their lawyers' lives much easier -- but there's no way to easily bind everyone who buys a CD in this way. The law generally requires people to know the terms of a contract for it to be enforceable, and the music industry does not want to cover the front of each CD with a dense batch of legalese. Putting the terms inside the CD wouldn't work either -- just look at the problems both companies and users have dealing with software licenses that require installing the software to view the license.

Therefore, it appears the music industry is choosing to pursue a top-down approach, where the end users most statistically likely to pirate -- those who have already done so with a reckless disregard for the law -- are legally bound to not do so again. There is no way for these traders to claim they thought their actions were legal after signing this affidavit.

The file-swapping "industry" follows the common model of a relatively few number of users are providing the vast majority of the content. The music industry, I believe, feels it can stem the tide of piracy by corralling these relative few.

Also, since copyright violations are much harder to prove than breach of a (relatively) plain-language contract, the record companies are cutting to the chase, tilting the odds of a pro-RIAA judgment further in their favor.

Look for this to become a trend.

Here's a clue

[Potent]

Want to know how to avoid being sued by the RIAA? STOP SHARING THEIR MUSIC!!

I'm not trying to be flamebait - I hate them as much as any of the rest of you - but get a clue, folks!

The way to really do something about the whole 800 lb. gorilla that is the record industry is to STOP SHARING THE MUSIC.

When everyone stops, and their record sales continue to plummet, they won't be able to blame the internet for their problems.

"Gee, maybe it's not the internet! Maybe its the quality of our music and the money that we're charging for it."
--

1,000 songs?!

[cosmo_the_third]

The cut-off for "major offender" is about 1,000 songs? Call me crazy, but I don't think I know anyone with less than that. I have 1,800+ (all legally obtained archival copies, of course), but was still less than almost everyone else on my hallway during Freshman year. Hell, even my boss has 1,500 on his computer at work. I don't know whether it's good or bad that the RIAA has so little comprehension of the amount of files people are sharing.

Legally bound to my arse

[t_allardyce]

Ok i havnt RTFA and i dont no much about American copyright, but isnt there a law that says you must uphold copyright infringements, i.e you have no choice in who you sue, you have to sue everyone who infringes your work?

Either way, i wouldnt mind writing and signing a document promising that i will never buy a CD, do they have any of those forms ready yet?

Re:Legally bound to my arse

[saddino]

Ok i havnt RTFA and i dont no much about American copyright, but isnt there a law that says you must uphold copyright infringements, i.e you have no choice in who you sue, you have to sue everyone who infringes your work?

You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright.

Furthermore, you are not forced by law to protect trademarks: if you want to lose your trademark protection, by allowing others to infringe, then you certainly have the right to do so. However, if you want to protect your trademark, then yes, you need to actively enforce your rights.

Re:What's not clear

[Xerithane]

Is when the United States had the right to authorize business entitities to enforce the law. Is that really the country you want to live in? A country where any company can subpoena you?

Ok, lets clear up the water just a bit. A subpoena is this: A writ requiring appearance in court to give testimony. Anybody can subpoena information, with a court signature. If I file a lawsuit against you, you will be subpoenad.

The United States authorized business and persons to enfore the law when it introduced civil law. The RIAA isn't sending anybody to jail. The RIAA is enforcing civil law, which is within their rights as copyright holders. This is granted to everybody, not just companies. I have copyrights, just like virtually everybody else.

To sum this up:

• The people being sued had 1,000+ songs for download, with a most likely intent to violate copyright laws.
  
• The RIAA holds those copyrights, and has every right to protect the value of the copyright.
  
• The RIAA, with the exception of the vast number of subpoenas issued, is following the standard procedures in the law.
  
• This law has been around longer than the RIAA.
  

When the RIAA sued Napster, et al. you all said, "Sue the filesharers, not the company!" After they did that, you objected to that saying it was unconstitutional, etc. Do me a favor: Remember what you said a year ago, and stick with your convictions. You said it, they did it. Deal with it.

Here are ways to help not support the RIAA, and not seem like a total jackass:

• Purchase USED CDs from RIAA labels only.
  
• Purchase music produced from non-RIAA labels.
  
• Stop violating copyright law, because it gives the RIAA more legal power.
  

File Sharing is NOT Legal in Canada

[Rumor]

File downloading is legal, sharing or uploading is not. It's that simple. See my analysis at greplaw for more info.

Alternatives: Kuro5hin front page story

[Hell O'World]

Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads There is hope that we can get out of legal mess. This article says that 90% - 95% of artists are unsigned. There has got to be plenty of quality out there, waiting for the people to find them. With good collaborative filtering, we can find the music we want without those bastard lawyers. Musicians, don't sell out! We want to support you! Let us hear your work, and the money will come. I am downloading iRate right now.

In tonight's news

[davmoo]

The RIAA finally does what geeks have asked for years by going after the offenders instead of after P2P technology itself. And geeks still object. Film at 11.

I've got a very novel idea for avoiding a RIAA lawsuit. It is an idea that I'm sure will be unpopular, and I'm therefore also sure that this message will be moded down as flaimbait even though it is nothing of the sort, because that is how simpleminded moderators deal with a differing viewpoint here.

But my idea is simple...don't want to be sued by the RIAA? THEN DON'T SWAP COPYRIGHTED MUSIC WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.

Re:In tonight's news

[Anita Coney]

You're oversimplifying the situation. I'm about 40 and stopped buying music in about 1993. Ironically once alternative music broke into the mainstream, it became impossible to hear new good music.

However, I started buying music again after Napster came out. Suddenly, I was exposed to tons of music that never made its way to radio.

Whenever I hear about new music, I download a few samples, and buy what I like. I went from buying no music to about three CDs a month. Here's a great example, someone at /. mentioned the Japanese duo Puffy in their signature. I downloaded some songs, fell in love, and bought one of their CDs that night. Here's another example, I hear some Junior Brown in a Spongebob episode, download some of his stuff, and buy his first CD about a week later.

Exactly how does me buying MORE music justify me also paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil fees and being placed in jail with murders?! Either I'm crazy or the law needs to be changed.

time to setup FTP servers

[Petronius]

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.

Links to Legal Downloads at Kuro5hin

[MichaelCrawford]

On the front page today at Kuro5hin: my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads.

You don't need to worry about getting sued by the Recording Industry Assocation of America or arrested by the FBI if you download legal music. Many independent and unsigned musicians offer downloads of their music in hopes of attracting more fans. Here's some music from my friends The Divine Maggees, Oliver Brown and Rick Walker's Loop.pooL.

If everyone started downloading legal music instead of violating copyright with the file sharing programs, we would make short work of the RIAA, because people would start buying CDs directly from the artists and seeing their shows instead of enriching the major labels by buying CDs from the bands the labels have chosen for us to listen to. The RIAA would also have no cause to complain - these music downloads do not infringe copyright because the artists give you permission to download them.

The article is under a Creative Commons license. Please copy and distribute it. The copy on my website has particularly simple markup to enable easier copying.

Remember that CD prices are dropping too

[sielwolf]

Universal Music Group is cutting its prices by 30% (and note that UMG is by far the largest music multinational). Many think that this will push down many cds below the magic 10 dollar mark.

I guess it's up to each to decide if these two cancel out. Of course this does answer two of the biggest /. gripes against the music industry: the labels taking too big of a piece and over inflated SRPs. The only one left would be that the RIAA is a vindictive/cruel/abusive litigator... but how much effect does that have on a purchase? How many folks upon hearing this decide to not buy a cd (or pick up something indie... say Interpol Turn on the Bright Lights which was selling at 9.99 for the last year)?

I wouldn't go that far...

[sbma44]

But I do agree that there is little justification for the amount that artists are currently capable of earning. Call me a communist if you must, but I would be very happy to see a lot of musicians earning a good living than the current state of affairs: a very few who make exorbitant amounts of money, with the remaining majority unable to support themselves with music alone.

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?

Predictions

[Greyfox]

1) Next "Blaster" worm causes every Windows machine on the Internet to start sharing files.

2) 200 defendants in the last case blame the last "Blaster" worm and claim they had no idea their computers were sharing files.

The internet is still an excellent source for..

[msimm]

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.

eDonkey2000 not targeted

[dachang]

I noticed eDonkey2000 is not among the list of P2Ps for which EFF advised turning off upload. Is it because donkey is too small or is it because it is immune from RIAA?

So where are the FT emulators?

[doorbot.com]

Has anyone written a FT/Kazaa client that generates fake download listings?

For example, you search for "Metallica" and my Kazaa/FT client generates a fake listing (from some source list of Metallica songs I guess), and "offers" these songs to download. You try to download them, and you get added to the queue, but never successfully start the download. Thus the RIAA would try to prosecute you, but you have no actual files for share (although it would appear you have a large number of legitimate files available).

So one could setup honeypots for the RIAA...

The Ultimate Solution to RIAA...

[DavidBrown]

...is actually pretty simple: Boycott the Music Industry. It's all over-marketed crap anyway - the Madonna/Britney Spears kiss, for example, wasn't an artistic expression, it was a shock statement made to get people to watch the awards program and pay money to RIAA for the music manufactured by their neutered artists.

Stop stealing music. Stop buying music too. Support your local artists. Go to a local nightclub, watch the local bands, and happily pay the cover charge. Buy only CD's the performers sell themselves, and don't steal their music, because you'll be ripping of a performer, and not RIAA.

Your local garage band won't be a technically proficient, but they will be more honest and original, even if they are a cover band playing other peoples' music.

Don't get Amnesty

[Apreche]

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!

Re:Don't get Amnesty

[Zed2K]

"If I got sued, I would fight."

Its extremely easy to say that anonymously. If you don't have a family or don't have anyone to look out for. If you don't need to worry about your job or money then yeah...sure it would be easy to just fight back. But unfortunately most of the people they are going after can't afford to lose everything just to fight the RIAA over some music files.

Re:Don't get Amnesty

[Stormie]

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.

Just out of curiosity, on what grounds do you think a person "with balls enough to fight" is going to win the case?

I mean, we're talking people who are sharing thousands of copyrighted songs. I think we can assume it likely that they are real songs, not cleverly renamed mp3's of white noise intended to honeypot the RIAA's searchers. So the defendents are going to be in a situation where (a) they have actually broken the law, and (b) they are being sued by the sort of lawyers the RIAA can afford to pay, i.e. experienced and aggressive ones.

How do you think they're going to win? I know you all think the RIAA is evil and the laws are unreasonable, and I agree with you. But I say this with absolute confidence: if any of these 261 people being sued stands up and fights tool and nail in the courtroom, they will lose, and they will be crucified.

Re:gREAT! i'M ON THE LIST!!!

[Talez]

Well, IANAL but if I was in your shoes I'd take the following road:

1) Question the RIAA's copyright on the MP3 files. This can be fought using two arguments:

a) Did the RIAA make the MP3 file? No.

b) Should they inherit the copyright on the MP3 file? This should be a dispute between the person that originally encoded the file and the RIAA.

c) Can a judge decide who owns the copyright on the MP3 file? Not really. This is where argument 2 comes in.

2) MP3s are just random bitstreams.

a) Until they are put through a specific algorithm, MP3s remain random bitstreams that could really be anything from Madonna's latest single to a recording of modem line noise.

b) Whats to stop the RIAA from taking a sample from your hard drive, putting it through any algorithm it damn well feels like and then making it out to be copyright infringment?

c) The bitstream may be a derivative of the original song and it may not. Whether this is merely co-incidence is up to the person that created the MP3 file in the first place. This is where the argument from 1c comes into play. How can the judge declare that you're violating copyright when only the person who originally created the bitstream knows how it was created.

While none of those have been tested in court, I wonder if they would work.

Now to prevention. Use the overly broad DMCA against them. Before starting a transmission for a file include this message in clear ASCII:

"This file and any contents within have been encoded. This file is intended to be received and decoded by any member of the public wishing to use these files. However, these files may not be decoded if the person's intent is litigation. Any attempt to decode this file will be in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act."

Sure its a long shot.

Any lawyers care to comment?

How long???

[OneFix at Work]

How long until some out of country ISP (that doesn't have to comply with the RIAA) starts offering a P2P tunneling service?

The only thing the RIAA will achieve in doing this is to make sure all of the big trader's IP numbers resolve to an off-shore ISP.

Re:How long???

[TheRealStyro]

And for the truely paranoid conspiracy theorist - how long until the riaa starts an off-shore tunnel/p2p-service to monitor stateside filesharers and then use that info to prosecute stateside.

"Ok, US citizen Mr.Doe, we have the number and titles of illegal content you downloaded, illegal content you provided to others, times & dates & IP addresses used, profiles used, money you paid for the service and your credit card numbers....How will you be paying that $50 million?"

Re:How long???

[OneFix at Work]

Anyone who would purchase such a service would probably be smart enough to do a whois lookup on the domain first...

Simple solution

[Alomex]

There is a very simple way to have the RIAA put a stop to all this: stop buying records from them. Zero, zilch, nada.

If all p2p users were to do that, the RIAA would backtrack in an instant. I think there are enough readers in /. that even if only us were to boycott, its impact would be felt by the RIAA...

Re:Sources for free legal RIAA music

[Wooo]

Amazingly enough, this allows you to rip streaming audio onto your hard drive. I just tune in to shoutcast and streamripper rips each song using the meta data in the stream.

Separates each song and writes id3 information for each track. It may not be cd quality, but works great for any portable media player.

Here;s an idea

[captainclever]

you could check out http://www.last.fm

a free radio station that streams you personalised content and has a LOT of non-mainstream stuff

Turn the tables around...

[Nugget]

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.

Hi. You're a liar.

[revscat]

Unless the Democrats decide they don't like those appointments, which is why they've been delaying every single one of Bush's nominations to the federal courts.

I don't know what wingnut propaganda outlet you get your news from, but it's obviously rotted your mind. To date, Bush has had 117 federal judicial nominees approved by the Senate. This is completely in line with historical norms. Reagan had 293 appointments over his two terms, Bush Sr. had 150 appointments, and Clinton had 306 over his two terms.

So I fail to see where you see evidence that the Democrats are delaying appointments. If there were any delaying going on whatsoever these numbers would be much lower.

Source

Re:Hi. You're a liar.

[gordgekko]

Ah statistics. Raw numbers sound impressive but they mean nothing. The fact of the matter is that history actually proves that Bush the Younger's judicial nominees are getting the shaft.

Former presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton each saw most of their circuit court nominees confirmed -- 100 percent, 95 percent, 96 percent and 86 percent, respectively. For George W. Bush, that number is a paltry 53 percent and, unlike his predecessors, he has had many of his initial nominees ignored completely.

I'm sure Miguel Estrada, who was stonewalled because he was a Hispanic judge that didn't toe the Democratic Party line, might disagree with you on whether delays are going on.

Finally, the Senate Democrats themselves announced they would delay appointments. They issue a fscking statement to the media saying exactly that. Proof enough for you? Do I have to get Tom Daschle to call you and tell you exactly the same thing?

Re:Hi. You're a liar.

[commodoresloat]

Bush appointments have been delayed more than his predecessors because he's been more egregious than his predecessors about trying to pack the courts with right-wing ideologues. Estrada not being confirmed had zero to do with his ethnicity and everything to do with the fact that he's simply not qualified. Even his employer at the Justice department said he "lacks the judgement" to be an appeals court judge and that he is "too much of an ideologue." To make matters worse, he refused to answer basic questions about his judicial philosophy during Senate hearings.

Let's get Al Kaida to take out the RIAA!

[Simonetta]

Let's get some copies of the CDs that have people reading the holy Koran that are sold on Islamic web sites.
We'll convert them to MP3s and add them (correctly labeled) to the lists of files available for downloading on thousands of P2P file sites.
Then, when the RIAA orders these sites to shut down, we'll send e-mails to the Saudi Arabian embassy complaining that the RIAA is trying to destroy the sharing of the word of the prophet.
The Saudis will put out the word to their old buddy Osama that the RIAA is now an enemy of Islam and issue a fatwa authorizing its destruction, like the mad Ahyatolla in Iran did to Salmon Rushdie. A modest reward of a few million bucks will help encourage the faithfull to answer the call. After all, what's a few million to the Saudis when the recordings of readings from the holy Koran is at stake?
The RIAA will be so busy trying to hide from a billion fanatical Moslems that they will lose interest in destroying the lives of the ordinary people who are more interested in just listening to music than killing them.

'When you have multiple enemies with great strength trying to destroy you, the best way to fight back is to get your enemies to turn against each other and ignore you. ' - Machievelli (more or less)

Let's Just Do It! We have to start doing something creative to protect ourselves from these assholes!

Re:Let's get Al Kaida to take out the RIAA!

[mithras the prophet]

Yes, I think international terrorism is an appropriate response to the effort to stop illegal filesharing.

The Amnesty Documents

[thumbtack]

We've downloaded the amnesty documents from the RIAA owned Music United and made them available on boycott-riaa.com for those of you who don't want your ip grabbed by the borg.
2 page PDF describing the program
2 page PDFof the affidavit.

Remember the RIAA only represents the interests of labels and performers and can only give amnesty for those rights. The RIAA doe NOT represent the copyrights of the publishers and songwriters who could still sue. And they could subpoena the RIAA for that information. This is a publicity stunt. If you accept the program, bend over and spread'em you're about to get screwed.

Defense Strategies

[cribcage]

Everyone, including myself, has already sounded off their opinions about every facet of this issue. Even this story isn't really "news"; it's simply an official statement of something we knew was inevitable. Rather than revisit old arguments, then, let's try to offer some new thoughts. And in that spirit: If any defendants are reading this, now, here are a few tips, should you go to trial. (I have studied law, and I have served on a jury. If that qualifies this advice, so be it.)

1. Everything is sales. This is certainly true of trial law. Those 12 jurors are, ultimately, American consumers. They are bombarded with consumerism day and night, and one thing is true of American consumers: If they want to buy it, they will. (Witness the success of the SUV.) Make them want to buy your story.
2. Introduce yourself. It's much easier to royally screw "The Defendant" than it is Billy, or Jake, or Tom. The first words out of your lawyer's mouth should be, "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John. This is Billy." Your first name should be the most repeated word in the courtroom. If Juror #12 has a son your age, you want her unable to separate her son's face from yours during deliberations.
3. Dress sharply. Packaging is a crucial element of marketing. Your appearance will matter -- to jurors, to the judge, and even to your personal confidence and demeanor at your table and on the stand. If you come down to your last $1,000 and you can't decide whether to buy food or pay your lawyer, do neither: Buy a suit. Check out Alan Flusser, or another expert for advice. Straighten your tie. Button your collar. Wear a blue shirt. If you think it sounds silly, consider this: If the jury finds against you in the amount of $12 million, you're going to spend the night sitting awake in bed, asking yourself, "Did I do absolutely every little thing I could have done?"
4. Smile."More bees with honey," and so forth. You can't overestimate the value of a good impression. Watch a reality dating show, some afternoon. You'll hear plenty of folks say about their blind date, "When I first saw him, he was smiling. That really put me at ease, and I felt very comfortable." Your jury should be convinced that you are a warm, friendly person. "Caring" is a nice adjective, too...but seriously, it should fall third, behind "warm" and "friendly." Put your jury at ease.
5. Admit your anger. This is a cardinal rule for criminal trials, but you might find it useful here. Some lawyers will tell you, "Remain calm. Never flash anger." That's bunk. The jury knows you're not a robot, and they will distrust you if you act like one. You shouldn't get visibly upset every time a witness for the other side says something against you, of course. But if you take the stand, it can help if you admit, "I'm angry, at being in this position." In criminal trials, take it a bit further: Admit that you resent the jury. Don't antagonize them, and be careful how you speak...but admit the truth. "I am not guilty of this crime. And truthfully, I'm angry. I resent the fact that you 12 people are going to decide whether I may remain free. I don't mean to offend you...but I resent this. I'm not guilty, and I'm angry that you have the power to lock me up for something I didn't do." It's natural. If you admit your resentment (without hostility), the jury is reminded that you're a man. An innocent man.
6. Consider delivering your own closing argument. Don't represent yourself, of course. Even if you are an attorney, you'd be a fool not to hire someone else. But when the time comes for summations, it's often best to favor the human argument over the legal. The jury has already heard the law -- and they'll be reminded of it again, when the judge offers instructions. Be a salesman. Be yourself. Stand up, and sell yourself. Speak, don't read. Use notecards if you must, but don't read a speech. Just talk. Make eye contact. Take the

Re:Defense Strategies

[jimius]

This is the saddest stuff I've seen so far, to actually have to do this in order to try and win. I thought courts were about justice, deciding guilt and innocence and not a theater in which you try gaining the favour of some strangers.

Re:Defense Strategies

[AntiOrganic]

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.

Re:Defense Strategies

[Blkdeath]

This arguement strongly points out the 'I'm just like you only different' (if the prosecution's objection is not sustained that is).

Funny thing about humans; just because someone in a robe tells them to, they can't just erase something from their mind.

IANAL, of course, but I'm sure there are thousands of lawyers who've intentionally uttered an objectionable phrase for the sole purpose of the jury being able to hear it. If it causes them even a moment to ponder, that could mean the difference between guilty and not.

forget the RIAA, download OTHER music

[Stephen Samuel]

The RIAA doesn't have a monopoly on music. They just have a monopoly on getting music into the media.

Kuro5hin has a recent article which explains the issue, including pointers to archives with about 40,000 music titles that are legal to download.

Boycott the RIAA, and start downloading / buying music that isn't theirs. Support artists who make good music and don't have access to the RIAA's media juggernaut.

..only if they sign a different vow

[HBK-4G]

...stating that they would never mislead the public about decreasing CD sales, increased piracy, and that little debacle about price fixing.

Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing. We'll make you sign this binding agreement never to do this illegal thing ever again, while we'll go about price fixing and law-dodging and make every attempt to keep it out of the news.

My sworn admission to the RIAA

[MadCow42]

Dear RIAA:

I swear under oath that in the last 12 months I have legally purchased at least 5 CD's of your artist's music. I further swear that I will permanently refrain from ever doing it again. I hope this meets with your satisfaction, as treating your customers as thieves can only have one intended result.

MadCow.

Look it up...

[wirelessbuzzers]

Piracy, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it.

--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Here's my letter, send to my two senators...

[MachineShedFred]

Mr. Senator,

There is a phrase that has been a part of United States Government for the last 225+ years, and I'm sure you are familiar with it:

"Innocent until proven guilty"

There is a phrase that all of us should strive to live up to. Reversed, it resembles totalitarian regimes of the past, including Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. It is something that every American should strive to live up to in both their personal and professional lives.

Unfortunately, the United States legal system appears to be moving away from that ideal.

The RIAA is now sending subpoenas and notice of lawsuits to citizens throughout the United States, and these citizens will have to defend their innocence in a court of law, rather than the plaintiff backing up their accusations with incontrovertible evidence.

Let me give an example:

1. John Q. Wallet goes and Legally buys a CD from the local Fred Meyer / Best Buy / Circuit City, and takes it home.

2. John has a slow computer, but an MP3 player and wants to listen to his music under Fair Use Rights, upheld through case law in the courts. "Ripping" said music takes longer than downloading it off his high-speed internet. He downloads the music he has a legal license for.

3. John gets picked up on some type of scanner that the RIAA has on the Internet.

4. John gets served with a copyright infringement lawsuit, ending up paying countless dollars in legal fees to prove that he had the CD, and the fair use rights to the intellectual property contained on the media.

I have a real problem with this, and I hope you do too. Artists should be paid for their compositions and performances, but customers should be able to use their licenses for whatever they want within the law.

Example 2: Sharing

If I leave my car unlocked in a bad neighborhood, does that make me a felon if my car gets stolen?

If I own a store, and someone shoplifts from me, does that make me the shoplifter?

Are the cable and satellite TV companies getting sued when someone commits Theft of Service?

Then why are the people hosting files on the Internet getting sued for having files available for download?

As we speak, the "Filesharers" are being served with court notices. These are people that possibly aren't doing anything wrong, but the RIAA is sending their lawyers to work, without any hard evidence of wrongdoing. I'm sure you understand the law far better than me, but I see this as a criminal court -vs- civil court loophole:

If you have evidence, take it to a judge and he'll sign the arrest warrant. If you don't have evidence, file a civil suit and bury them so far under paperwork that they will be ruined financially when they eventually file for bankruptcy.

Innocent people filing for bankruptcy after being sued by a corporation with hundreds of lawyers and hundreds of millions of dollars. That is an America I would rather not see happen.

Re:Here's my letter, send to my two senators...

[DeepRedux]

There is no "Fair Use" right to download and MP3 rip of a track, even if you have purchased a CD containing the track. This was decided in the my.mp3.com case.

From the decision:

... although defendant seeks to portray its service as the "functional equivalent" of storing its subscribers' CDs, in actuality defendant is replaying for the subscribers converted versions of the recordings it copied, without authorization, from plaintiffs' copyrighted CDs. On its face, this makes out a presumptive case of infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976...

Re:Here's my letter, send to my two senators...

[Courageous]

Innocent until proven guilty"

This has never been the standard in civil cases, which is "preponderance of the evidence".

C//

only if you accept their premise

[sweatyboatman]

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.

How many songs was that?

[Vantage13]

RIAA President Cary Sherman in a teleconference today characterized the people who were sued as "major offenders" who distributed about 1,000 copyrighted music files on average.

She later clarified that statement by saying, "In some cases it was only one song, but on a really, really, fast connection"

Plenty of bands ALLOW you to share

[puzzled]

The Grateful Dead
Widespread Panic
Phish
Moe

Those are four I listen to - excellent music - freely available via Torrent. Plenty more out there if you go looking. Oh, you want ass sucking top forty crapola? Well that, my friend, will cost you $15.98/CD and it won't change.

The bands don't suck, they do what the RIAA member execs tell them. The RIAA doesn't suck, they enforce their copyrights. The fans? Yes, most of the fans suck, and specifically their taste in music is the source of the sucking.

I will now go chill out and listen to some feelgood hippie music I downloaded :-)

Antiquation

[An Onerous Coward]

It seems like the music industry is dying because it has vastly overestimated the value of the product it sells.

When CDs first came out, they were about the coolest way to spend money. There were no DVDs, movies came on cumbersome magnetic tapes which degraded quickly, and the software of the day just wasn't compelling to most people (and also came on cumbersome magnetic media).

The prices for CDs have hardly fallen since.

Today, you can spend $20 on a DVD. Technically, it's also just a piece of plastic, but it carries a couple of hours of data for the eyes as well as the ears. Or you can buy a video game for $35-$50 that lets you actively participate in the entertainment. Being non-linear, a video game could provide anywhere from 0 to thousands of hours of entertainment. Then there is cable TV, where for the price of a couple CDs a month, you get 24-hour access to lots of different crap.

With a CD, you get about an hour worth of music (I've seen some go as low as 40 mintues), and even if you really like all the songs, it only engages your ears. Hence, on average, CDs are less entertaining.

Nor is the CD a convenient format for anything but home use. Keep your CDs in your car, and they inevitably get ruined or stolen. So for your convenience you burn yourself a copy for your car, making it more valuable to you. But the industry isn't simply failing to increase the value of its product, it's trying to interfere with the ripping and burning that could make the content more convenient (and hence more valuable).

Re:Antiquation

[glwtta]

It seems like the music industry is dying

Oh crap, does this mean that we have to wait for Apple and BSD to die before the music industry finally kicks it? Because that may take a looong time.

Re:Antiquation

[geekee]

"With a CD, you get about an hour worth of music (I've seen some go as low as 40 mintues), and even if you really like all the songs, it only engages your ears. Hence, on average, CDs are less entertaining."

So why does the average person watch a movie they like only once or twice, but if someone likes an album, he'll listen to it repeatedly. There is a value to music that is different from a movie. The amount of data required to reproduce it is irrelevant and claiming that lack of visual stimulation means it is less valuable is oversimplifying. It's the file sharers who are unfairly lowering the value of music by offering it to everyone for free.

If you are being sued, claim Safe Harbor provision

[mTor]

DMCA has safe harbor provisions for ISPs. You can become an "ISP" if you share your internet connection using a wireless router.

I already wrote about this in another thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77293&cid=6876 918

Bzzzt.

[Durindana]

Sorry for the snark.

Seriously, I don't believe that's correct. Regardless of any contract existing between you and the RIAA, prosecution for copyright violation and civil litigation for damages incurred should proceed along the usual lines.

You cannot enforceably contract to forbear from illegal activity any more than you can contract to commit illegal activity. Or rather, you can do so but the promise is not binding. Such a promise, I believe, is contra bonos mores and unsupported by consideration.

IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot.

one more thing

[wmaker]

an mp3 is not the original quality off the CD, mp3 is a loss language which (unlike .wav and .shn files) means... do they really have a copyright on that mp3 as it's a modified version of the song?

Share Offline

[DanielRavenNest]

Take a laptop or a USB hard drive around to
friends and combine your mp3 collections.
Burn a CD spindle or two full of mp3s and
pass it around some more. Ask your co-workers
to borrow their CD collection a little at a
time.

These methods are a little more work than
downloading from KaZaa, but the RIAA can't
spy on you as easily, either.

time to fight back

[frost22]

How often did you hear that ? Time to fight back ? Tired of that phrase ? Maybe you shouldn't - since nobody does it, right now.

It is time to fight back. No, I don't mean to step up to protect your rights. To Speak out against the overreach of copyright law. "Getting involved" or some such nonsense.

The problem is, all that is really defense. And defense, by definition, is war on the territory your enemy choses, at the time of your enemie's choice. You are doomed to loose.

You ... are ... doomed ... to looose!

It is now time to take the fight to the enemy. The RIAA, by suing ordinary citizens and publicly declaring its intent to instill fear in everyone's hearts, has officially declared war. War on You, The People. And still it is You The People who governs this land. Now this is personal, and this is everyone's fight. Stop begging for mercy from an overbearing oponent. Write off the those who get sued - that is Their War, and Their time. Those few are doomed anyway, soldiers who have fallen, if you want so.

Now your target is the music industry itself. Destroy the music industry. Defeat them utterly ! Attack their livelyhood. Drive them to bankruptcy ! Identify their weaknesses, and attack them there.

Destroy the music industry

It is up to you! You The People. Pass laws that undermine their revenue. Pass laws that curb their marketing. Seize their IP assets for misuse. Pass taxes that reduce their profits, have DAs raid their coke snorting execs, destroy the careers of their political lackeys. Do whatever it takes.

And, above all, be open with it. Cry out loud, that nothing will satisfy you than their utter defeat. Go and win the public debate. Dont appeal to politicians, appeal to the people. Be Creative to get your message out. Others have well developed tactics for that - use them.
Drive them into defense. Get them into hiding. Make it so that music execs' children will hesitat to admit their parent's jobs. That churches exclude them from posts. Make them universally hated and feared. Make it that their execs cant even sleep at night any more because their fear of you, and of failure, is haunting their dreams.

And then go out for the kill. And kill the beast, have no mercy! Dismantle the RIAA, RICO the Big five, put their execs to jail, and fire the rest.

Someone should send the leading music indutry people a good book on the history of another large and powerful institution. An association of huge wealth and immense power, that grew arrogant and became so full of itself that it started to ignore and trample those who actually ruled the land.

And when the last Templar Knights agonized towards their deaths on the fires on Paris streets, their once mighty order became all but a footnote of failure in history.

Or a perpetual memento: "Such is the fate of those, who deem themselves above all others, and their power beyond limits"

Interesting tidbit

[rihock]

I see that RIAA has taken action against downloaders. What I find interesting is an article in the new Wired magazine about a company called champagne that collects download information and then sells it to the record companies so that they can use it for marketing research. Basically it'll tell them what cuts are hot off an album and how to select the next 'single.' The information can also be used to convince music stations to play certain songs due to the download popularity. So my point is--why are they suing on one hand, while using the services as a valuable marketing tool? It seems so counterintuitive.....

Like we must accept yours?

[kcornia]

Conversely, I could argue that sharing your competitors music could saturate the genre such that people get tired of it and move on.

My claim is no more spurious than yours...

Why the RIAA should be scared

[JonSari]

Simple: the Internet is more efficient than their corporations. They are fighting (and suing) to keep their inefficient distribution system in place because most of the money in the record industry pays for distribution (publishers, distributers, retailers).

It is simple to set up a licensing scheme for music content, but they don't want it because the price would go way down if music simply shot over the network to those who wanted it. If consumers had real choice over which songs they wanted to pay for. If we found out about good music by hearing DJs spin who make the same amount of money as the rest of us.

Ignore the smoke and mirrors of the current litigation and support systems like iTunes where you pay what songs are worth. Cut out the RIAA middlemen! Artists deserve to be paid for creating music. Copyright law was invented to incent artists. The RIAA has hijacked that system through its monopoly on distribution and now is the time to take it back from them!

A war on many fronts:Misinformation and the lot

[felonious]

I all sides to the current arguments on this subject and could easily side with most. What gets me of late is the people who say this argument is nothing but two spoiled kids arguing over a topic of inconsequential value. This would be my reply yot that...

1)Yes we have some very important issues in this day and age. War, economy, healthcare, etc.
2)There are better rights to fight for than downloading music without fear of retribution.
3)The RIAA is grasping at straws.

With all of that being said I can move on to my point...

This isn't simply about downloading music or demonizing and archaeic institution/business model.
This isn't about spoiled kids whining about a god-given luxury.

The underlying theme here is illegal, unethical, and forgoing of certain rights as guaranteed under our constitution. I'm not talking about our right to download free music. I'm talking about punishing copyright infringement reasonably if at all.

Why aren't people upset over a corporation issuing it's own sopoenas without judicial oversight?

Why aren't people challenging their local politicians over passing such bills?

Why are politicians selling our rights as guaranteed under the constitution in exchange for campaign donations?

The laws being past as related to the drm and dmca reach much farther than downloading mp3's. Just think of how it pertains to the future and the extent the corporations will go to to protect their outdated business models. They don't give a damn if you rot in jail for enternity as long as the profits keep rolling in and the American public does nothing to change it. I guess you could say the entire world does nothing as a whole except whine and complain isntead of actually mounting some kind of grass roots uprising.

I hope everyone understand that I'm not even talking about mp3's. I'm talking about our laws and rights and where this is all leading in our collective futures. I'm not some right wing, over conservative thinker with alterior motives protecting my own personal interests. I'm about protecting the rights I've always had and I can see them slowly slipping away, bit by bit. I don't want it to be too late when "joe Average" starts to understand because by then it will be too late and there's no new "America" that we can set forth on ships to regain our freedoms.

The time to act is now and time is of the essence. Don't make this about music. Make this about maintaining what we have always had. The fight with the RIAA is the first of many battles of which will be a long, drawn out war of attrition. Our power is in our voices, pockets, and numbers. We cannot let the greedy few sell our rights in exchange for money and job security.

We can win this...

do you believe those being sued are innocent then?

[Matt Ownby]

I kind of thought that everyone was taking for granted that those being sued are probably guilty and that their antics have finally caught up with them. But this post of yours sounds as if you geniunely believe that these people are innocent. Do you believe that they are innocent and that the RIAA has unfairly targeted them? Or do you believe that they are guilty but that the RIAA is a greater offender and therefore should be thwarted at every turn?

The saccharine taste of silly logic.

[Inoshiro]

"If I leave my car unlocked in a bad neighborhood, does that make me a felon if my car gets stolen? ....

Then why are the people hosting files on the Internet getting sued for having files available for download?"

Availability. If you are a person who's handing out drugs to 12-year-olds, if you're leaving guns laying around, if you're leaving bottles of whiskey on your passenger side seat -- in all cases you are the agent by which something considered negative is happening.

In this case, it's considered negative to content creators to have their content distributed without their consent. By making them available to download, you are no different than people in Hong Kong who hawk copies of DVDs and music which haven't been officially released yet. Yes, you aren't charging anything, but you are dilluting its value by making it available without control. You damage the value of the rights which control the content as much as if you were on a Hong Kong street corner yourself.

Maybe if you'd look at things logically, instead of trying to fop off an illegal activity as legit, you'd see this.

I don't share copyrighted material on P2P networks because it's wrong. I do not have permission to distribute, disseminate, or otherwise share something unless I own the entire rights to it. If I do not respect this, how would I expect other people to respect these rights in regards to content I create (specifically, my writting and GPL programs which all fall under the same copyright law)?

I'm still lost, here.

[syukton]

I've used this comparison before and I'm using it again now: If I leave my front door open one day and somebody waltzes in and walks off with my television, do the police arrest me (for leaving the door open) or the person who walked off with my tv (for stealing)? The latter, of course.

So when I leave my files available for download, what law have I broken? I'm just leaving the front door open, letting people peruse. It's up to THEM to break the law and download the file. If I own every album that every MP3 I possess comes from, what law have I broken by *ALLOWING* others to download from me? I'm not encouraging it, I'm not endorsing it, but I'm allowing it to happen.

So I'm lost. Why hasn't this issue been raised yet? Are we waiting until the first court case to bring up that leaving the front door open is not illegal? Having an open file share with no password on a Windows platform computer isn't illegal, so why should this be?

Legalities of fuzzy recordings

[ColaMan]

Something I've wondered about is the legalities of 'fuzzy' recordings.

eg : you download a 160kbps MP3, the RIAA gives you a court order for copyright infringement. The copyright is for a song that they have the rights for.

But is their copyright valid for the digital representation of the song? The RIAA'd argue yes , of course it is, after all CD's contain binary 16 bit samples of audio at 44.1kHz.

But, even with your leet 160kbps mp3, you don't have an exact duplicate in it's entirety - not by a long shot. Could you argue that your MP3 is just a summary of the original work? It's 1/10th the size, isn't it? To draw (hah!) a parallel in the art world, does my rough sketch of monet's sunflowers constitute copyright infringement? Hardly.

Take a leaf from the SCO debacle, and print out a copy of both the CD digital audio and your MP3 onto paper and politely ask the prosecutor to underline the offending parts of your data for you. Just the sheer difference in size of your printouts would go some way in convincing the court that they are not the same.

If they pull the "for all intents and purposes" response, just wheel out the expert witnesses and the double-blind tests, and the sonographs of distortion. You should be able to prove that the audio that your collection of bits on your drive represent is completely different to the audio from the collection of bits on the CD.

What am I missing here? Why is this defence not used?

Re:Legalities of fuzzy recordings

[elflord]

But, even with your leet 160kbps mp3, you don't have an exact duplicate in it's entirety - not by a long shot. Could you argue that your MP3 is just a summary of the original work? It's 1/10th the size, isn't it? To draw (hah!) a parallel in the art world, does my rough sketch of monet's sunflowers constitute copyright infringement? Hardly.

In both cases, you'd need to appeal to the "fair use" doctrine. In the case of the Sunflower, the appeal is more compelling, because you could argue that you're doing it for "educational purposes", and the extent of the copying is rather small.

A more analogous case to the sunflower example would be that you transcribed the song and made your own recording for your own personal use.

I think in your rough-recording example, the low quality of the recording could be part of a fair use argument, but you'd need to appeal to other factors as well.