Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Threatens More Music-Lovers
Xenographic writes "According to this article at SFGate, the RIAA has warned 204 more people that they are pursuing legal action against them. After the uproar over the last batch of lawsuits, however, they're not (yet) suing the people in question, but intend to allow them to settle out of court, first."
I love music, and I've not been threatened. Maybe they're going after people who violate copyright law. *shocker*
Cut off their revenue stream by listening to bands that they don't own! You know, bands that would love for you to download their music.
It is the responsibility of copyright holders to seek out and eliminate infringement. More importantly, the symbolic act of punishing these few pirates should have an impact on the much larger number of IP thiefs who are going unpunished.
But I think they should devote more energies to rooting out the real source of piracy: The criminals who run peer-to-peer file sharing systems. Lets face it, there are too many people right now pirating music for a policy of individual punishment to be effective. The only 100% effective solution is cutting off the piracy at the source. An important component of this should be the building-in of DRM technology to internet protocols, so that copyrighted information cannot be sent over the network without permission from copyright holders. This ultimate solution would make piracy, if not possible, at least unavailable except on private networks, which since they would clearly exist only for the purpose of piracy, would be easy to shut down legally. With these and other steps, I think it will be possible for a succesful monetization of electronic media distribution, which is the best thing for consumers and corporations alike.
Why doesn't someone just go to court? When I was in college, I had literally nothing they could take from me except for a waterbed and a shitty 486. No way in hell I would have settled. I would have looked for some kind of free representation, or failing that, just represent myself. Even if I lost it would cost them money, and say I had 100 songs they were suing over at $150k each, that's $15 million. How in the world is a broke college student going to pay a $15 million dollar fine? Surely everyone would see it as ludricrous that downloading 100 songs would incur a $15 million dollar fine.
Fucking RIAA. Looks like they've figured out that bullying people under the threat of litigation is a lucrative way of doing business. Reminds me of SCO and those companies that exist solely to buy patents and then try to sue the pants off of people. Isn't there some sort of law against using the threat of expensive litigation to get people to just give you some sort of money? I know settling out of court is legal and all, but it just seems like this is blackmail.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
After the uproar over the last batch of lawsuits, however, they're not (yet) suing the people in question, but intend to allow them to settle out of court, first.
The intention was always to make people settle out of court. Even the RIAA knows people won't stand for hundreds of lives ruined finacially, so they just want to scare some into settling, and more into abandoning p2p.
Oh, and here's a comic on the subject.
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
okQuit being cheap little whores. When you engage in sexual relations without benefit of clergy, you're doing so illegal and subject to the laws of your jurisdiction, and you deserve to be killed for it!
By the way, if downloading music is illegal, how many people have been arrested for it? You appear to be confusing the civil proceedings brought by the RIAA with actual criminal cases, which can only be prosecuted by the government. Fact is, in the US anybody can sue anybody for anything -- I could even sue you for being an asshole. The fact that a person has been sued does not in and of itself prove any wrongdoing.
Seriously... they aren't gonna stop music pirates or people who share music.
It is so obvious that music sharing has absolutely no impact on CD sales. If you want proof, look at Outkast who recently released their double CD. Sales SKYROCKETED. That CD was in circulation weeks before it was released.
Look how long the industry's been trying to stop warez and how they claim it hurts the industry. Almost everyone I know has a pirated copy of Windows. Doesn't seem to hurt MS.
Yeah yeah, the hardcore anti-pirates on slashdot will probably keep posting "Good, these criminals deserve it," but in all, even if they do deserve it, it's not going to sway public opinion or fix the problem.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Why can't people like you get it through your heads that the only way to change the law is through civil disobediance? If we let them take music away because it's the law then we don't deserve the music, do we?
Candy-Coated Knowledge
A) Laws aren't made in heaven.
B) If everyone thought like you do, we would still have seperate-but-equal, India would still be under British control, and abortion would be illegal everywhere.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Say rather than the RIAA is within their rights, not justified.
Claiming they are justified because there's a law that allows them to do so it merely an appeal to authority and specious.
I wont mince words; although, like others, I welcome an acceptable middle ground, I reject the notion that the RIAA has an absolute right to resort to any tactic to prevent themselves being put out of business.
>It is only illegal to upload copyrighted songs.
If only it were so black and white. If you were correct, it would not be possible for something like sourceforge to exist. It is only illegal to upload copyrighted works if the owner of those rights has not given permission.
Just because someone owns a copyright, does not automatically make it illegal to copy or distribute that work, but it does put the control of that decision in the hands of the holder of the copyright.
My music is copyright, but I'd consider it perfectly ok for it to be distributed however and by whomever would be interested. When the RIAA folks swing their fist, they hit my nose: I do not want to be forced to take some action just to make it OK to distribute my works. If the media folks get their way, it will be that much harder for the person whose work isn't worth much to anyone besides himself. God forbid if I had to pay a fee or register with the State or something, just to make it okay for people to maybe listen to my music. The RIAA would like it that way -- to redefine copyright in a way that everything not expressly permitted is forbidden and severely punishable.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I've purchased many hundreds of CDs in the past ten years. I also have quite a collection of MP3s; some ripped from the CDs that I own, some downloaded online but from CDs that I own; some that I've never owned, or plan to own the CD. I am also an amateur musician. Because I disagree strongly with the RIAAs tactics, I want to put some versions of popular songs online on my webpage. What are the legalities associated with making my own interpretations of existing songs (my own voice, musical accompaniment)?
In other words, I want to put completely legal and freely distributable music online in order to bait the RIAA. I want to make sure that I am competely, 100% legal when I do this.
I'm doing this because I feel the RIAA has grossly overstepped its bounds by suing and extorting money from people. Whether or not the RIAAs targets have infringed copyright is at this point irrelavant. They are setting a precedent that would allow any corporation to demand fees and extort money from anyone.
For example: I own a laptop that originally shipped with Win2K. I no longer have the original DELL install disks but I do have backup software from a similarly configured IBM laptop. If I install these backup copies I will be breaking MS' EULA.
Or: I bought U2's "Rattle and Hum". I still have the CD case but the disk is missing. If I download the tracks and burn them to CD I'll be guilty of copyright infringement. (No, this is not the reason that the RIAA is going after the file sharers, but their ability to go after them at all is a very bad precedent.)
Looking at this weeks Best Buy ad you can find the Matrix Reloaded movie on DVD for $14.99, or you can buy the soundtrack for $11.99. Anyone but me see a problem with this? The music, which probably costs less than 10% the cost of the movie to actually make, costs just $3 less in the stores. Also, most of the songs on the soundtrack were already released on the respective band's album.
those that download it are COMMITING A CRIME ENFORCABLE BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Really? What law is this?
I was certain that copyright law only covers publication rights, not the recieving of copyrioghted material published by an unauthorized source. Perhaps you could educate me.
I'll agree that those who are making other peoples work available (in any form) without permision are breaking the law, but I doubt that the law also covers the downloaders. Perhaps they could be charged with aiding and abbetting the comitting of a crime, but if that is the case, then why has no-one been charged with this?
Why has no-one been charged with a crime at all? Is it that violations of copyright are not actually criminal acts but rather are civil matters to be disputed between the copyright holder and the unauthorized publisher?
Has the outcome of any of the RIAA lawsuits actually been determined in court? Or have they all been settled out of court? Is it possible that the amount of damages the RIAA is claiming is so large that it would be difficult to substantiate in court? Or that there is no reasonasble method for determining the actual damages? Or possibly that any reasonable method for determining the actual damages (such as the number of actual downloads times the potential revenue from the potential sale of a copy of that particular song) would show that the actual damages are not enough to justify going to court in all but the most extreme cases?
When you download copyrighted music, you're doing so illegally and subject to the laws of your jurisdiction.
Again, I'll agree that uploading music that you do not have distribution or publishing rights for is and should be illegal. But this emphisis on downloading seems a little disengenuous. Could it be that the RIAA wishes to scare people away from the idea of downloading altogether? What about all of the music that is freely available for download or redistribution? Do not the artists who are using music downloads and P2P networks for advertising thier (non-RIAA) music on CDs and thier performances deserve the right to use this means? Is the RIAA perhaps worried that the free distribution of music could impact negatively on thier ability to controll the marketing and distribution of music to the extent that musicians who have not contracted to RIAA studios and labels might be able to win away a portion of the market?
Is it possible that with P2P technology, the web, and with other network technologies (internet radio) that the RIAA and thier associated companies (ClearChannel) might be obsolete and no longer needed by the artsts who wish to make a living from thier art? That sounds like a win for everyone except the RIAA.
Advice to filesharers: Do not distribute the crap purveyed by the RIAA. Use P2P to promote music by atrists that you know, artists that do nott share the product of thier creativity with the RIAA member companies, andartists who are knowingly distributing thier music in this manner in order to promote thier own, privately funded CD sales and performances. There is no longer any need for the media conglomerates, and unless the flow of money into thier coffers is lessened, they will buy congress to ensure that they and thier parent companies (Time-Warner, Disney, CBS, ClearChannel, the other RIAA members and the members of the MPAA, and the Network Broadcast Association) are given the right and the power to own and regulate the internet and networked communications in general. Use the technology to change the culture of music (and other media) consumption.
Wean yourselves and other listeners off of the corporate teat and you'll find that there is sweeter milk to be found elsewhere.
Do not allow the RIAA to spread the idea that all P2P downloads are illegal.
Read, L
Just a thought- in 40 years, when nanotechnology enables us to cheaply copy physical objects with little effort are we going to see the same kind of tactics from producers of material goods? In other words will I get sued for copying my friend's laptop? I know it seems silly now but we need to think ahead.
You want to protest copywrite laws through civil disobedience? Great, then here's what you do. Share gigabytes of songs, get sued, refuse to pay and go to jail. Do not bitch about how unfair it is, you knew what you where doing and you knew the consequences. Just go quietly to jail and your supporters on the outside can start making "free TyrranzzX tee-shirts".
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The process of getting permission to arrange a work by someone who might not be living, but is still not PD irks me. It is the reason why good arrangements are hard to come by. Piracy of music by musicians has always been a gray area and cannot be eliminated.
If in future the DMCA makes the legal re-arrangement of music even more difficult than it already is then it spells the death nell to great music. Traditionally it was once a great honour for one musician to pay homage to anothers work! This must continue. The reality of today is that the business aspect of todays POP and SCHLOCK is killing great musicianship.
If the RIAA and ASCAP, BMI etc, etc have their way it will not be too long before they are out in small clubs and concerts looking for people to sue. Here is an example; I take a great tune by the Duke and do a classical guitar arrangement then perform and sent it over the net as an MP3 or OGG or whatever. If this is one of his obscure non mainstream tunes, what is wrong with me popularising this tune?
Obtaining permission to do an arrangement of tunes is so time consuming that it is not even worth trying anymore! It has become a royal pain in the ass. Why? The recent changes to copyright and the fear of God that has been put into orgs like ASCAP etc!
Great music is dying and this is the reason, let us pray.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
The issue is not necessarily one of piracy, nor lawsuits, but one of a blatent monopoly acting in their own interests and screwing their audence /. to become a great place to go if you were looking for tips on good indie bands. But I NEVER hear talk like that around here.
/. say, there really IS not way for a band to make money outside the record companies, and so bands either go there or die.
4. I'm completely incorect about the nature of the RIAA, and they also own all of the music produced by people who have never signed a contract with any record label. /. don't seem to be the kind that will make them change their mind. Even if Valid, it seems better to fight the RIAA by boycott than by just downloading their songs.
.
.
. To me a music lover is someone that buys a nice set of speakers, and listens to music. In contrast to this is those such as yourself who like to support the RIAA by giving the Spice Girls and N-Sync there day in the spotlight and dollar per disk, and could care less that the other $19 is used for suing 12 year olds and other worthless causes that do nothing to further music This makes me think about something I've been wondering about since I first heard the filesharing argument on slashdot (that has only been four years, and It's not really a topic that interests me, so I'm sure I've missed a lot BUT...) When I first heard this argument, seeing as this was then and still is an Open Source Friendly sort of crowd, I expected an Open Source type solution to this problem. The obvious answer to this (to me) would be to simply stop listening to bands that were contracted with RIAA afiliated record labels (presumably all of them). And ONLY listen to groups that release their music freely. (GNU-type Music, as it were). And I expected
Now, I'm NOT a music lover by any serious stretch. I'l listen to the radio in the car, if there is no one to talk to. I have, in my life bought exactly two concert tickets and two albums. Neither of which could I locate right now. So I don't claim to understand either the record industry OR what makes good music.
But, from the outside, it seems that the RIAA isn't really a monopoly. There are thousands of bands out there who do not have record deals, and who jump at any chance to be heard they can. I know that a lot of these bands have music available for download. I alo know (even me) that at least 90% of these bands really suck.
The way I see it, then there are a few possible reasons why people who hate the RIAA still listen to music they at least claim to own.
1. All the good bands are signed to record labels.
2. There are good bands out there but it so much work to find them that it isn't worth doing.
3. Despite what people on
Yes, I know that I left out "Intelectual property is inherently wrong. but that's not the way the people who make the laws around here (here being the U.S. in my case) see it. And the arguments that are floating around on
If number 4 is the case, then the RIAA and it's members really are a big bunch of bad guys and we need to get rid of them. the best way would be for indie bands to get together and sue them for stealing their music.
But, if 1. or 2. are correct, then the record labels are actualy earning their money. not by being musical geniuses, but by doing the work that no one else seems to be doing. Which is to sort out the good bands from the crap. And look, if your mp3 directory is filled up with label bands, wherether you like it or not. that is what you are saying.
If number three is the case, then the record lables are performing the service of being the only financialy effective patrons of the arts out there.
I'm sure that good answers to these points have already been brought up. Like I said, I haven't been following closely. But it would seem to me that, even if they are stupid for doing it, the artists making this music have signed on with the
When I first heard this argument, seeing as this was then and still is an Open Source Friendly sort of crowd, I expected an Open Source type solution to this problem. The obvious answer to this (to me) would be to simply stop listening to bands that were contracted with RIAA afiliated record labels (presumably all of them). And ONLY listen to groups that release their music freely. (GNU-type Music, as it were). And I expected /. to become a great place to go if you were looking for tips on good indie bands. But I NEVER hear talk like that around here.
There are difficulties in this.
All that said, consider that I am a musician who is attempting to work within a new paradigm for music promotion, but I'm not professionally-oriented. I'd be happy to offer help to any musician who is professionally-oriented.
Like what I said? You might like my music
The issue is not necessarily one of piracy, nor lawsuits, but one of a blatent monopoly acting in their own interests and screwing their audence
In what way is suing someone for infringement "screwing their audience?" If they are using music they purchased, there is no risk whatsoever. If they are not using they purchased, how are they RIAA's audience?
Oh, you mean the audience of persons who like the music but won't or can't pay for it? Tell you what, I agree with you. Tell you another thing, who cares? You want to defend freeloaders and free-riders, fine. But here's the deal, this is their right -- it is also very much the right thing to do.
For years, we have been excoriating RIAA for seeking dumb-as-dirt laws to try to circumvent technology with specialized regulation that would hurt every person for every purpose. Those of us who opposed the legislation fiercely on the ground that it is anticompetitive and will compromise innovation prevailed, but one of the things we noted to do so was this: we observed that the bill isn't necessary because there are ALREADY laws to protect RIAA against music freeloaders, the Copyright Act.
So here is your choice, let them sue the wrongdoing infringeers and let them be, or suck up the fact that your computers in the future are going to have mandatory DRM of a kind that will make you unable to use your own music. One of these is inevitable -- and fighting the RIAA suits against real infringers (other than on grounds of noninfringement or true fair use) is not only irrational, its tactically quite dumb.