Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Extends Legal Action
shystershep writes "An article at InfoWorld tells how the RIAA 'is filing 41 new lawsuits and sending 90 lawsuit-notification letters this week, adding to the 341 lawsuits filed and 308 notification letters sent since September. The RIAA has settled with 220 file-sharers as a result of lawsuits, lawsuit-notification letters and subpoenas. In addition, 1,054 users have submitted affidavits as part of the RIAA's amnesty program.' The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy."
... this is what their records and statistics may claim. And as we all know the RIAA is a bastion of honesty, forthrightness and righteousness.
Considering the number of filesharing users out there, 1,054 takers on the amnesty program is fairly pitiful, actually. What would be more interesting would be the number of people who have quietly dropped off of the networks due to the RIAA's threats... but new arrivals will probably mask any people leaving this way in terms of the overall filesharing "population."
--- Bwah?
The number of people on the big file-sharing networks is half of what it was before the law suits. But as kazaa declines, edonkey and bittorrent grow. If they're stated goal is to destroy kazaa, then mission accomplished. But if they want to stop file sharing, they'll have to destroy the internet.
You might scare people into stopping downloading, but that doesn't mean we'll go back to buying your overpriced CDs. $11.99 is a start. Better yet, try $7.99 just like the old LPs.
Of course, it wasn't really the lawsuits that dissuaded me so much as the utter crap the labels have been putting out. But still, effective tactics are effective tactics. Why, I'll bet they could stop music piracy completely in 2004 if the tunes continue to be as gut-wrenchingly terrible as, say, Britney's last album (or any of those that preceded it, come to think of it. She sure is hot, though).
On a related note, there's an interesting article in the SF Chronicle about how small local bars are getting hit with lawsuits because the bands they hire play covers of copyrighted songs. Wonder how far we are from surgical lobotomies for people who get copyrighted tunes stuck in their heads...
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Well the RIAA doesn't consider the fileswappers customers, whether they actually are is an entirely different topic. Look at it from their point of view, if someone steals from your store, do you consider them a customer or a theif? And when you tell them to never come back, are you distressed that you lost their business, or relieved that they won't be stealing anymore?
... comes in another year when piracy is down but so are profits. Funny thing happens when you develop an antagonistic relationship with your customers instead of following the age-old law of supply and demand.
-madgeorge
I don't think the point of the lawsuits are to really punish the people being sued, but more to get the word out, and get some publicity. Average Joe computer users who used Kazaa and thought that it was legal are now hearing about these lawsuits and uninstalling Kazaa.
I think the RIAA is accomplishing what it meant to, Publicity.
So does this mean they aren't going to be charging me an extra quarter per blank cd now?
Your analogy is absurd.
You didn't have a "job". You were a musician.
Don't think that these two words have anything to do with each other.
A "job" implies a contract between you and your employer. Your services rendered (ie: your job) contractually obligates your employer to pay you.
A musician is a capitalist and a free agent. A musician, like all other free agents -- be they artists, consultants or any other person who represents themselves -- UNDERSTANDS THE ELEMENT OF RISK.
If you do not or cannot understand the element of risk in your vocation -- and that risk applies to artistic risk, marketplace risk, and the risks that pertain to your industry as a whole -- then you SHOULD NOT BE A MUSICIAN.
Clothing manufacturers get their asses handed to them by Chinese laborers. Drug manufacturers get their asses handed to them by changes in legislation. Musicians get their asses handed to them by changes in technology. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Understand risk.
Undersatnd reward.
Oh and by the way it sucks about your business model no longer being viable.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Rather than your point, which is that the RIAA's legal actions may be driving people to buying digitial music, couldn't you also argue that the decrease in p2p activity is due to people finally having access to a number of viable, legitimate, cheap online music outlets?
I'm sure the number of people who stopped pirating music because they could sample it and buy it for cheap on iTunes is pretty significant.
In the last 3 weeks alone I've heard of 4 different private file sharing networks. Just because they're being somewhat effective at ending widespread public sharing, there is a definite growth in the private file sharing arena. Fraternities, dorms, office workers, and almost any other similiar group are forming smaller networks of users, which is going to be VERY hard for the RIAA to fight.
It seems like one or two users are gathering content from (primarily) overseas file sharers and then making it available to their individual group. The current RIAA tactics don't work, because they simply don't have access to them.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
I agree that the lawsuit's are stupid on the part of the RIAA, but why is suing a 12 year old file swapper any worse than suing a 32 year old geek who lives in his parents basement?
Because the purpose of the lawsuits are a public relations war, and every time they fuck up (sue a 12 year old, sue a Mac-owning granny) they shoot themselves in the foot.
Also because they are trying to change the term "piracy" to mean "sharing copyrighted material without paying the piper" away from its original meaning of publishing copyrighted material without a license. Funny, folks don't seem to cotton to equating a 12-year old downloading tracks with a criminal bootleg operation.
The problem is that the customers REFUSE to vote with thier wallets this also applys to 'copy protected' (read corrupted) CD's. If thier target market which is something like 10-30 year olds would just refuse to buy any RIAA products for just a month or two it would send quite a message
wanted: one clever sig,apply within
is that they probably help encourage further P2P developments from people trying to avoid the RIAA tactics - eg improved decentralisation, better anonymity, better filtering.
Sort of like how wars help encourage technical developments.
Why should any of those people (or things) be immune from legal action simply for the reasons listed.
Let's see:
# A 4 year old Eskimo girl. (she's disconnected in an igloo)
# A parapalegic with Tourettes. (may or may not be connected, you have me there)
# 97 year old twin sisters who still listen to their tube powered RCA radio. (the radio is their only source of music)
# A man who has been in a coma since 1972. (he can't download obviously)
# The Vatican. (not a person)
# That crazy guy outside my office who plays a harmonica. (he's a homeless nutbar who can't afford a bath let alone broadband)
# The estate of J. Edgar Hoover. (been dead for ages, long befroe P2P)
# Some T-Rex fossils in the NY Museum of Natural History. (this should be obvious)
# Antarctica. (ditto)
Ok, so you may have me on the parapalegic..
Trolling is a art,
1. How do you know it was downloaded thousands of time?
2. How do you know that any of the people who downloaded your music were going to buy it.
3. The point is, if it's really true that everyone is enjoying your creations, then I'm sure a portion would be interested in your future work or would be interested in coming to your shows.
4. Spending $10,000 for a home studio is equivalent to starting a small buisness of your own, and not working for someone else. If you'd sold a million copies of your CD, who would get the money? If your clothing store sells a million piece of whatever they sell, is your paycheck going to vary?
5. That's exactly the point. There's no boss and you are your own boss when making music independently. If you wanted a boss, then why don't you work as a studio musician and play other people's songs for other people to use.
Don't be silly. This is America. If you don't have money you don't have justice, 'tis fact.
If you are wronged by a big corporation you're going to need big bucks to right that wrong, big bucks (and time!) most Americans simply don't have.
The RIAA knows it, and every other company in the country knows it. Money is power.
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
I think that the point of Palladium ("trusted computing") and upload restrictions via ISPs is to do precisely that - to destroy the ability of individuals to publish on the Internet and replace it with a broadcasting medium in which only the privileged few can afford to publish, thus creating a world where content providers (if you can call it content, but I guess since people want it it must be) can feel safe from any potential copyright infringement. Of course, their safety is bought at our expense (by negating much of the Internet's utility) but that's a small price to pay to hear more RIAA-assisted Britney Spears clones.
The industry fucked up by not taking Napster and using it as a conduit for regular sales.
I know too many people who love good music to risk buying crap at the store that they haven't gotten a proper chance to preview, but let's leave behind the idea that many people treated the MP3s they downloaded as the equivalent of ads when it came to determining what CDs they wanted to buy.
Think on this instead. You're already on Napster, downloading music. You've just found out that you can also buy concert tickets there. Or, there's a neat service that, for 5 bucks, will dump a huge selection of thematically-related songs onto your computer in a conveniently located spot for burning to a CD. Or, there's a spot for getting T-shirts, posters, sweaters, stickers of your favourite band. Or, there's a spot for buying 50c's autobiography or that Rolling Stones concert on DVD. Or, there's a spot that lets you buy the CDs themselves, since sometimes people want the jackets and lyrics and higher-quality music.
Never mind the ad revenue that could be generated by having such a flourishing community that you're at the center of and controlling.
Feel free to add to this list. On top of it all, you put yourself in a situation where you're working with technology, not against it, and you've got GOODWILL going with your customers.
Imagine that.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
And where do they officially say this?
Provide credible proof, or this is just more FUD.
Funny how people here hate FUD about Linux, Apple, from the RIAA, etc, but love to use when it involves "evil" companies and organizations like the RIAA. Before you tell me I am wrong, take a look at the posts and articles here where you are yelling "OMG teh RIAA is suing children!!!111!!!! Think of t3h children!!!11112" when in reality they are suing the parents for not monitoring their kids actions.
File swappers don't have ANY "right" to pirate MP3s. None of us do. You have the right to download what you already own, basically. Owning it is your problem. I know that intrudes on a lot of "information wants to be free fantasies" but that's tough, that's what the rest of us call capitalism.
-Matt
Duke '05
Between my coworkers and I, we have enough music to last us the rest of the decade."
You may want to reclassify them as "friends" rather than "coworkers" -- you might find that your employer is not inclined to remain your friend if ever confronted with this issue...
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Let's say they stop (for argument's sake) 75% of the online piracy. By RIAA math, that should mean a 75% increase in sales (or at least some significant percentage). It's entirely possible (and, in my opinion, entirely likely), that sales will continue to slip. The moment I start laughing is when they're standing around scratching their heads (among other things), wondering why sales are still falling.
AT this point, one of two things will happen: they'll either realize that they DO produce crappy music, that they are greedy bastards, and that above all, consumers DO have standards (though on average, not very high), or they'll continue their witch hunt, making believe that there's still some massive vortex of illegal copying and downloading, sucking money right out of their pockets.
This isn't an endorsement of the so-called "harmlessness" associated with illegally copying/downloading music. Crappy or not, it's still the property of the RIAA, and they are still entitled to do with it what they please.
I know, I wasn't arguing against that. I was saying, on the assumption that you would never buy a cd from them, downloading their music is not theft.
If you weren't going to buy their album, why should you get to have the song for free?
Yes, NOW you're actually adressing what I said. Except you don't actually provide an argument, you just leave an open ended question. Why shouldn't you get to have the song for free? One could say "because it's not fair to derive benefits from someone else's work if you don't pay to support him." Well what if the artist is dead? Does that matter?
Let me put the argument differently. Suppose I steal a chocolate bar from the grocery store. The owner of that store is now worse off. Suppose I download a song by Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson is no worse off. The grocery store owner would be better off if I had never been born. Michael Jackson would be no better or worse off if I had never been born. See the distinction?
Now, it's fine if you want to say that copyright infringement is morally no better than theft, that's your perogative. But in the real world, there's a substantial difference. If the two were equivalent, and every song downloaded actually cost the artist something, they all would have been forced into bankruptcy 2 years ago.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Using your analogy though, in this case we're feeding a huge business that doesn't like sodomy. They invest millions and millions to make people think sodomy is bad, make newer overly broad antisodomy laws that keep us from legally using q-tips, etc.
How are we going legalize the new sodomy with homophobes actively campaigining with money given to them by the sodomists themselves? Even dragging economists into the anti-sodomy fight this time.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Actually, I think the message is now "just share with people you can trust, not the whole world".
This is so true. I now have an extra 80 gig hard drive nearly filled with MP3 music that I freely share with my co-workers.
I'll often go to the library and just grab 30 CDs off the shelf, bring them home, and rip them into MP3 (while getting the song titles from CDDB). All lot of titles I haven't heard even once and about 2/3rds I just erase {the '1000 Accordians Play The Beatles' wasn't as good as I thought it would be). But, there's lots of incredible World Music that I would have never known existed without using this method.
In a few years the RIAA will get its wish and people will stop trading MP3 files over the net. They will instead trade 100 gigabyte hard drives each filled with 2000 albums in 192kbps MP3 format with full titles and scanned cover art. With blank 4.7gig DVD disks hovering around $1 each and DVD burners nearing $100 (and sure to be increasing in quality), people will just trade whole genre collections on hard disk and copy the albums they like onto cheap DVDs.
But that's not the real issue. Eventually people will get bored with non-interactive 20th century music frozen into song units and start exploring ways to customize pre-recorded music.
The music industry will be the last to realize that people will actually pay money (some money at least) for music that they can remix at home and change the instrumentation, vocals, levels, and so other parameters. Something like you can do now with General MIDI files and classical music instrument synthesizers.
Its not property.
Which raises a question. If you were nailed by the RIAA, and forced to choose between a multi-million dollar settlement and betraying your friends/coworkers, which would you choose? Before getting too heroic, remember that life after bankruptcy might not be fun. Do you know how your friends/coworkers would answer the question?
Even if you're a tight-knit secretive ring that knew each other from childhood, all it takes is one ring member participating in p2p.
who's the sucker going to be?Obviously: a lawyer... somebody who can do their own legal work for free. I wonder if the RIAA checks first before serving papers?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
1. Build yourself a XPC or something that size.
2. Toss in the needed parts including a 200G HD and a PCI 802.11b card.
3. Post notices around the dorm/building/whatever with the SSID and quick instuctions.
4. Enjoy.
While the selection of files in the beginning will be low I'm sure it would take little time for it to become quite varied.
The other solution is to buy a cheap 802.11b router, hook up to the LAN and bury it behind some sheetrock. The campus IT dept could spend years looking for it (if done correctly).
Of course this information is for educational purposes only yada yada yada ...
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
They are not stupid.
No matter what they say, I'm sure they have a much better idea of exactly what is responsible for their sales decline, and a very clear idea of the "impact of piracy".
Financially anyway, I'm sure their perspective on piracy is clearer than anyone outside the industry. For example, did you ever think that cigarette companies really believed their product was not dangerous, or that MS did not understand the position of their anti-competitive licensing policies, all despite what they proclaimed to the public? It's clear now that they were very clear-headed about their actions. My point is not to ding these other industries but to point out that they all either have or rent smart folks who are telling them exactly what is going on. They of course use this info to rationally pick the action that leads to their desired goal.
And in the midst of this particular situation, probably with a goal of maximizing financial return from assets, this postiion and these actions is the best they think they can do.