RIAA Extends Legal Action

Re:clear by Killean · 2003-12-03 11:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually, I think the message is now "just share with people you can trust, not the whole world".

Between my coworkers and I, we have enough music to last us the rest of the decade.

--
My new catch phrase is: "I NEED A NEW CATCH PHRASE, BABY!"

Lawsuits by IANAL(BIAILS) · 2003-12-03 11:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, has anyone that they have sued actually decided not to settle and are mounting a vigorous defence? Has anything actually made it to court yet, or is it still exclusively a scare tactic?

What will follow the lawsuits? by turnstyle · 2003-12-03 11:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course the RIAA keeps suing, and they'll keep doing so. What next? In response, a lot of IP academics are calling for alternative systems that would "get the artists paid" but when it comes to them, the devil is in the details...

How many people will have to have their Internet use watched in order to generate a meaningful sample?

If the sampling is truly anonymous, how can it prevent cheating?

Will 'offensive' works be excluded? If they are, what is the impact on Free-Speech?

Will such bureaucratic governmental (or quasi-governmental) control over the arts really be an improvement?

I've written some about "compulsory licensing" here.

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda

What's your point? by Jason1729 · 2003-12-03 11:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why should any of those people (or things) be immune from legal action simply for the reasons listed.

Are you saying it's okay to pirate music if you register your account in the name of a man who's been in a coma since 1972?

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?

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:What's your point? by the_mad_poster · 2003-12-03 12:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

You shouldn't expect 12 year olds to have the same understanding of things as 32 year olds. If you're going to start doing that, you might as well just abolish the whole idea of children needing any guidance. Abolish driving ages, drinking ages, enlistment ages. No more juvenile courts or corrections centers. Don't hold parents responsible for anything or expect them to provide for the children at all once they're physically capable of working for themselves, etc.

NOT a good idea.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!

What has happened to those who haven't settled? by Raindance · 2003-12-03 11:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's interesting to see the statistics on how many people have settled, but I'd be more interested in what has happened to those who haven't settled.

Hardball tactics only work if people think you'll be able to follow through; if they don't follow through on the holdouts, then this tactic collapses.

Anyone have information?

RD

Lets give the RIAA what they want... by dasunt · 2003-12-03 11:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Lets give the RIAA what they want.

Don't download commercial music that you are not allowed to possess.

Instead, try iRATE and get free, legal mp3s.

You don't have to pirate music, and you can still kick the RIAA where it hurts (mindshare).

My question... by jeffkjo1 · 2003-12-03 11:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

My question is, is the RIAA specifically avoiding sueing slashdotters? I find it amazing that we have yet to hear of a case actually going to court, and by the tone of everyone on /. (myself included), it would seem that droves of these cases would be going to actual court, and would in turn attract lots of media attention.

Something is fishy here...

Re:Congrats, RIAA by Carnildo · 2003-12-03 12:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Considering that these "thieves" are a sizable fraction of their potential customer base, I'd be worried about lost business.

To extend your example:

If fifteen percent of the people entering your store shoplift something, do you just spend your time throwing them out, or do you consider that there might be something wrong with the way your business operates?

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.

RIAA speaking for labels it doesn't represent by fatwreckfan · 2003-12-03 12:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

I find it disturbing that the RIAA is claiming it is acting on behalf of record labels that it doesn't even represent.

NPR radio has a story about several record labels (notably Fat Wreck Chords, one of my personal favs) that had to fight for years to get their names removed from the list of labels the RIAA claims to represent, since they do not want to be represented by them.

Monetary Success by Veramocor · 2003-12-03 12:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

So 220 settlements, at an average of 5,000(just a guestimate) a settlement. Thats a cool 1,100,000.

What did the lawyers cost them?

Are they making money on this endeavor?

--
Veramocor

Change the law by MichaelCrawford · 2003-12-03 12:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

While the United States Constitution allows Congress to enact copyright laws, it doesn't actually require it to do so. Sharing music files over p2p could be legalized tomorrow if you could just get enough votes in Congress to repeal copyright. You'd either need to also convince the president to sign the bill, or get a 2/3rds majority in Congress to override a veto.

Stranger things have happened. The United States Supreme Court recently overturned the last of the sodomy laws in the United States, a decision that at one time would have been inconcievable to the majority of Americans, but the gay community worked together patiently to make homosexuality completely legal.

Now, I want you to consider that there are over sixty million Americans practicing peer-to-peer file sharing. That's more people than voted for George Bush, and also more than the number of homosexuals in America. So it's not unreasonable that copyright could be repealed, or at least reformed.

I discuss the background of copyright law in the US and what you can do to make file sharing legal in Change the Law, a section of my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads. The steps I suggest you take to make file sharing legal are to speak out, vote, write your elected representatives, donate money to political campaigns, support campaign finance reform, join the electronic frontier foundation, and to practice civil disobedience.

It is my objective that all sixty million American p2p users will read my article by the time of the 2004 election. I've got a long ways to go to reach that goal.

The article has a Creative Commons license. I encourage you to copy and distribute it. I'm also seeking help in translating it to other languages; a Romanian translation will be posted soon.

Thank you for your attention.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

Can they get you for torrents? A Debunking or B.S. by felonious · 2003-12-03 12:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

What about sharing via torrent files?
You gather various, pieces from many user which are then uniformly, recontructed after you have reached 100%.

Try watching an incomplete torrent divx or any other file for proof of the file(s) being "pieced" together. until the torrent is complete the files sit in an unorganized file inside whatever future extension they turn out to be.

To me this begs the question...
How can anyone sue you for sharing on bittorrent if it's only a piece of a file, random at that, and not a full file?

The only way they could approach this is to catch the user with the complete file on their hd after downloading it.

How would they do this?
Can you say invasion of privacy?
Who knows?

A good thing to do no matter what you use is to have peer guardian running at all time. You can even incorporate the blocklists in sygate's firewall software if you choose not to use peer guardian.

Above all monitor and block all traffic when using P2P apps or you might have to pay the piper...guilty or not...it really doesn't seem to matter anymore.

P.S. Fuck U RIAA
P.P.S. Thank you internet

--
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.

Re:Support musicians! by HoserHead · 2003-12-03 13:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Consider someone who isn't rich, the standard "struggling artist" who is much more the rule than the exception. They DO care if you buy their CD, because it affects them in a very real rent-and-groceries sort of way. If you weren't going to buy their album, why should you get to have the song for free?

Stealing a song is morally equivalent to stealing a chocolate bar. That's why I say stealing a song is theft.

The solution is really very simple... by bechthros · 2003-12-03 13:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

...and has been practiced for years by record stores, that is, stores that actually still sell vinyl records (primarily DJ shops). You open the package. You take the record (or cd's in a used cd store) out of the package and place it in a turntable or cd player behind the counter. You hand the customer headphones. Customer listens. If customer likes it he buys it, if not he hands you a different CD to listen to.

File-sharing isn't as popular as it is because people want to *own* the music. It's popular because people just want to hear what it sounds like before they buy it. If I wanted to actually *own* those songs it sure would't be in mp3 format (80% data loss), and without any liner notes, catalogs, or stickers.

I mean, when you buy an $8 t-shirt at wal-mart, you get to try it on first, right? When you want to buy a $10 book, you get to browse it at the bookstore before you buy it. Why should an $18.99 CD be any different?

Try-before-you-buy has always been my reason for using filesharing for music, if I hear a CD I like I buy it, that is if I can even find it at the store (thanks again RIAA).

But the RIAA will never pursue this method of both reducing piracy and meeting the consumers' needs, because they have zero interest in one of those two things. Guess which one. I maintain my opinion that the RIAA is terrified of file-sharing not because of any loss of profits to them (they're doing just fine, thanks) or to their artists (who they've been ripping off since the '20's), but because it means the average music consumer will no longer be satisfied with the STINKING, VOMITOUS, VILE, REPUGNANT, DISGUSTING, MALODOROUS, REPULSIVE SHIT being passed off as "popular" music by the RIAA. People have no option if they want to hear good music but to turn to the black market, for in this case the black market happens to be the only free, or even fair, market around.

All that could change if the music stores let you listen before you bought. For some reason, though, I'm not holding my breath.

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the

Re:The solution is really very simple... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-03 13:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

File-sharing isn't as popular as it is because people want to *own* the music. It's popular because people just want to hear what it sounds like before they buy it. If I wanted to actually *own* those songs it sure would't be in mp3 format (80% data loss), and without any liner notes, catalogs, or stickers.

Agreed. Although, for me, it's not necessarily due to sound quality as much as it is trying to support the artists that you like. I say this because most of the music that I own is ripped to MP3s with the CDs safely tucked away. I rarely ever pull the CDs out.

I mean, when you buy an $8 t-shirt at wal-mart, you get to try it on first, right? When you want to buy a $10 book, you get to browse it at the bookstore before you buy it. Why should an $18.99 CD be any different?

Try-before-you-buy has always been my reason for using filesharing for music, if I hear a CD I like I buy it, that is if I can even find it at the store (thanks again RIAA)

And this, I believe, is the crux of the issue. Ever since I was a kid, it was something that bothered me. The fact that you could buy a CD and not be able to return it. As you say, you can return (or try) most anything else and CDs are no different, in my opinion.

That paired along with the fact that the RIAA has treated artists and consumers unfairly doesn't really help matters. They have shot themselves in the foot with no-one else to blame.

Ironically, most of the music that I've listened to throughout my life isn't 'part' of the RIAA. Alas, that's the unfortunate part about all of this; the Government and RIAA all assume that music must only be coming from the major labels.

Personally, I believe that more and more people are discovering the indies and liking what they hear. And, as well, learning more about how little the artists (most, not those on Cribs) are paid.

The sad part is, it doesn't seem to matter. If you look at what has happened with online radio (streaming, etc.) or with the levees placed on CDRs (Canada), they will still get the control they so desperately desire.

Meanwhile, here we sit, reading Slashdot and doing nothing. What good is knowing about all of this and be powerless to do anything about it? ;-)

Anonymous Musician

It's working! by Thedalek · 2003-12-03 13:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hooray! Their tactics are working in decreasing piracy. Now when an album doesn't sell, it's because it stinks, not because everyone's downloading it.

Honestly, even though they claim their tactics are working now, in a month, they'll be saying how lost profits due to piracy are sky high and increasing.

This is what happens when Don Quixote starts tilting at windmills, but actually has the firepower to take them out. No more windmills, no more monsters. Solution: Make new monsters.

So, this time next year, look for the RIAA blaming people humming songs for lost revenue.

--
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.

Re:clear by AntiOrganic · 2003-12-03 14:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

I don't think anyone actually cares that they can change the keyboard sounds on Outkast's "Hey Ya." In addition, musicians most likely wouldn't approve of this because it makes it much too easy to "sample" (read: rip off) their work.

Re:clear by Captain+Splendid · 2003-12-03 14:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

In a few years the RIAA will get its wish and people will stop trading MP3 files over the net.

Fat chance.

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.

You're right about that one, it's already happening. I know several people who swap HDs or DVDs full of mp3s by snail mail.

--
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!

RIAA gives itself too much credit by 1310nm · 2003-12-03 14:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

The RIAA also claims that its tactics are actually working -- to increase awareness and reduce online piracy.

I think rather what has happened is iTunes, the new Napster, BuyMusic.com, and others are taking care of what the RIAA should have started working on right when the original Napster became available.

Re:clear by Jardine · 2003-12-03 14:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

So when should the RIAA start targetting libraries? They're obviously aiding dirty, dirty piraty scoundrels such as yourself.

Thanks for the idea though. Section VIII of the Canadian copyright act makes it perfectly legal for me to go to the library, borrow a bunch of CDs, copy them for my personal use, and then return them. Distributing those copies would be copyright infringment because then it wouldn't be for personal use.

I call their bluff. by DroopyStonx · 2003-12-03 15:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

They're doing nothing more than making examples of people.

Personally, I'm not in the least bit concerened. Hell, I'll admit it: I share over 10 gigs of farily popular music on most of the P2P networks. I'd love to see them try me in a court of law.. unfortunately for them, I'm "tech savvy" and they'll have a hell of a time proving I share music.

These stories do nothing but piss me off and make me share/download more music (and movies now, too). I know a few people still in High School and I actually encourage them to share/download music. They'll tell me about how they're gonna buy so-and-so's CD, I say, "No, don't. I'll download it for you."

Yeah, this will probably get modded troll, or even flamebait, but it's really not. I'm just a person who's fed up with general apathy from people who let corporations get away with this shit. We're talking about downloading and sharing music, not murder, rape, or any other "crime". We know CD sales are unaffected because of artists who continue to break platinum status.

It's okay for them to spend years overcharging people for CDs and for mass marketing canned acts like Britney Spears/Justin Timberlake, but it's not okay for them to take some heat?! Sorry, that's not how it works.

If you can't take it, then by all means, don't fucking dish it out.

--
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!

Re:I can't wait to see them.. by surprise_audit · 2003-12-03 15:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder if Ernest Brenot would go on national TV to ricidule the RIAA and to demand a public apology for libel and defamation of character? Probably wouldn't stop the RIAA at all, but it might help to raise public awareness of the stupidity of what they're doing.

23 of 600 comments (clear)