Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Files 532 Lawsuits
Like2Byte writes "The RIAA is at it again. This time, Yahoo! News is reporting that 532 file sharers' IP addresses are being submitted to the courts instead of their names because ISPs decline to name people and the courts previous blocks. Music lawyers filed the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses -- and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live."
I wonder what good that will do, most ISPs use rotating DHCP based IP addresses.
I wonder how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.
This seems ever more expensive than the previous rounds of lawsuits since now there is even more effort required in matching names to IP addresses. My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing. Surely it must already be hurting the bottom line.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
I'm sure if we could get a list of the IPs and the times they recorded it we could contact our ISP (for those of us on DHCP like myself) and find out if we had that address at the time. I for one am curious to see if I'm on the list since I was looking for an old jazz song last week. Who knows, the RIAA are bastards. They might try to sue me.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
I start to wonder about the sheer cost of pursing this type of legal tactic. It cannot be cheap to field the army of legal weasels that the RIAA keeps throwing at filesharers. The court-order-required process of tracking an IP down to a given user is neither quick nor easy, especially with certain major ISPs refusing to hand out names.
... if they can wield enough phantom, borrowed force through the courts, they can give the appearance of having the authority to terrorize the little people who feel the legal system will not deal fairly with them.
If you stack the cost of the lawsuits on one side, and the average settlement win from people scared out of their wits on the other... is there a profit being made here?
I'm betting the answer is 'no'. And all that means is the Recording Industry is attempting to achieve compliance through fear. All authority derives from force, as the old saying goes
I wonder if that's worth the money they're spending.
RIAA first tried to horribly abuse the (horribly abusable) DMCA and issue their own subpoenas.
Filing against John Does is the correct way to do it (from my armchair lawyer stance), if the ISP's won't voluntarily divulge the information.
>>The ad was well done and would be understood by most anybody.
Yeah, unfortunately it's totally missing the point.
I've seen one of these ads (3 different ones so far) in front of every movie i've seen for the last for months.
HELLO!?!? I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??! HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS.
shit. Talk about missing the point and annoying the wrong people.
Most of you claim to hate the RIAA almost as much (if not more) than Microsoft or SCO, but can't seem to live without their product!
Downloading the music for free (therefore depriving the RIAA of revenue from the sale of the CD) does nothing but give them ammunition for the press and clueless legislators.
If you really want to knock the RIAA out, stop listening to their music period!! Don't listen to the radio, don't download songs (of RIAA-signed musicians), and don't buy their CDs.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
This could be the first time I've ever been happy about not having a static IP address from Time Warner.
I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??!
The intended market for those ads includes the projectionist and the prick in the nth row with a camcorder.
Basically, our friends at the RIAA are more than happy if you'll keep buying your CD's at fifteen dollars a pop, then every few years they'll try to make what you already purchased obsolete by offering a new release with better packaging.
Sometimes I wonder if they are deliberately incompetent in issuing their first release. I remember back in 1991, I picked up Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." Five years later, the record company had re-released it, along with the shocking announcement that one of the original CD's songs had been mastered at the wrong speed -- so the CD I owned had a song that was therefore in the wrong key and at the wrong tempo. And for this incompetence, on their part, I was supposed to shell out another fifteen bucks to get the fixed version.
Understandably, people are tired of this crap, so they've resorted to downloading music. That's where the RIAA's new revenue generating tactic comes in: they're using their legal department to send letters, coercing downloaders to pay up at about seven grand a pop. That's a lot of shiny CD's.
So buy CD's or download illegally -- either way the RIAA wins. Unless you decide to get out of the game.
If you follow the RIAA's tactics at all, you might have decided it's appropriate to not give these bloodsuckers another dime of your money. So here are a couple tips. Don't buy from labels that are affiliated with the RIAA -- and don't buy legally downloaded music from these labels just because they happen to be on the iTunes record store.
Second, check out sites like Magnatune. Read everything you can about their business practices. These people are cool, their artists' music is awesome, and they deserve our support.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Dear Lord. Don't you think the court already has to deal with these types of problems? It will be up to the prosecutor to prove that you were the one using Kazaa at the time of the incident AND that the actions you were taking were indeed done in an illegal fashion (i.e. You lacked the proper rights to commit the actions you did). If the prosecution has difficulty proving that it wasn't your neighbor, they may try to implicate you by showing that you took insufficient precautions to protect your identity and thus can be held as an accomplice. It's a bit hard to make stick, but it might be enough to keep you in court for quite a long time.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I agree!
Distributing others copyrighted works is illegal. And has been for a long time. The internet does not make this legal just because it is simple to do it, or beacuse you can do it more anonymously.
When people cry that we need new laws to regulate the internet, such as DMCA, I say bullshit! Use the good old copyright laws and go after the offenders (uploaders). Don't attack the technology (napster, P2P). Don't attack the infrastructure (ISPs, censorship). Forget about DRM and all such crap. Go after the real offenders, the ones that actually distribute others copyrighted work.
This is what they should have done in the first place, years ago.
)9TSS
It's like filing suit against a phone number for a bomb threat.
People are obviously still not understanding the whole process. When you connect to your ISP they assign you an IP address, and log the time you leased that address. The RIAA previously was able to subpeona the ISP directly and say "Who was using this IP at this time on this day" and the ISP then had to go through their log and supply the subscribers details who had that IP at that time.
All this means now is that the process is longer. The RIAA now has to go through the courts and get the courts to issue the subpeona to the ISP.
Remember, you are never truly anononymous on the Internet.
Ask them who they represent. Ask them what content is allegedly infringing. Ask them where the DMCA-compliant takedown notice or court order is. If they start getting pissy, I remind them that there ain't squat I'm going to do about it (or am required to do about it) until they at least have the courtesy to write me a real takedown notice.
Oh, yeah. Then go look and see if the fool actually is infringing, and scream at him.
.sig: Now legally binding!
In a capitalist system remuneration is not based upon on effort or time spent, rather it is based only on the size of pool of available resources. If everyone can make intellectual property of type x, ip of type x has no value, and nobody gains. If only Mr. M. T. Clown can produce ip of type x, then said ip has value, and MR. M.T. Clown gets the green back he feels he deserves. Honk on, Boozo.
I create "intellectual property" myself. But I get paid by the hour. Copyright law is mostly irrelevant to me.
.. but the difference now is the RIAA can track every IP address, when before they could only see the blank tapes being sold.
Why should I feel sorry for you? In fact, I *hope* you are forced to find another way to make your money. I don't want stricter copyright laws. Your dream world is unsustainable. I can't remember a time in my life when copying wasn't common
I believe that systems which align themselves with the natural behavior of people will outlive ones that fight it.
Open source software doesn't "go against the grain". It's pretty natural to share copies, but not so natural to pretend you wrote something you didn't. Maybe for some people, but I bet the millions of people on Kazaa leave Metallica's name on their songs when they swap them.
So, keep singing your sad song, the rest of us will push forward!
No, really, these are not the addresses. The post was a troll.
The way it was:
RIAA got your info- sent a letter telling you to settle. If you didn't you get dragged to court.
The way it is now:
RIAA goes to court, gets your info, sues you.
I'm not saying your ISP should be giving out your info to anyone, but now you name is in public record as a defendent in a lawsuit. Probably won't get off the hook as easy as the first batch of defendents either.
I'm guess I'm glad I don't distribute..
Yes! Stop producing anything! That'll show those nasty pirates!
Sorry, but being denied something that hasn't been created is less of a problem for me than being denied something that was created but is now inaccessable because of draconian copyright laws.
because people break the social contract that is copyright and steal. It's a shame really.
The social contract was broken a long time ago... by the content producers. When copyright was extended long past absurd lengths the writing was on the wall. The present day piracy was predicted way back in 1841. Here's a quote from that link (Thomas Macaulay speaking against copyright extension): Seems to sum it up quite nicely.
>I don't think that's in the jurisdiction of the courts that these lawsuits were filed in (Washington and New York).
In fact, in the case of that school, they weren't even breaking the law. It isn't illegal to download pirated music in Canada. Even attempting to sue them for downloading there might get the RIAA in trouble (well, I assume it's illegal to try to file a lawsuit on someone for a non-existant "crime").
Remember, for all your favourite downloads, alt.binaries.mp3.dance is your legal music source (if you're Canadian)!
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
It would be infinitely more useful to simply post the link where you got that information. Thanks!
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
so the RIAA supports kiddie porn!
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The University owns that network, not the users. I suspect the users sign an acceptable use policy, no? Does that policy specifically prohibit certain conduct?
Your concern for the rank and file users, while perhaps a bit misplaced is laudable. If you are interested in protecting those users, the pressure you want to apply is to have those activities specifically proscribed in any acceptable use document, not try to convince the University to take actions which are not consistent with the best funcitonning of their property to protect individuals who shouldn't be using the University's equipment in that fashion.
There are good reasons too. Consider, the plan you advocate could expose the University to charges of destroying evidence, or being an accessory. More importantly, you cite the power and time savings of the tools you have. These inherently are "good things." I would be right pissed at the person who deprived me of the tools I need in order to protect an 18 yr old bimbo who doesn't have the common sense not to use the University network for questionable activites.
Bottom line, the Univeristy owns the equipment, they can set any restrictions on it's use they see fit. If you want to protect the students, lobby for meaningful data in the acceptable use policy (IE Your activites will be logged, archived with no expectation of privacy.) Or for an acceptable use policy, if one doesn't exist.
Ultimately, in your shoes, I wouldn't want that traffic in the first place. You aren't a panacea for unethical activity, nor do you need to expose yourselves to some of the related traffic in the filesharing circles (kiddie pron, & malware come immediately to mind...
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
As for "university property" and whatnot, you clearly have the situation reversed. Universities exist for the benefit of the students, and not vice versa. Networks are student resources, not a Pavlovian carrot to teach them your personal idea of right and wrong. The RIAA is clearly using terrorist tactics, using P2P as sleight-of-hand fake to scare people off even "fair use" applications.
You seem to have a real "God complex". Us and Them. My guess is that you, for the moment, find yourself on the priveledged side of that divide. If justice prevails, you'll find yourself victimized by someone just like you. Hopefully soon.
Now, I'll still say that the actual prosecution of filesharers is ridiculous, but at least if they're going through the court system I don't have to be pissed off that they're using police-like activities sanctioned by some piece of horrible horrible legislation.
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
You are responsible for all the actions that occur on your network and it is your responsibility to adequately provide security for your network. You cannot run an open network and not bear responsiblity for it's illegal use. It's called negligence, and I think people who are knowingly letting people use their networks for illegal means are going to be sharply bitten in the arse by in the courts. Feining ignorance isn't going to get you out of hot water.
For the same reason you can't leave the keys in your unlocked car that gets used by a drunk to kill someone because he knows he has easy access to your vehicle. You were criminally negligent, thus you bear some personal responsibilities. IANAL, but am married to one.
...the right way to go. It should be a requirement for subpoenaing informatino that a lawsuit has been filed first. Why? Because this is private information, and without any case, there is also no reason for RIAA to have it. Once they have done that, I find it acceptable that they can subpoena information from ISPs in regard to that case, and that there shouldn't be much fuzz over just that.
Now, whether you agree with copyright law, or the RIAAs tactics in particular that's another story. But this is the way the legal process should work.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Then...how does this work in reverse? How do they detect a user that only downloads? Or do they?
http://www.busyweather.com/
The big thinng here is, you have to stop worrying about the student and users rights. They have NONE. The only holder of rights in your situation is the University. If the University chose to hand that information over to RIAA, and no binding agfreement prohibited them from doing so, they can.
If there's justice in this world, your landlord reads Slashdot and will be installing hidden cameras in your bathroom while you're at work tomorrow.
Last I checked, IP-addresses were not legal ID, like ID cards or passports are. As far as I know, you can only sue legal entities, like people or businesses. Not abstract concepts (if I could, I'd sue some Back Propagation Algorithm for grievous mental harm)
So they're bringing lawsuits against unidentified IP-addresses, which could be anything from a NAT router to a university network, a government agency, or whatever. Many of these lawsuits will therefore be against companies which are not liable for their customers' actions.
This is ridiculous.
(IANAL, as if it wasn't obvious)
Where is this list from and how can we ascertain its accuracy? One of the machines in question is a Unix server in the Center for Materials Research here at Stanford Univ...
It isn't evidence until you are subpeonaed for it.
So if you destroy it, it is not a problem because it wasn't evidence at the time. Until then, it's just data. If you destroy it after you get the subpeona, then it's a problem. Why do you think they have those guys run around and hand out papers for? To make an auditable trail so the court can bitch slap you for not doing what they want because they KNOW you knew what they wanted you to do.
At worst, the University admins might end up in a long discussion about your network SOP with the FBI or something, but get fucking real. All the shoes I ever wore in my lifetime could be evidence too... but I sure as hell am not going to keep them when they wear out. (If any court wants my shoes, they are welcome to them, my feet sweat like crazy when doing first person shooters.) However any court wanting me to produce shoes from 10th grade won't get them, and I won't get in trouble because I don't have them either.