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 how long most ISPs keep their logs linking usernames to IP addresses.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)