RIAA Files 531 More Lawsuits

nuclear305 writes "CNN is reporting that the RIAA has filed 531 'John Doe' lawsuits against defendants in Atlanta; Philadelphia; Orlando, Florida; and Trenton, New Jersey. Of course, once these thugs find out who you are, you can pay them off for the small fee averaging $3,000."

Comments

Thugs or not, they have the right to do so

[ObviousGuy]

Yes, the RIAA is out of control and really should stop to think about what they are doing to their reputation by suing all these people. That is a given.

However, they are well within their rights to be doing what they are doing. It is the music traders who decided that copyright did not apply to them who took the first step in breaking the law, and it is they who ultimately hold responsibility for their actions.

I remember back when the RIAA started out shutting down P2P sites like Napster that people were screaming about how Napster wasn't at fault, it was the individual members of the file sharing community who were responsible for violating copyrights. The thought went, "if the RIAA wants to sue anyone it should be those users individually, and it would be unfeasible for the RIAA to do such a thing because how much could they really gain by suing kids in their basements? Happy days!" Well, now the RIAA is doing exactly that. It's kind of ironic how those users who thought they could hide in anonymity behind the crowds of file sharers are now finding that there is no hiding because the RIAA is just going to catch everyone with a wide net.

I don't think the RIAA is going about this the right way, but I can't see how they are overstepping their legal bounds.

Re:Thugs or not, they have the right to do so

[segvio]

Does the RIAA need a reputation? They don't sell anything to the consumer and won't be influenced based on projected reputation to them. Sure, lots of /. user's don't buy RIAA music but they are still making millions and millions more dollars without us. Napster has died and the public may or may not have been truly outraged. RIAA memebers still make money. The bottom line is the RIAA doesn't care what the hell we think about them; like the parent said the RIAA is just excercising their rights.

Re:Thugs or not, they have the right to do so

[Crypto Gnome]

but I can't see how they are overstepping their legal bounds

Well how could you, when every time you blink they're busily forcing the government to extend the laws so that their actions are always Within The Bounds.

They're not being "thugs" today

[orthogonal]

"CNN is reporting that the RIAA has filed 531 'John Doe' lawsuits against defendants in Atlanta; Philadelphia; Orlando, Florida; and Trenton, New Jersey. Of course, once these thugs find out who you are, you can pay them off for the small fee averaging $3,000."

I think that many of the RIAA's tactics are heavy handed and will ultimately be detrimental to the RIAA. I think that the penalties for copyright violation under U.S. law are unduly harsh.

Its use of the DMCA to get subpoenas without judicial review was a threat to liberty.

But the RIAA does represent copyright holders, and 'John Doe' suits against alleged copyright violators are entirely appropriate. It's by means of such law suits, rather than additional legislation calling for mandatory DRM or special police powers for copyright holders, that the RIAA can protect its rights without infringing ours.

So labelling the RIAA "thugs" in this case is entirely inappropriate.

Or would you also label the Free Software Foundation "thugs" if it attempted to enforce the provisions of the GPL against a company using GPL'd source in a released product without also releasing the source code?

Re:Willing to pay for music, video, etc.

[Frac]

I'd be willing to pay as much as $0.025 (2.5 cents) per song for the right to have 256-bit mp3's of the top 10,000 songs of all time.

Holy bejeezus!! If a song is 3 minutes on average, that's 30,000 minutes = 500 hours of NON-REPEATING music. If you're paying $250, that's 50 cents an hour if you listen to each song only once, 25 cents an hour if you listen to each song only twice, etc.

25 cents an hour for entertainment? You can hardly find ANY entertainment worth 25 cents an hour these days. At least not an experience that includes the top 10,000 songs of all time!

Hey Kevin, the 60's called, they want their standard of living back!

I'm willing to pay for music, video on demand, etc., but I'm not rich.

Maybe you're not rich, but you definitely are cheap.

Re:Willing to pay for music, video, etc.

[Bobdoer]

Perhaps I'm idealistic, but this is how I would set the pricing structure:
$0.99: No DRM, lossless (FLAC/ZIP)
$0.50: No DRM, good lossy (MP3# VBR 192$0.25: DRM, lossy (I-Tunes)
$0.005: Pay per play, crummy quality.
I honestly don't see a good reason to pay greater than eight or nine dollars for tracks, when I can own most of the CDs I want for that price. And they generally have more than nine tracks anyway.

Re:MS going after innocent P2P users as well

[Undefined Parameter]

Precisely! If they've already served a 'cease and desist, or else!' letter to you and your ISP, it is likely that they've served similar letters to each of those who downloaded from you. The fact that they sent a letter to your ISP in the first place is proof enough that they are not, in fact, checking the files to see if they are, in fact, files for the leaked Microsoft source code. That they collected the information may be taken as proof that they are pursuing similar legal action against those who downloaded that linux source code from you while they were gathering client information.

This is indeed something to be angry and appalled at, an action which is both needless and malicious to innocent individuals. A nice, swift legal slap to the face might make them at least consider a change in the manner they pursue the illegal leaks, hostings, and downloadings.

~UP

Lawsuits are our friends!

[BillyBlaze]

I do not pirate music, and though I feel copyright law needs serious reform, I respect it. But I still hate the RIAA because of the underhanded things they do. They've lobbied for the DMCA and even stricter laws, they are trying to close open computing architectures against us, and they are trying to centralize and destroy the very fabric of the Internet. Oh, and they sue people. They do these things simply to protect themselves. Suing people is the lesser of these evils.

Most people infringe copyright because:

1. People want music.
2. Copyright infringement is currently easier than buying the works.
3. People don't fear getting caught.

Obviously, the industry wants people to want music, so they can't mess with 1.

There are two ways to eliminate problem 2. The most damaging way is to make copyright infringement harder, because that involves destroying the Internet. The non-destructive way to eliminate problem 2 is to offer cheap, non-DRM music downloads to as many people as possible (minors included), but this is only easy when the problem 3 is dealt with.

The only real way to eliminate problem 3 is suing people. It doesn't take many people getting in trouble to scare the general public away from copyright infringement, especially if there are easier alternatives (see above). I think it's great that they're doing this, because it allows them to offer cheap unencumbered music downloads, which is much better than their current policy of corrupting our government and destroying the Internet.

Re:Lawsuits are our friends!

[Crypto Gnome]

Interesting comment, except that you're missing an extremely significant portion of the issue here.

The RIAA and friends want to have their cake and eat it too

• they do their best to prevent illegal copying
• and they charge a MEDIA TAX (eg in Canada) to recoup losses from copying

Aside from the blatant implication that anyone who uses CDR media is BREAKING THE LAW , I also resent the fact that people are expected to PAY the costs of a crime without actually having committed one.

IF they were only interested in preventing copyright violations, then there would NOT be a "blanket" fee imposed on CDR media, irrespective of its use.

They're nothing more than a brain dead business who cannot see past the tip of their own nose. They need to change their business model to keep pace with the world, not start taxing every man-woman-and-child for doing something which has NOTHING inherently to do with EITHER music OR copyright violation.

• I buy 100 pack of CDR Media
• I use it to backup my HDD (mostly my own original digital photography)

In what way is that violating anyones copyright or depriving "the RIAAs of the world" of income they have every right to collect?

in no way whatsoever

Yet if I was in Canada I'd be paying them FEES, simply because I'm backing up to CDR.

Re:I Have But Two Words for You, Sir:

[Undefined Parameter]

Your reply quite clearly communicates the fact that you (whoever you are, you Anonymous Coward, you...!) have made an ignorant assumption. Your assumption is that all file-sharers are practicing illegally, or with unprovoked malicious intent, and it is ignorant because by its very nature it ignores the fact that are thousands of file-sharing service users use that capability to legally exchange files (like the Linux kernel source code, as mentioned in the case above).

Those who protest may not do so out in the open, intentionally drawing media attention to themselves, but they are practicing civil disobediance. Perhaps the high-prices part of their protest is of no comparison to the civil disobediance of Ghandi and his followers or the liberals and feminists of the era known as "The 60s," but I would not so easily dismiss the notion that what they protest is significant. Indeed, if you take the time to think about it, they are, in part, protesting the actions of the RIAA and member companies of, to use bold words, screwing the artists and song-writers of their fair share of profits in pursuit of the companies' and RIAA's greed.

The record companies have indeed conned the artists out of their copyright and therefore a fair portion of sales revenues. The companies have addressed the artists, saying (in effect) "hand over your copyright, and you receive the priviledge of doing business with us." Before this, their line was (again, in effect) "hey, if you sign over your copyright, we'll make sure you don't have to pay for lawyers or persue those pesky copyright infringements!" The con of that being, of course, that their offer boils down to "hand over your copyright, and you will no longer have to deal with some lawsuits," which in turn boils down to "give us something for nothing." The record companies, and the RIAA that they have created, have turnned song-writers and artists alike into service-providers, when they should be recognized as service and product providers. In doing so, they have found excuse for shorting the song-writers and artists of money. Granted, a few "megapopular" artists escape the trap of debt and become wealthy, but I think it fair to say that the vast majority end up worse for wear in accepting the deal, aside from some brief fame (the shortness of which may well be attributed to the Record companies, as well).

Further, going back to my original point, those who share in protest are also doing so in protest to the legal crackdowns on filesharing as a whole. Why punish an entire group for the actions of a few? Why punish the few through severe penalties when their complaints are legitimate? Why respond when crackdowns on all, when ridding the source of those legitimate protests will stop a a sizable portion of the file-trading community from protesting, and pursuing individual cases of actual infringementt upon the law, rather than rashly and blindly issuing law suits?

These questions I think you should address, along with the knowledge that I myself am not a file-sharer of any kind.

~UP