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.

[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.