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

MS going after innocent P2P users as well

[Mr. Darl McBride]

I submitted this story and it got rejected, but it affects some of you, who may have been targeted by Microsoft for using a P2P service when you weren't even downloading Microsoft material.

The rejected story:

Last week, Slashdot published the story that Microsoft source code had been leaked for Windows 2000 and Windows NT4. Immediately, curious geeks began to look for sources for this code. Never one to miss a chance at a bit of good fun, I replied to the story, posting a link my Linux 2.6.2 kernel torrent, proclaiming "Kernel source here!" Microsoft's response? They went on the offensive, promptly trying to plug this "leak."

This morning, my ISP account was suspended, and I received a notification declaring that I had allegedly violated Microsoft's copyright. Violated Microsoft's copyright with a Linux kernel? Their complaint was filed two days after posting the torrent. In this time, they had apparently downloaded the torrent, but failed to verify that the contents were actually infringing. (I understand. .bz2 files confused me the first time I saw them, too.)

I checked the torrent tracker logs, and it seems that MS is still sitting on the torrent, presumably collecting IPs from would-be Linux downloaders. Of course, I removed the .torrent file so nobody else is inconvenienced by Microsoft legal's lack of dilligence. A good joke is one thing, but enabling Microsoft to continue harassing users is another.

For the curious and the irate alike, I've included Microsoft's complaint below:

J.K. Weston
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
jkweston@microsoft.com
Tel: (425) 703-5529

14 Feb 2004

URGENT/IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

(My ISP)

Re: NOTICE OF POTENTIAL UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF MICROSOFT SOURCE CODE AT: (My IP) Date of Infringement: Detail below.

Dear (ISP):

We have received information that one of your users as identified above by the SITE/URL (My IP) may have engaged in the unlawful distribution of Microsoft's source code for Windows 2000, and/or Windows NT4, by distributing and offering for download these source code files via a peer-to-peer network.

Since you own this IP address, we request that you take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement.

We also kindly request that you forward this notice promptly to the user of the IP address listed above at the time and date stated.

To the user at (My IP):

The unauthorized copying and distribution of Microsoft's protected source code is a violation of both civil and criminal copyright and trade secret laws. If you have downloaded and are making the source code available for downloading by others, you are violating Microsoft's rights, and could be subject to severe civil and criminal penalties.

Microsoft demands that you immediately (1) cease making Microsoft's source code available or otherwise distributing it, (2) destroy any and all copies you may have in your possession, and (3) provide us any and all information about how you came into possession of this code.

Microsoft takes these issues very seriously, and will pursue legal action against individuals who take part in the proliferation of it source code. We look forward to your prompt cooperation. Should you need to contact me, I can be reached at the address above or at jkweston@microsoft.com.

Very truly yours,

By
J.K. Weston

How did I come across this source? Microsoft, I went to kernel.org.

Looks the RIAA's found a little competition in the puppy-kicking department.

That's the story that didn't get posted, but if any of you got a nastygram from your ISP, you deserve to know about this. Point your ISP to the Slashdot posting with the torrent and demand that they reinstate your account, and more to it: demand an apology from Microsoft. There are plenty of comments from others about this being the Linux 2.6.2 kerenl. MS is having ISPs shut off accounts for downloading Linux!

Re:MS going after innocent P2P users as well

[Undefined Parameter]

In the tradition of the classic acronym many a slashdot denizen has used in composing their often insightful and interesting posts, IANAL. Even though such is the case (and until I am contradicted by someone who can truthfully say "IAAL"), it is clear to me that you probably have a very strong legal case against Microsoft right now; granted, it might only warrant small claims court, but it's still a case against them, and if you can get a guilty(?) verdict out of it, you have granted the lawyers of the EFF and other such foundations a tool with which to defend your fellow innocent file-sharers.

Go for it, man, if not for the your own rights and those same rights held by others online, then to strike a blow against that oft-belligerent corporation, Microsoft, or at least, so as to appeal to your baser desires, for the money. Don't tell me that such an award would be but a drop in the bucket and therefore not worth the effort for you (because if you do, I'll be asking for a donation to the "Put Undefined Parameter Through College Fund ;-) ).

Viva la revolucion!

~UP

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

Me?!?

[El]

Of course, once these thugs find out who you are, you can pay them off for the small fee averaging $3,000 You mean, once these thugs find out who my neighbor with the unencrypted 802.11b Access Point is, he can pay them off... provided they can prove it was actually him, and not any one of his neighbors that made copyrighted material available without authorization...

Re:Me?!?

[Your_Mom]

no no No No NO!!!

You are in charge of your Internet connection, you signed the EULA, you pay the bills, you answer the lawsuit. It doesn't need to be beyond a reasonable doubt, it merely needs to be proved.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

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.

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?

Be smart.

[readpunk]

If you only download music, it is your fault if you get a lawsuit or get busted.

Reason being is you are listening to bad music. Stop supporting or even ripping off the RIAA and wake up to the fact that any music that is associated with them is terrible.

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.

Let them sue me...

[eWarz]

I wish they'd try to sue me! They'd be in for a _really_ nasty surprise. I own all the music i download, i'm just too lazy to rip the songs from cd. I have 250 cds in my collection, it takes an average of 2 minutes a song to download a 192kbps copy, vs 10 minutes a song to rip/encode. I also have company lawyers that bite. Hard.

I Have But Two Words for You, Sir:

[Undefined Parameter]

Civil disobedience. The practice of this ideology and method of protest begun many decades ago, but it has changed from protesting government actions (or inactions, whichever the case may be) to protesting government, corporate, and/or organizational practices. It may not occur to you, but it may be that some these illegal file-sharers are only breaking the law in protest of exploitation and high prices. Alternatively, if you wish to view civil disobedience as pertaining only to governmental practices, you could see the participation in such civil disobediance as protesting the lack of government action to stop such disservices to the community.

I cannot say I speak for file-sharers, but we all must take into account the culture of rebellion, especially against lawyer groups and corporations, in analysing the file-sharing movement and practice.

(The RIAA does not need to operate the way it does today. It could, for example, simply apply itself as a marketing, CD manufacturing, and distribution service, still garner substantial profit margins, and NOT take the copyright of the artist and cheat the artist of his/her/their proper compensation in practicing that business model. Things could be made better in this regard, for this subject, and there are people, plebs if you will, who are making the demand for change; the actions those individuals take in stating their demands are not necessarily organized or nonagressive in nature.)

~UP

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Civil disobedience. The practice of this ideology and method of protest begun many decades ago, but it has changed from protesting government actions (or inactions, whichever the case may be) to protesting government, corporate, and/or organizational practices. It may not occur to you, but it may be that some these illegal file-sharers are only breaking the law in protest of exploitation and high prices.

I always laugh when I see this analogy. Yeah, civil disobediance. The thousands of people who have been beaten, arrested, tortured over the years in response to acts of civil disobediance, acts designed to obtain independence from colonizing powers or equality of rights under the law, are of course analogous to a bunch of us geeks sitting on our asses, bravely pointing and clicking -- and getting to avoid paying for that Radiohead album too. Yeah, right.

Jesus Christ.

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.

Title 17 Section 1008 says they cannot sue!

[Losat]

Those same recording media fees are charged here in the USA, too (on blank cassettes and "Music" CD-Rs). This was made law at the same time as suits against consumers for making copies were prohibited!

I keep wondering how they are suing noncommerical infringers considering that the law says they can't sue them.

Title 17, Chapter 10 "1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

I guess it must be that this section protects the act of making the recording but not distributing it. Thus, it would be legal to use the "digital audio recording device" embodied in your computer and favorite digital music software to make a copy of music available via P2P but not to let others get your music files.

(I'm no lawyer, but I play one on slashdot.)

If you're sick of the RIAA!!!

[torpor]

Then stop using them. They'll go away.

Looking for new and interesting music?

The AMPFEA.ORG Files Repository contains a signficant daily portion of new music which has been released on the 'net by independent artists.

The new-music mailing list is a handy, moderated list for new music announcements from fresh artists around the glob.

Go here if you've got music of your own online that you want to announce to the new-music list ...

You don't *NEED* record companies any more, in order to find good music. You only need them to make you feel good about belonging to a society...