Slashdot Mirror
Record Industry Sues 532 More U.S. File-Sharers
Patik writes "The RIAA today issued 532 new subpoenas for music file swapping, many of them college students using their campus networks. They will not say which ISPs or colleges were involved, but that the users were sharing "substantial amounts" of music files. This brings the total number of subpoenas to 1,977. The RIAA has been averaging $3,000 per settlement so far." Readers Digitus1337 and Warpedcow point to stories respectively at Wired and Reuters.
It must cost the RIAA more than $3,000 per case to file against file swappers. Lawyers don't come cheap...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
"The RIAA has been averaging $3,000 per settlement so far."
...so are they giving all the money they've received to the authors/performers of the music? How do they decide who gets what and what's the money used for.
It is a weak terrorist-like tactic.
How is this measure, which is entirely legal and non-violent "terrorist-like"? Or is everything we don't like supposed to be referred to as "terrorism" now? I didn't get the memo...
And it works. When you use a p2p application, do you share all of your music? How much do you have?
I have 8GB of music on my work computer. It's all legal - I own the CD or vinyl to match each one. But you have to admit - it's easier to download a copy of a song than it is to "rip" it from vinyl.
If I shared all that music, I would expect to be sued by the RIAA. They target people sharing a lot of music.
So... I don't share it. That means that there are 8GB of music that AREN'T available for download. In fact, by scaring people into not sharing their music, they are winning.
I'm not going to spend $3,000 for "the cause."
Well, that is -precisely- what I do when it comes to music, especially when it comes to electronic- music, where there are so many DJs/groups releasing songs/remixes/mashups; with many only being released on wax, etc.
Tell me, if I hear a snippet of say, something like, "D-Funktional" by Mekon featuring Afrika Bambaataa, where I can go to hear the full version?
The answer is nowhere. And this is why P2P rocks.
I would say listening to it first is a pretty good way to decide whether something is valuable to you. At least that's the way I choose which CD's to buy: download songs from p2p/usenet, and buy the CD if I like it.
The Record Industry's business model is geared towards them telling you what you should be listening to, not the other way around. They simply are not going to stand for listeners being able to pick and chose music on their own. The best way out of their trap is to find some independent bands that you like and avoid RIAA stuff altogether.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
That AC is overrated.
/. it gets interesting when people discuss, explain their position. Saying "the answer is 23!" does not say anything about what you think the question is, or what the logic behind "23" is. You could shout "buy!" and I could shout "don't!" all day, and nothing useful would come out.
If you want music, buy it! If it's not valuable to you, don't.
No, don't buy it ! If you want music, get it through the most convenient, cheapest way you can ! If it's not valuable to you, don't bother.
Now that I gave a reply in the same tone of your post, let me rumble a bit.
Here at
How about bringing us all more about what you think. For instance I would like to remind you that laws should reflect the best interests of society. They are generally very, very arbitrary in their content.
Music was historically freely available -- those who liked it, listened to it, those who had talent, repeated what they listened to. After thousands of years of Music being free, and some (how many?) hundred years of copyright law, I would say it is fair to ask: "It the copyright way of treating musical works really the correct one ?". If so, why ?
Music is, at its core, a comunal event. It was alway played to be listened. The player needs the listener as much as the listener needs the player. Why should the listeners pay the player, and not the player pay the listeners ? The answer is, because the extra-hyped, created celebrities, super publicized top performers are few in number, and many groups of people would like to have the same performers coming over to play, so an auction effect raises stakes and pays them a lot.
BUT is this fair to equally talented, not so famous bands ? No it isn't. Is the star creation system, through major labels, an optimal allocator of musical talent -- I do not believe so. So why not let the labels starve, and stop feeding the star system, so that each one starts looking around for local talent, which will not be as expensive ?
I would rather have a new world than risk a world in which I need to pay for each time I press play on my music jukebox. One Microsoft is enough, already.
Sorry for the long post. It's late at night and I decided to throw my 25 cents in.
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
Last time I commented on a related topic, someone responded by commenting that the song he/she/it downloaded lead to he/she/it buying the songs in question. (or somethign to that effect), as if that was somehow a rebuttal to my comment.
I'm sort of tired of people who cite increased CD sales to somehow justify piracy. That's totally beside the point. It's the copyright owners' prerogative to dictate how the works are sold, or not sold, for that matter. If the copyright owners didn't want the increased sales from allowing P2P, that's still their prerogative. It does not change their right to distribute or not distribute the work as they please. They can sew the master copy inside a matress and sit on it, if that's what they want to do.
Our prerogative, as consumers, is to not pay for said works if we don't agree with the terms under which they make it available. That's it. Piracy is piracy whether or not P2P leads to million or billion CD sales. Smart labels will realize this and capitalize on it; stupid ones will fight until they run out of money and lose to the others with a little more business savvy.
The industry's treatment of artists is also a completely separate discussion. No matter how crappy the artists' deals are, it STILL doesn't transfer copyright to pirates. If you don't like the way the labels do business, it's your prerogative not to buy from them. It still doesn't grant you rights to use the works they have the rights to without permission.
If you don't like the copyright laws, try to have the laws changed. However, until the laws do change, you STILL don't have the right to pirate copyrighted works.
Nobody forced these kids to distribute these files. If they were in fact participating in piracy, they deserve whatever reprimand they get.
Get it through your thick skulls -- It's the copyright owners' right not have their work distributed through P2P.
-- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."