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.
C'mon guys !! use Kazaa Lite, not the full version!! At least give yourselves a chance. And the best place to get Kazaa Lite these days is... yep, Kazaa !!!
The RIAA ought to keep on doing this until the public gets either so fed up with these antics or simply doesn't have enough money to buy the CDs altogether.
Though they've made around 6M dollars, this is a losing strategy in the long run.
I have been pwned because my
Thank goodness I only share and download pornography!
Seriously though, they need to make sure the
punishment isn't worse than the crime. Ruining
a college student's record/life may not fit that
description.
bastards.
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.
1977 people still only represents a tiny fraction of p2p users. ~.049% of the p2p users (I assumed the low amount of 4million at any one time). Take the number of user to a resonable 15million and we get .013%. I guess free is still greater than cheap to many people.
"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.
I remember when they first started sueing, the file trading slowed down for a while. I think it went back up though. Do you think most people think they won't get caught? After all, when there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people on a p2p network, sueing 532 people is only a fraction of the overall filesharers.
--
Smack your momma good deals!
Still, only close to 2000 lawsuits is only a fraction of the entire music-swapping community.
It is a weak terrorist-like tactic. Even though they only get a tiny fraction of the population, they hope that this will scare everyone individually.
Well, good luck to them.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
No no no. The money goes to pay the lawyers to help protect the artists from these thieves!
"Lawyers don't come cheap..."
Indian lawyers do.
I've seen numbers that claim 50,000,000 people in the US use P2P applications. Let's do the math:
In approximately 8 months the industry has sued 1,977 people. That's 1 in every 25,290.84 people. Now we get into speculation. Assume:
they keep up their current trend of filing that many lawsuits every 8 months.
the number of P2P users in the U.S. stays static
you were born today, will live for 74 years and are precocious enough to use P2P software today, the day of your birth.
That's 195,064 file sharers they'll sue in your lifetime. Heck, you have a 1 in 256.33 chance of being sued over your entire life, you lucky newborn!
Oh, there's one assumption I forgot to mention:
Assume: The RIAA racketeers are still in business your whole life.
NB: My math may be off, I've had a few cold ones.
Trolling is a art,
The list of colleges was included in the RIAA press release:
The individuals included in today's legal action were on the networks of the following universities (listed in alphabetical order of state or name): University of Arizona; University of California, Berkeley; California State University -- Northridge; University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; Drexel University; George Mason University; George Washington University; Georgetown University; Indiana University; University of Indianapolis; Loyola Marymount University; Marquette University; University of Maryland; University of Michigan; New York University; University of Northern Colorado; University of Pennsylvania; University of Southern California; Stanford University; Vanderbilt University; and Villanova University.
http://www.cpwire.com/archive/2004/3/23/1540.asp
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.
Remember: spread the word, but don't sound like a fanatic.
I'm reminded of why I quit buying their stuff and started buying better music instead.
Rank Presidents by th
The suits need to ramp up and continue [even faster] at all costs; I'm in great favor of the industry pursuing people as quickly as possible and winning the suits whereever appropriate.
Not because I'm some sort of RIAA nazi, but rather because it is neccessary in order to drive forward new methods of distribution, as well as innovation for smaller, non-mega-supra-corp bands. Once the RIAA/MPAA has shot themselves in the collective feet enough through negative press and marketing, consumers will demand alternative bands, distribution, technology, etc. The mega-bands might even make enough fuss due to lost sales from their mad-as-hell fans.
Me, I'm just sitting back enjoying the ride waiting for that day.
Maybe they used a computer to print out seperate forms for each one? The restriction was against all-in-one subpoenas IIRC...
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
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.
Waaah, the big bad RIAA is big and bad and mean and they won't let me have their music for free. Waaah! I just summed up all the posts on this topic.
And in other news, Water still feels wet, the sky hasn't fallen, and SCO still hasn't had all their cases dismissed with prejudice.
C'mon people, this doesn't even count as news anymore. People violate copyrights, people get sued. Let it go.
Now, what I consider the bigger "news" from this involves the experiment the RIAA has run on the level of stupidity in the general population. 1977 suits so far, and people still keep using Kazaa to download this crap. Get a clue, Kazaa users! At the very least, switch to a different P2P app. Perferable one with at least a tad bit of privacy, like FreeNet.
Or better yet, just go back to the way that has worked for the past 30-40 years, from the days before P2P - Swap music and movies privately, offline, with your friends. You can get the same stuff, with absolutely no chance of an RIAA nastygram as a resuly. You can even do so as a sort of buying pool, where you and a dozen friends agree not to overlap in your purchases, thus maximizing your available music library. "Need" to find something really obscure, possibly out-of-press (print? Whatever you call music that you can no longer buy new, for any price)? Hook up with a fan group, where you can get material far more obscure than even Kazaa's bottom-20 list.
Or, best option of all, just buy from indie labels. Hey, we all have a favorite band, and I'll admit even I will buy whatever a handful of RIAA-signed groups puts out. But for the rest of the "fluffy listening" music, look into companies like Magnatune, or go direct to the artists' websites. The musician gets a FAR bigger cut, you pay less ($5/cd on average, in my experience, for buying direct from the artist), and best of all, the RIAA gets nothing.
"..This brings the total number of subpoenas to 1,977.."
In 1977:
February 11 - A 20.2-kg lobster is caught off Nova Scotia (heaviest known crustacean).
Coincidence?!? YOU Decide
Why is it that no one uses the most obvious defense of plausible deniability:
THERE. DONE.
Even if they only have to prove a preponderence of the evidence, they would STILL have to deal with all of those items AND in the end you would still have a hard disk with no songs to beat them over the head with. It seems to me they could NEVER win one of these cases.
I don't know about anyone else, but that's much cheaper than settling for several thousand dollars. And that's if you don't hire a lawyer and contest that the RIAA don't have the right to get your personal info and the ISP don't have the right to hand it over as at least one person has done successfully.
I mean FFS, if people can get away with the "a virus hacked into my computer and did it" defense for criminal cases...
Liberty.
people still share music in groves.
Groves?
Fscking druids ruining it for everybody.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
Produce a product that anyone else can copy and you'll soon go bankrupt. That's capitalism. What you describe is a system of government backed monopoly.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
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.
- free up bandwidth for us non copyright infringers
- result in fewer infringers on p2p networks, thus substantiating the slashdot choruses of "go after the users, leave technology alone" and "p2p apps such as kazaa have many important non-infringing uses."
- drive people to the newest pay-per-download service of the week. after all, a two years ago you couldn't log on to slashdot without seeing a "if they only charged 99c per song download there would be no need for things like kazaa" and "I'd gladly pay 99c per song so that i dont have to buy 'filler'")
- by going after college students, the RIAA (or whoever) can't be after money, since they ain't got none. The riaa will doubtlessly lose more money in lawyer fees than they will collect in judgements. they MUST be about sending a message, therefore. this is a good thing, because that is the right message to send--copyrights (such as the ones that form the basis of the GPL, Britney's music, and the bulk of work done by software developers who visit slashdot) should be respected, completely anti-copyright idiot/zealots notwithstanding (bring on the flames).
but, of course, instead of responses consistent with the old slashdot argument of "leave the technology alone, go after the infringers", expect to see the regular carping and whining here about the RIAA.Everyone bitched about how piracy was the only option since the RIAA didn't want to allow tracks to be sold online. You've been able to buy individual tracks music online now. It's not like you have to buy albums full of filler tracks anymore. Either stop listening to major label music or pay the $0.99 per track. If this was a story about GPL violations, my how the tables would be turned.
Also, everyone bitched how the RIAA was attacking the P2P networks themselves instead of the users participating in the unauthorized distribution of the copyrighted materials. The RIAA is doing exactly what everyone suggested - going after the pirates.
As for the argument that your chances of getting caught are pretty slim - yea, it's just like speeding on the highway when you're keeping up with traffic. You're still breaking the law. Just don't be surprised if in the future there's cameras along the highway that take a picture of your licence plate, and later in the mail each and every one of you get a ticket. That's what happens when you pay more attention to the methods of enforcement than the laws. Likewise, if you keep ignoring the copyright laws, eventually there will be better ways for the RIAA to catch more people and it won't be a matter of enforcement anymore.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I'm an editor at the my college's newspaper. I received this in my inbox today from The Collegiate Presswire:
Looks like the new lawsuits are just a part of a well-planned campaign to strike fear into us immoral college students. I guess this "conference" will consist mostly of the RIAA spewing propaganda with the hope that the editors and reporters in the chat will carry it back to their publications.
This news is very depressing. Shame on the RIAA for suing students! They could at least go after people who can afford the court fees.
I've found this site to be a good source of free downloadable MP3s. Gotta go grab more in light of this recent news ;)
Are any of these guys sued fighting back or are they just making the $3000 settlements?
Would'nt it make sense if they got together and fought the RIAA? I know it seems easy to say n not to do when your sued by a giant but wouldnt they just keep suing people if no one fights back.
Lord of the Binges.
Are you kidding? What legal uses?
Downloading non-RIAA files.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
That guilt was predetermined. If we know that someone is guilty before a court proceeding, why have courts at all? I mean if someone's accused they MUST be guilty, right?
Give me a break.
You have no idea if these people are liable (this is civil court, it's liability, not guilt). For one, there is no gaurentee that those files were actually copyrighted files. There are TONS of misnamed files (either delibratly or accidentally) on any given P2P network, and no the RIAA doesn't bother to download and check. Even assuming they are actually the songs they claim to be, there is no way to know that the files were on the computer you think they are. Kaazaa particularly is not known for it's accuracy in pulling lists from computers, it gets it wrong sometimes. Even supposing it is the right list, you have no idea if the person who is associated with the IP is actually the right person. Maybe they have wireless and someone used it (seriously, it's easy to break in, even if they use WEP). Even if it ends up being their computer, you have no idea that they were the one responsible. Virsues, worms and hacks are RAMPANT, and it wouldn't be out of the question for someone to use a hacked box for P2P to shield themselves.
So basically they are saying "Well this IP, which might or might not be for this computer, which might or might not have been under this person's control, might or might not have had this list of files which might or might not be what they claim to be is infringing on our copyright." What? You mean you think you can predetermine guilt from that? Give me a break.
When the music industry starts paying back all the musicians that they have ripped off, then and only then will I consider the piracy being perpetrated against them wrong.
These are the people who caused many of the founders of jazz, blues and rock and roll to die in poverty. What is happing now is not piracy, it is devine justice.
I would say listening to it first is a pretty good way to decide whether something is valuable to you.
Slashdotters love to say this...as though the majority of the people on Kazaa are "sampling" all those albums in order to run to the store and purchase them to re-get them.
I don't get this incessant need to avoid stating the OBVIOUS TRUTH, which is that p2p is used for a shitload of outright piracy and avoiding paying for stuff. I'd say over 90%. You're being foolish and purposely stoic if you pretend otherwise.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the RIAA suing people who are illegally distributing their product. I don't get the opposition to that either.
If you love the music industry executives, thier spouses and mistresses AND thier nosetrails... buy the overpriced shit they sell you.
When translated to reality, reads:
"I'm justifying stealing some artist's music because I don't like that an exec who heads the label makes money in a capitalist system. I'll ignore that the artist willingly signed their contract and that distributing intellectual property without the copyright holder's permission is illegal.
Instead, I'll sidestep the issue of ripping off artists and say, "Here, look at this, it's a rich RIAA exec and his wife!" Thereby completely distracting the issue with something irrelevant that the anti-social, anti-capitalist, generally-broke Slashdotters can rally against.
And we'll pretend it's actually WRONG for the RIAA to be suing people still illegally distributing their product--even after all the awareness of its immorality and illegality. Never mind that when Napster was being sued, Slashdotters were saying the RIAA should be suing individual downloaders instead because they're the ones breaking the law!
Now they're doing exactly what Slashdotters said they should do, and suddenly it's wrong. Because I'm really trying to justify the piracy I participate in daily on my DSL connection. I'm going to pretend it's not illegal, not immoral, and I'm going to rid myself of the guilt of downloading by trying to remove the image of me being a criminal and instead paint the RIAA as the bad guy."
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Here's my problem statement:
1. File sharers like the p2p model as a way of finding new music. They like it partly because it's free, but my suspicion is that there's more to it than that. They like the model. Radio is dead, and the RIAA killed it, via ClearChannel. I'm going to suggest that, given a workable model that preserves file sharing, but allows musicians and their promoters to earn revenues, file sharers will move to a legal model. But it has to preserve the basics of the current open file sharing model.
2. File sharers want to use whatever client they feel like. Any "legalized" file sharing method which forces users into using a specific locked, closed source client is likely to fail.
3. A flat fee system, with built in means to prevent cheating (leaking to uncontrolled distribution) and gaming the system (permitting individuals to artificially inflate download numbers for a particular song) would generate sufficient revenues and a method for divvying up those revenues that would be acceptable to the music industry and musicians.
That's a tall order, but I think it can be done. Consider this:
If you pay a flat fee into my proposed system, you have the rights to:
a. download content with copyrights held by participating contributors freely, by any method.
b. upload that participating content, but only to those that have also paid the fee.
I believe this can be done. To meet my criterion 2, it has to be done by defining a protocol, not a specific client. Criterion 3 can be met by making it trivial to police, to ensure that subscribers aren't cheating. So here's my protocol, at least in a cartoon-back-of-the-envelope form:
Subscribers use a client which authenticates with the license administrator's server. This authentication may be long term, results in a symmetric key shared with the server and bound to a subscriber's identity, and which is your proof that you are a participant. The protocol requires that, prior to actually sharing any content (but not necessarily advertizing it) you perform a 3-way authentication with the party that wishes to share your content and the administration server farm. This can be done using a Needham-Schroeder protocol, by which the administration server pushes, on request, a symmetric key to the two parties. By using this protocol, you have fulfilled your obligation to only upload content to participating subscribers. Your proof is provided by the administration server in distributing the key. Note that you don't need to know the identity of the other party; you only know that they are a subscriber. The symmetric key you share with them is then used to encrypt the content you send them.
Data gathering in this scheme is trivial; the administrators take a sample of the content which has been distributed by scanning the upload directories of subscribers. What is measured is the relative distribution of content, not the number of uploads, and because you don't know the identity of the scanning party, it's very difficult to game the system.
Policing is also simple. The administrative server can ping authenticated subscribers to verify that they aren't using any other file sharing protocol.
So, there may be some things in here you find objectionable. But is this a fair compromise? Could this work?
Comments?
Krill
Well God knows, time was you could actually hear good music for free on the radio. But the RIAA took care of that already.
But that's beside the point. I'm assuming you know the difference between MP3 and PCM. How can you say that one is "re-getting" something when the two codecs are so dissimilar? Is one "re-getting" something when you buy a CD of something you taped off the radio? No, because you are buying it in a different and superior format. And yes, I now own *dozens* of CD's that I wouldn't were it not for P2P. I can't speak for anybody but myself.
You know what I wonder? I wonder how many of you "stealing-is-stealing" people have had dual cassette decks.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
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.
Subscription music services. Streaming web radio. Promotional CDs. Compilation discs. Reviews in magazines. Free promotional compilation discs in magazines with reviews that you can subscribe to.
... all suffer from the same ailment I mentioned: only one or two tracks. It might be me or it might be my taste in music, but the only way for me to decide if I like something is by listening to it entirely a few times. Small parts of an album often give an either wrongfully positive or negative impression of the entire composition.
All of you people who keep crying and complaining that the prices are all too high
I'm perfectly willing to shell out [average CD price] for a CD, as long as I'm reasonably sure it's actually worth it.
and the labels are all unfair,
You are wrongfully accusing me and a lot of other people of ignorance. I think the average /.-er is perfectly well aware of the existence of independant labels that care about music, not money.
and you'd be fine if they'd just wake up and provide a low-cost alternative.
There's no need for an alternative. The current system is turning out to be real good for music as an art (many people are finding, and subsequently paying for, music they would never have found without p2p), and real bad for those who make more money when everyone just listens to & buys whatever junk is currently at #1 in the charts.
"We keep losing customers! I don't understand! We sue the fuckers, and they still won't buy our products!"
-Valiss
No problem.
They're using the law against us, why not use it to fight them? They're soon going to stop suing people if they know they can get their cases beaten in the courts.
I'm pretty sure this is the fastest way to beat them, or at least slow them down a bunch.
I worked many more years ago than I care to admit in a record store and I got a very handsome discount on music (OK, it was pre-CD and we did actually have some 8-tracks. Yeah, that long ago). Know what? I bought loads of music out of my wages and I didn't care that much if some of it was cack. Now I can afford to buy some music but as I see such a load of rubbish on sale (Dido? Am I the only one who thinks she's mooing?) I don't buy much at all. And I don't download. You've got to really want to hear something before you'll bother with the faffing around in p2p to find a decent copy.
Music is overpriced. People know that the price of a CD is too high for its value in terms of entertainment.
As purchasers listen to their new CD they realise that they've got 2 or 3 decent tracks and a load of filler. How much did I pay for this junk? As resentment builds and they see the tracks they want to hear available on p2p networks, they choose to get the music they want, rather than the music the industry wants them to have.
The industry is pricing singles at too high a proportion of the price of a full album. Result: death of the CD single.
The price of a CD album is set at an artificial point to seem more valuable than the nearest rounded-down price point (example: $18.99 rather than $14.99). Result: resentment by buyers, who seek out cheaper sources for their CD's until the industry says Whoa there! WE can offshore production to save money and increase profits, but you suckers can still pay our price in your home territory rather than buy offshore.
Unless the price of CDs and DVDs falls to a lower price point the industry will face continuing efforts to circumvent copyright. Let's face it, if a CD cost half of what it does today, would you bother to download it? To rip it? The industry is NOT giving artists big royalties and they're not investing heavily in A&R. They are just coining it, and getting scared that the public have rumbled their cosy little game.
When a commodity is overpriced in the martketplace, the price must fall or the market will collapse.