Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Files 477 New Filesharing Lawsuits
Fallen Kell writes "According to the CNN story, the RIAA has filed another round of lawsuits against filesharers. This round has many college students who are allegedly sharing music on their university networks. Again, the defendants are listed only by their university IP addresses. No lawsuit has gone to trial yet out of the 2,454 litigations started by the RIAA since it began its crackdown."
At what point will this prompt a countersuit? Everyone knows the RIAA is suing music downloaders, so it stands to reason that the music downloaders will take steps to hide their identities, including using other people's accounts. If the RIAA stays true to form, they're going to assume that an IP address definitely identifies the culprit, when that is nowhere near true. When do they become legally liable for the false accusations?
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
None of these lawsuits have gone to trial, but the RIAA has a record of 437 settlements and zero dismissals.
That is to say, nobody's been able to force the RIAA to trial and say that the lawsuit is outright bogus. Some have been sucessful in delay tactics, but everybody facing a trial date settles for their entire life savings rather than risk a bankruptcy-forcing verdict that takes away everything the defendant owns.
The RIAA's lawsuits have thus far been entirely spot-on. They've yet to accuse somebody who "didn't do it". Illegal music filesharers beware... you have a substatial risk of having to pay the piper. Don't do it.
IANAL but, the RIAA had better win. If they don't win they will then have files 2,454 frivolous lawsuits. That's something the courts frown upon.
An industry built on piracy sees pirates as their biggest threat. Talk about karma coming back to bite your butt.
I am so fed up with hearing about the the RIAA and the MPAA - how the big bad pirates are ripping them off. These are the same assholes that have ripped off everyone who they've come into contact with over the years. I for one see this piracy as divine justice.(And I'm an atheist)
Yeah, you keep singing, and don't forgot to pay your tax on every CD-R or MP3 storage device that you buy... nevermind that that probably far exceeds losses by piracy
I always hated the principle to sue a few people, 'as an example', with in mind the idea that if they are severely punished, nobody else will do it again. It only shows one thing : the RIAA does not care about people. They could destroy one's life, they don't care if it can bring them $$$.
Maybe there are few such people who rank among the worst of the file swappers because people like that have useful things to do? The typical lawsuit target is young because that's who is doing the swapping.
Not sure what exactly I'm trying to say with this post, but these are a few of my random observations on this:
Many/most people today (especially young people), do not view file sharing of music and videos as wrong.
The entertainment industry has done more in the past 50 years to promote a youthful recklessness/lawlessness and a 'fuck the man' attitude. Now that it's turning around and hurting their own profits, they're resorting to strongarm tactics to scare kids into line.
This puts a cloud of fear over my and other's perception of the entertainment industry. Entertainment is supposed to be a light distraction from real life - it's not a requirement like food, clothing, and shelter. As such, I feel like people are being treated like cattle, and are being force-fed 'entertainment'.
The percieved value of music and other types of media is dropping. I personally laugh at the idea of buying a $10-$20 CD anymore - it no longer seems worth it. $1 per mp3/aac/whatever is equally laughable. I'd personally be willing to pay about 10 cents a song (with no DRM). I have no idea if this is even economically feasible. But that still doesn't change what I'm willing to pay.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
In the set of slasdot users, there are a number of philosophical subsets. This hypocrisy you think you see is based on the intersections of these subsets.
Here are a few:
1) A lot of slashdotters want to protect their right to use content in a digital manner.
2) A lot of them are also "libertarians" who don't like needless laws or nuisance litigation.
3) A lot of slashdotters are consumate do-it-yourselfers.
4) A lot of slashdotters have a strong sense of online community.
5) A lot of slashdotters have a problem with corporations and think they have too much power in society and government.
6) And a lot of slashdotters "still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea."
Combine 1, 2, 3 and 5 and you might think the RIAA enforcing copyright is a bad idea. Combine 1, 4, 5 and 6 and you might think enforcing the the GPL is a good idea. See? Different folks, different positions, and they aren't necessarily diametric.
Of course, i couldn't care less, as I'm securely in set 7 (likes Macintoshes). Which is a subset of group 6.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Unfortunately, most people dont fight it because
A) they did it or
B) they dont want to go to the expense of hireing a lawyer to fight it in court. or
C) both
This creates a situation similar to the Direct TV smart card lawsuits where a Extremely rich and pollitically powerful company uses those assets to intimidate and harass common citizens that can't afford to mount a defense. Basically it's extortion.
Support the EFF and hopefully they can put a stop to this kind of harrassment.
Americans could not be more self absorbed if they were made of equal parts water and paper towel. -Dennis Miller
(16) I live in Canada and pirating music is a right.
(17) I paid the DAT Tax and didn't get the right Canadians got from it.
Oh. Wait. I bursted your bubble, eh?
Sorry. Well, not really.
>What I find amusing is that the pirates seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between creative activity and brainless copying.
They do? If you could point out an example, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Nothing you mentioned in your rant really worked well for me as an example.
>(10) I believe that copying someone elses music, and redistributing it to my 1,000,000 "best friends" on the internet is sharing. Music is made for sharing. It's my right.
I can't think of a single person who has 5 TB of bandwidth to use per song that pirates. Not a single one. Heck, there's a lot of national ISPs that don't have bandwidth like that to waste. Maybe if I were AT&T...
Or did you mean "10 best friends"? Yeah, sucks to be without friends like yourself, but watch those sour grapes, will ya?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Well, they see uploads and downloads coming from an IP address. They sue it, and you can challenge it in court. But, most people just settle because they really were downloading. I mean, come on, if I was accused and I wasn't downloading, I'd fight it and make a big public deal out of it and prove my case and win.
I'm sure someone will reply and somehow paint the RIAA as evil for protecting their copyrights, though, so I'll shut up for now and let the hivemind speak. But there is nothing wrong going on here. And yes, piracy is wrong.
I'm a Pennsylvania resident. This year, the polling between Bush and Kerry in my state couldn't be closer, and we have a lot of electoral votes. They will be fighting over my state like no other this year. I *always* vote, and until now I've always voted with the party with which I'm registered. I'm registered with one of the two major parties (I'm not saying which one because I want them *both* to squirm).
I say we start a petition in PA: unless the parties DO SOMETHING (as in *ENACT LAW*) about the current situation regarding fair use, reverse engineering, infinite copyright extension, etc. our votes are GOING TO A THIRD PARTY. It doesn't matter which one, as long as it's not one of the two major parties. Let's make our message clear: IF YOU WANT TO RETAIN OUR LOYALTY AND HAVE A SHOT AT GETTING THIS STATE, YOU WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BEFORE ELECTION DAY. I can't think of any greater kick in the political balls than this. The politicians have made it clear they don't care about us, so let's see how they respond to fear.
well, here's my $.02
"(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement."
Well, I do believe in copying CD's. If they're gonna charge me 19.99 for a crappy album that I couldn't listen to beforehand and is 80% filler to buttress the radio hits, if they're gonna charge me $19.99 in spite of the multiple price-fixing they've been found guilty of, then, when I actually like the CD then yeah, I am gonna copy it for my friends. In my past experience, my friends wind up buying the CD if they like it, and that's with a full 16/44 copy, not some crappy mp3. Though my burner is so old, it's really a pain in the ass so you've gotta be a pretty good friend.
(2) I don't believe in the record companies emotively abusing the word "theft," but I do believe in emotively abusing words like "information," "sharing," and "Copyright Enforcement Militia."
I don't see how anybody is abusing "sharing", that's exactly what we're doing. Giving voice to that which we think is worth other people knowing about. I don't know anybody that shares music that they don't like.
I don't see how anybody is abusing the word "information". Please elaborate.
And this is the first time I've heard "Copyright enforcement militia", and as much as it tugs at my heartstrings I prefer cartel.
"(3) I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years."
Not true. As overpriced as CD have been found repeatedly in courts of law to be, people continue to buy them, and in increasing numbers. I believe that what drives piracy is the ClearChannel takeover of radio coupled with the consolidation of the "record industry" into two or three major monoliths, which led to the overwhelming proliferation of incredibly bad, bland, uninspired, uninteresting, untalented, demographically safe crap being promoted by Corporate Music. All people want is to hear good music again.
"(4) I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even though most pirated works are recent releases."
It's hard to look at the history of copyright law and not see Disney et al's just-one-more-extention policy as a money grab. Copyright law was specifically written to allow copyrights to expire after a reasonable time to allow works of IP to enter into the public domain. These regulations were sound and just and were written for a reason.
"(5) I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free advertising". I don't buy any of the music I download, of course--but lots of other people probably do."
I do believe that showing other people how good a certain artist is could possibly result in that person buying the CD. Sharing crappy, lossy MP3's is one way of showing them how good it is, just like radio used to be.
BUT. I have bought dozens of CD's that I liked the MP3's of. And I don't see why you feel the need to conflate the two unless you're afraid of your own argument's invalidity.
"(6) I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong. The record companies always rip off the artists. Artists support P2P, except the ones that don't (like Metallica), and they don't agree with me, hence they're greedy or their opinion doesn't count or something."
Wow, you really have a poor grasp on the situation. Let me rephrase for you: I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong. The record companies always have and always will rip off the artists. Some artists, usually those whose immediate financial future depends on the gratitude of Corporate Music, support P2P. Some artists, mostly those whose immediate financial furtures *do* depend on Corporate Music, don't support P2P, like
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Be carefull what you wish for...
Just because pirating is government sponsored doesn't make it a good idea...
True, but OTOH, just because copyrights are established doesn't make them a good idea either.
We'd probably be better off if we legalized some infringing behaviors that are currently prohibited.
Note, btw, that the US does something similar in the AHRA.
This is fine for China at the moment, after all, they are screwing US software companies.
Well, I have no qualms with China doing what's good for China. I think the US ought to follow a similar (US oriented) policy.
If they expect to have a huge domestic software industry however, they are going to have reign in the pirates, because no software company will be able to remain solvent by selling software when 100% of its software is available just as easily, and nearly as legally, at a fraction of the price.
Again, I agree. When China feels that this is more important, then they should pursue it. Again, they'll be doing what's best for their own people.
The problem with US copyright law now is that while some copyright law is pretty certainly what would be best for us, the current laws are not what's best for us. Instead they're best for (some) artists and publishers, and that's a tiny subset of all Americans. Instead copyright law ought to do what's best for Americans generally. This probably means scaling down copyright laws.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No, but it is their fault for exploiting that fact. When they go around crying a river about how some evil pirate has cost them millions of dollars, but then they're willing to "settle" for a tiny fraction of their alleged losses, an amount which just happens to be less than the cost of hiring a lawyer, it's clear that they're just adopting the same tactics as organized crime. You know -- pay for protection because "you never know what could happen to a nice joint like dis."
If they really cared about their rights, they'd sue these people for everything they were worth, just to make an example of them. But then the targets would have to fight back. Still, they'd make so much more money that way, if your claim that they're right is true. Their current strategy suggests that they are the ones who can't win, because their cases are weak.
You know, people who tend to defend corporations have complained for years (justifiably) about frivolous cases which force the company to settle because some bean counter has calculated it's cheaper than fighting a contingency-fee lawyer. Too bad we don't hear too many of them criticize the same abuse when it runs in the opposite direction.
I thought I had heard that issuing arrest warrants against DNA is not allowed. If this is true, and an ID based on something unique to a person is not allowed, how can ID'ing someone based on something not unique to a person be allowed?