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."

Comments

When will the backlash come?

[Jaywalk]

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?

Re:When will the backlash come?

[The Analog Kid]

Some lady in New Jersey is suing the RIAA on racketeering laws, saying that the RIAA is extorting money from filesharers by filing these mass suits and then settling because there is no way these people can legally fight the RIAA.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[koganuts]

Yeah here's the info:

RIAA sued under gang laws

Last modified: February 18, 2004, 1:39 PM PST
By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

It's probably not the first time that record company executives have been likened to Al Capone, but this time a judge might have to agree or disagree.

A New Jersey woman, one of the hundreds of people accused of copyright infringement by the Recording Industry Association of America, has countersued the big record labels, charging them with extortion and violations of the federal antiracketeering act.

Through her attorneys, Michele Scimeca contends that by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime.

"This scare tactic has caused a vast amount of settlements from individuals who feared fighting such a large institution and feel victim to these actions and felt forced to provide funds to settle these actions instead of fighting," Scimeca's attorney, Bart Lombardo, wrote in documents filed with a New Jersey federal court. "These types of scare tactics are not permissible and amount to extortion."

Scimeca is one of a growing number of people fighting the record industry's copyright infringement campaign against file-swappers, although few have used such creative legal strategies.

According to the RIAA, which filed its latest round of lawsuits against 531 as-yet-anonymous individuals on Tuesday, it has settled with 381 people, including some who had not yet actually had suits filed against them yet. A total of nearly 1,500 people have been sued so far.

The industry group says that "a handful" of people have countersued, using a variety of claims.

"If someone prefers not to settle, they of course have the opportunity to raise their objections in court," an RIAA representative said. "We stand by our claims."

Few if any of the cases appear to have progressed far, however. The first RIAA lawsuits against individuals were filed more than five months ago, although the majority of people targeted have been part of the "John Doe" campaigns against anonymous individuals this year.

Several individuals and companies have started by fighting the RIAA attempts to identify music swappers though their Internet service providers (ISPs).

The most prominent, known by the alleged file-swapper's screen name "Nycfashiongirl," resulted in at least a temporary victory for the computer user. A Washington, D.C., court ruled in December that the RIAA's initial legal process for subpoenaing ISP subscriber identities before filing lawsuits was illegal. Because "Nycfashiongirl" had been targeted under this process, the RIAA dropped its request for her identity.

However, that may have provided only a temporary reprieve. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group that is closely following the RIAA's campaign, the Internet address used by "Nycfashiongirl" was included in the batch of lawsuits filed on Tuesday against anonymous individuals, raising the likelihood that she will be drawn back into the courts.

Separate attempts to fight subpoenas are ongoing in North Carolina and St. Louis, where the American Civil Liberties Union and ISP Charter Communications are respectively challenging the RIAA's information requests.

In San Francisco, computer user Raymond Maalouf has taken the first steps toward fighting the RIAA's suits. His daughters were the ones that used Kazaa to download music, and one of them even wound up in last month's Super Bowl advertisement for Pepsi's iTunes promotion, which featured a handful of teens caught in the RIAA dragnet.

In documents filed with San Francisco courts, Maalouf's attorneys noted tha

Re:When will the backlash come?

[bechthros]

false logic again. Just because nobody *has* shown up to claim that yet doesn't mean they haven't been *able* to. There could well be people who've already pleaded out who seriously didn't do it, but were so terrified of fighting an entire industry and the costs of doing so that they figured it would be easier to make the payout. Just as there are lots of women who are raped who never report it, and victims of organized crime who pay protection money, etc etc. Next.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[RickHunter]

Even worse is that its literally impossible to prove your innocence. Any logs you have can be doctored just as easily as the RIAA can doctor their logs, and most courts are going to be a hell of a lot less likely to believe you. If, OTOH, the Judge places a reasonable burden of evidence on the RIAA, it becomes impossible for them to continue their case. (As was done in Canada, and which the Liberal Party has promised to change if they're re-elected.)

Re:When will the backlash come?

[AuMatar]

Yes, you are. Right to a fair and speedy trial, right to due process, innocent until proven guilty, any of these ring a bell?

Re:When will the backlash come?

[squiggleslash]

You can still have those things. However, if you're guilty, you're likely to lose. A fair trial isn't one where you win, regardless of your guilt or innocence.

I don't see any evidence that the RIAA has settled a lawsuit that it wouldn't have won anyway. I know people feel that that's unfair, that the copyright system should be more liberal than it actually is, but, in all honesty, whether it is or it isn't, that's the law, and it isn't racketeering to enforce the law, or to settle against a guilty party out of court.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if you're guilty, you're likely to lose.

What country are you from?

Re:When will the backlash come?

[Shakrai]

I don't see any evidence that the RIAA has settled a lawsuit that it wouldn't have won anyway. I know people feel that that's unfair, that the copyright system should be more liberal than it actually is, but, in all honesty, whether it is or it isn't, that's the law, and it isn't racketeering to enforce the law, or to settle against a guilty party out of court.

IANAL but I don't think that having an IP address proves anything. Granted in a civil case you don't need to prove your case beyond all reasonable doubt -- but you do have to show that a preponderance of the evidence proves your case. What evidence are they going to have besides a downloaded song or two and an IP address?

I don't see how the IP address proves anything. Even if they tie it to my computer I could have been running an open WiFi network or had a compromised system. Say they do tie it to my computer -- guess what? The RIAA isn't a law enforcement agency. The jury would basically be relying on their good word that they actually found that IP address -- the classical "he said, she said" case. Do you think neutral non-interested parties are harvesting these addresses for RIAA? Somehow I doubt it.

Of course none of this matters because nobody has the money to actually fight one of these lawsuits. What a pity.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're guilty, you're likely to lose.

If I learned anything from O.J. Simpson, it is that ex-football stars do not do well in the transition to movie actor (see Naked Gun series). This fact was just cemented by Howie Long's Firestorm...

Oh wait, I meant he taught me that just because you are guilty it doesn't mean you are likely to lose.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[Strider-BG]

Except one of the main problems in this country is that anyone can be sued for anything by anyone else with no consequence. The government only provides free legal assistance for criminal defendants, not civil ones so you have no choice but to hire a lawyer when you're sued. We need the system like they have (I believe) in the UK where if you're sued by someone and you win, they have to pay your legal bills. At least then it would incent companies to get their $hit straight straight. As it is there's no deterrent. My parents were bankrupted when they were sued by one of their employees for breach of contract - the guy's brother was an attorney and did it for free. My parents ended up winning but had spent over $100K in legal fees. Their small business couldn't recover from that ordeal and they had to shut it down, dragging themselves into bankruptcy.

So what now? Sue the former employee for a frivolous lawsuit? More legal fees to get what? The guy doesn't have that kind of cash. It's like getting mugged for $100K. They're fsck'd. Mom's working part-time at a doctor's office and Dad is looking for a job.

I hate our current President but the one campaign promise I hoped he'd deliver on is that of tort reform. Don't think that'll happen now though :(

Re:When will the backlash come?

[macdaddy357]

The backlash would be if everyone stops buying CDs, and the labels have no money to bring frivolous lawsuits. It seems, however that the latest teen pop shiat keeps flying right off the shelves, lining the pockets of the RIAA and affiliated labels' executives. Kids, stop feeding the hand that bites you!

Re:When will the backlash come?

[fustercluck2k3]

RIAA isn't an LE agency per se but they sure do act like one and government has only been too happy to allow it. Maybe you missed it but the entertainment industry is now dictating what gets taught in school.

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articl es /2004/04/25/laying_down_the_copyright_law____to_ch ildren?pg=full

http://p2pnet.net/story/1309

Re:When will the backlash come?

[anagama]

• We need the system like they have (I believe) in the UK where if you're sued by someone and you win, they have to pay your legal bills.

There are downsides to this as well. Let's say you are a file-sharer who fights. You then lose. In addition to the ten gazillion in fines, you will have to pay for the RIAA's legal team - a team not likely comprised of small-town lawyers, but rather, of the Armani Suit species at something like $300/hr times 10 attorneys.

In other words, requiring the loser to pay fees for both sides might actually discourage people who have a reasonable defense from pursuing it. Any trial is comprised of evidence, argument, and healthy dose of pure chance. Chance is, not always but not rarely, the major factor in any outcome.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[Shakrai]

Are you seriously that daft? They aren't going for the ones that download a song here or there...they're going after the ones with lots of songs available, downloading, uploading...

No, are you seriously that daft? I don't care who they are going after. My point is that even if they catch somebody who was sharing thousands of songs what kind of fucking evidence do they have that they themselves did not obtain?

My whole point (if you had bothered to read it) was that more likely then not any evidence they have they themselves collected. It's hardly impartial third-parties scanning the p2p networks looking for violators.

Picture this:
RIAA Expert Witness: I detected IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx on Kazaa. When I scanned the computer it had X number of copyrighted RIAA songs up for download.
RIAA Lawyer: And you downloaded some of them?
RIAA Expert Witness: Yes, I downloaded the latest Dido song and as you all know that song was published by Arista records who holds the copyright.
RIAA Lawyer: So this person was sharing copyrighted music?
RIAA Expert Witness: That's right.
RIAA Lawyer: I have nothing further for this witness.
Defense Attorney: Who do you work for?
RIAA Expert Witness: I work for such-and-such a company.
Defense Attorney: What does your company do?
RIAA Expert Witness: We scan the P2P networks looking for copyrighted material that belongs to our clients
Defense Attorney: Who are your clients?
RIAA Expert Witness: RIAA, MPAA, etc etc
Defense Attorney: Do we have any evidence besides your good word that my client was actually sharing these songs?
RIAA Expert Witness: We have the IP address and we downloaded sever...
Defense Attorney (cutting him off): So all this evidence was gathered by your company, correct?
RIAA Expert Witness: Yes, you could say that.
Defense Attorney: And your company provides this service to RIAA as a courtsey?
RIAA Expert Witness: No, we are compensenated for it.
Defense Attorney: So it's fair to say that RIAA pays your salary?
RIAA Expert Witness: Well I wouldn't exactly say th...
Defense Attorney (cutting him off): Right, we'll get back to that. Tell me, what actual evidence do you have that my client was the one sharing those songs? Isn't it possible that you got the wrong address or that someone else was using his computer?
RIAA Expert Witness: It's possible but it's not very...
Defense Attorney (cutting him off): Thank you. Is it possible for somebody to hack a computer on the Internet and use it to relay copyrighted material to P2P networks?
RIAA Expert Witness: Yes it's possible but again...
Defense Attorney (cutting him off): Yes and if the computer was hacked and used in this manner would it appear to your software that it was my client sharing the copyrighted material or the person who hacked his computer?
RIAA Expert Witness: It would appear to be your client.
Defense Attorney: Thank you. Now, about that IP address -- has your company ever provided the wrong address to RIAA?
RIAA Expert Witness: Not to my knowledge.
Defense Attorney: Really? What about this case [hands him newspaper article about 90 year old woman who was subpenoed] -- would you read that to the jury please?

Blah blah blah. I think you see where I am going. It would be interesting to see. All the power to the people who are fighting these suits. Whether or not file sharing is legal, moral, or whatnot, I won't support an industry that sues broke college students and 13 year old children. I bought my last piece of RIAA music when they filed the first round of lawsuits.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[reality-bytes]

Generally speaking you are correct that in the UK (and much of the EU) winning defence cases have their legal fees charged to the loosing prosecution. This of course is not without its draw-backs (insurance claim systems are silly here too) but it's generally quite fair.

It suprises me that the US hasn't adopted a simmilar system. You do have to wonder when the courts are working for themselves more than for justice or the individual.

I do feel for your parents and their business enterprise; my Father had a simmilar situation at the start of the 80s being frivolously sued over a faulty hard-disk (probably all 2Mb worth back then) - fortunately, the UK legal system is as full of loop-holes as any other and because his company was 'limited' with little or no assets, the case against his company was dropped (no gains to be had) - This, of course, meant that his company would now have to close as any capital gained thereafter could cause a new legal challenge.

It is wrong that people should bring lawsuits 'because they can' when such differences could be settled by simple negotiation.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[Jim Starx]

I think the loser should pay only if the loser initiated the lawsuit.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[jp10558]

I agree with your sentiment. I don't like the RIAA nor their actions, however I do have a problem with this:

Whether or not file sharing is legal, moral, or whatnot, I won't support an industry that sues broke college students and 13 year old children. I bought my last piece of RIAA music when they filed the first round of lawsuits.

As anyone trying to be law abiding, it is wrong and unsound to suggest that any segment of the population be exempt from the laws(or exempt from punishment) no matter your personal views on the law. Certainly support fighiting to change the law. But it is dangerous to engender a disrespect for the law. Using hyperbole in an oft use cliche - would you say the same if they were murderers? What about commiting fraud? Identity theft? Where do you draw the line on crimes that are "ok" or "wrong to sue college students over"?

Re:When will the backlash come?

[rock_climbing_guy]

However, if you're guilty, you're likely to lose.

What country are you from?

I'd say he's obviously not from the same country as Bill Clinton, Gary Conditt, and OJ Simpson.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[cgenman]

He's from the USA, where if you are opposing the RIAA, and are guilty, you're likely to lose.

What he doesn't say, is that if you are opposing the RIAA, and are innocent, you're still likely to lose.

Re:When will the backlash come?

[Jim Starx]

There's a guy in Montanna named Jack Ass, he sued MTV for defaming his good character. He wants 10 million.

A woman in West Virginia got 2 million for injuring her back while opening a pickle jar.

How about the lawsuits against fast food companies for making people fat?

A volenteer little league baseball coach was sued by the catchers father because the team didn't qualify for a tournament in Florida.

A high school pitcher is suing Louisville Slugger because he was hit in the head when.......
.......
wait for it...
.......
The batter hit the ball!! God forbid we design something that makes the sport fucking possible!

Your right, I was completely wrong to assume that those lawsuits were frivolous....

New TV show announced:

[Neil Blender]

Law & Order: RIAA

Re:New TV show announced:

[WwWonka]

Law & Order: RIAA

It's more like CSI:RIAA

Re:New TV show announced:

[base3]

Cool--got a .torrent?

A 437-0 record with 437 wins by knockout...

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:A 437-0 record with 437 wins by knockout...

[senatorpjt]

Couldn't the same be said for people who didn't do it? A lot of people take guilty pleas who were innocent rather than running the risk of receiving a full sentence, especially if the plea is for $3000. It would cost more than $3000 just for a retainer to get a lawyer.

Re:A 437-0 record with 437 wins by knockout...

[Quinn_Inuit]

They've yet to accuse somebody who "didn't do it".

Not quite accurate: RIAA Withdraws Piracy Lawsuit Against Mac User

Re:A 437-0 record with 437 wins by knockout...

[Jaywalk]

nobody's been able to force the RIAA to trial and say that the lawsuit is outright bogus

While technically accurate, the observation paints an incomplete picture. There have been a number of cases where the RIAA has backed off, like the woman who didn't even own a computer. So we know the RIAA has been accusing innocent people. The question is, when will the accused "filesharers" who haven't been sharing files (stolen accounts or passwords, identity theft, et cetera) push back with a class-action suit against the RIAA for the false accusations?

Oh Canada

[Curtman]

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

Re:Oh Canada

[phorm]

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

Re:Oh Canada

[Vargasan]

O Canada! Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!

Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix!

Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.

Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

Protégera nos foyers et nos droits

None to trial?

[lukewarmfusion]

Are we supposed to take it that all of those have been settled (supposedly by paying the RIAA)?

I wonder if there are any instances of the RIAA saying "oh, well you clearly know your rights and have not done anything illegal, so never mind."

There was that Mac user who was accused of sharing over a P2P that isn't available for Mac...

Re:None to trial?

[shark72]

"Are we supposed to take it that all of those have been settled (supposedly by paying the RIAA)?"

Most have. A few have been dismissed (the most famous is the grandmother who has a Mac). At least one has countersued. But for the most part they've been paying up.

A good way to avoid being sued by the RIAA is to not dump 1,000 copyrighted songs into your Kazaa share directory. A good rule of thumb is "if you are not sure if you have the right to redistribute something, don't."

Re:None to trial?

[Dr Caleb]

A good rule of thumb is "if you are not sure if you have the right to redistribute something, don't."

I have thousands of MP3's, named the same as albums, artists and tracks. They are 3k-4k of random noise. eg: "Madonna - Sympathy for the Devil.mp3"

As was pointed out during the original hearing to release names of users here in Canada, the CIRA had no proof of what was actually in the files that people were sharing. No one downloaded the files, then listened to them. There was no trail of evidence, so it was dismissed.

Share junk - let them download it - maintian CD backups of the originals - maintian download and connection logs - and countersue for racketeering. Get rich quick.

Re:None to trial?

[phoneyman]

People sharing hundreds of songs via the Internet is clearly illegal and they should expect consequences if they lose the gamble that no one will catch them.

The biggest problem with the RIAA gambit is that the consequences are so far out of line with the actual damages that the risk of fighting is too high to take. This tends to both strongly encourage people to settle immediately (a $3K settlement, while steep, is a far cry from potentially hundreds of thousands of $), and inflame people against the RIAA.

The basic unfairness is that the law allows the RIAA to assume that each song shared replaces a certain number of songs sold. This is simply untrue. I think this basic fact is the real reason that people just don't see why it's wrong to share songs - they know that the majority of the ones they downloaded they weren't going to buy anyhow. File-sharing is a lot like the radio, but the way people want the radio to be.

IMO, the RIAA would be a lot better served by finding out what people really want from digital media. I'm pretty sure that they'll soon find out that free-as-in-beer is low enough on the priorities list that if they address the issues above it, people will pay for it. ITMS, I think, is proving this point.

And, finally, the RIAA members themselves have helped create this situation by creating a marketing system that exists solely on the basis of disposable content. They create acts from whole cloth, promote the crap out of them, rake in as much cash as they can, then dump them as soon as sales start to fall. They happily buy into a radio system that overplays "singles" in the hopes of promoting some CD sales, but ends up creating tunes that are popular for a few months and despised for years to come.

Pierre

Re:None to trial?

[huchida]

I guess honestly if you play with fire then expect to get punished. I was speeding, got pulled over and got a speeding ticket. Instead of bitching about it I just paid it. I was clearly in the wrong doing almost 20mph over the limit. People sharing hundreds of songs via the Internet is clearly illegal and they should expect consequences if they lose the gamble that no one will catch them.

I'll say it again though it's been said a million times... You're not doing anything "illegal" by downloading, meaning you're not breaking a law. You're infringing on copyright. The comparison to speeding doesn't work because it's not law enforcement prosecuting you, but a corporation suing for damages. Settling the suit isn't paying a fine for a ticket-- it's giving them money to go away, so they don't sue you for a much larger and completely arbitrary amount.

Re:None to trial?

[shark72]

"You're not doing anything "illegal" by downloading, meaning you're not breaking a law. You're infringing on copyright."

The suits are aimed at sharers, those who provide the copyrighted material, not downloaders. While those sharers probably downloaded much of the stuff they're sharing, it's the sharing that's the clear no-no.

The legality of downloading aside, if you are "infringing on copyright" you are indeed breaking the law -- copyright law, in this case. Copyright infringement has both civil and criminal flavors.

Re:None to trial?

[huchida]

The legality of downloading aside, if you are "infringing on copyright" you are indeed breaking the law -- copyright law, in this case. Copyright infringement has both civil and criminal flavors.

Right, but you're nit-picking. My point was that these aren't criminal suits, and the, ahem, "sharers" aren't being prosecuted by an arm of law enforcement. Not that they potentially couldn't be, but paying the RIAA to go away isn't the same as a traffic fine.

Fuck!

[dupper]

This is clearly all Keith J. Winstein's fault!

How many times do people have to be reminded:

DON'T TAUNT THE FUCKING DYNAMITE MONKEY

Time to scare your friends

[Brento]

Heh heh heh - time to dust off my fake RIAA lawsuit press release to scare your friends with. It's a press release ripped off Yahoo, but you can fill in your friend's name and occupation to generate an official-looking link. Tell them you saw their name in the press release, and watch 'em drop their coffee. The link to turn themselves down at the end of the article clues them in that they've been had. Generate a personalized link at http://www.brentozar.com/breakingnews/.

Last time I published this on Slashdot, a few people got fooled so badly they sent me threatening emails. Hee hee... Of course, last time, I didn't get near the top of the postings, so my server didn't get much of a load. I can almost hear the DSL line screaming in protest as I click Submit.

Oddly, I only had to change the date and a couple of numbers. The other headlines on the page still ring true as current: rebuilding Iraq, SCO's salvation, and the flash mob craze.

Re:Time to scare your friends

[Jerf]

Cute, but I think your program may have a race condition in the ID assignment; I've tried several times now and I think I'm getting other people's information.

I think you're doing a "SELECT MAX(id) FROM database" when writing the link out onto the screen but you can't do that; other records are being inserted before the link is written. But that is just a guess.

I was able to hack the URL to find the one I want to send to a friend, though, so thanks from me.

Permission mask?

[RobertB-DC]

from the hey-it's-a-nice-number dept.

I was trying to figure out what the editors meant by this, so I'm guessing they're talking about file permissions?

4 7 7 = 100 111 111

Owner has read-only
Group has read-write-execute
World has read-write-execute

The implication is clear. RIAA doesn't have execute access to their own lawsuits, so they don't plan on actually following through. However, the World will probably Execute by deleting their files. If not, then the Group (ie the university or corporate network) will Execute the offending User.

I've probably shown how little I understand both this joke *and* *NIX file permissions, all in one post.

Re:Defendants are listed only by their ip address

[DaHat]

or... NAT NAT NAT NAT NAT.

Although parking outside of someone's house with a cantenna is far more fun.

I think I might have been one of them...

[scifience]

I'm really worried. I think I might be one of the people the RIAA sued.

I just got this e-mail a few minutes ago with a subject saying that the RIAA is watching me and that I need to buy something called "KaZaA Gold" to get them off my back.

What should I do??? I'm really nervous!

They had better win

[FreeLinux]

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.

Protect your privacy

[fiber0pti]

http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/

This is about to lose meaning.

[Geancanach]

The more people they sue, the less meaning the lawsuits have. Realistically, how are they going to go after thousands of people? So their lawsuits will just become small news items that fail to scare anyone. What is the point?

Re:This is about to lose meaning.

[fishbowl]

"Do you look forward to doing prison time of ANY duration?"

Only the State can put you in prison. Last time I checked, RIAA was not an arm of the US Government.

How many people have actually had a hearing on a RIAA lawsuit?

Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone know where we can get a look at the list of IPs? I can't seem to find anything new on the EFF list of subpoened IPs

If people are named by their IP address...

[jd]

...do people with mobile IP or DHCP have to file for a change of name?

Musings

[eclectro]

I can't help but wonder if there is a warehouse in Bangalore with rows of tables and computers, and workers trying to download music off the internet.

Awful principle

[lazy_arabica]

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 $$$.

If you want to do something about it....

[phaetonic]

This website has a plethora of information regarding the RIAA's current fights, things you can do to fight them, and some anti-RIAA propaganda. Interesting stuff..

Doesn't make sense

[NEOtaku17]

Why is it that digital photos are not legal evidence in a court case but if they have your IP address doing the downloading(or uploading) automatically means you did it? Because computers don't lie? BS! I can think of a hundred ways that they could have false positives(such as IP spoofing and and using stolen remote connection and the like). I don't see how they could get it right everytime and that those people wouldn't fight it.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[H1r0Pr0tag0n1st]

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.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[the_mad_poster]

But there is nothing wrong going on here. And yes, piracy is wrong.

It's all I can do to keep from calling you nasty names.... so I'll just assume you haven't considered that maybe you WOULDN'T fight if you really knew what was happening, and I'll make my point.

If the RIAA sues you, and you were making the files available (UPLOADING people.. they're suing people who are making the files available, not necessarily the ones who download them), then settling would be the smart option, yes.

However, if the RIAA comes at ME with a lawsuit, I can't AFFORD to fight them. They can tie me up in court until my pockets are drained, and I didn't do a single goddamn thing wrong. I'm not sharing a fucking thing except code that I wrote myself. Funny thing about big, faceless organizations that can browbeat you with lawyers, huh? Oh, wait. I forgot... you can just walk right into a court and that's that, right? No, wrong. Some people have gotten off because their is no way in Hell they could've been sharing anything. I'm not one of those people. One of the systems on my network is a Windows box, and it's connected. It's also being fed an IP address by a local DHCP server which is picking up an IP address from the ISP's DHCP server. I'd have to show that I'm NOT that IP address, and that would cost me time and money. I can't afford it. If the RIAA decided to try and tie the thing up rather than lose, they could easily keep the case suspended with bullshit filings and amendments for the short period of time it would take me to go into the poorhouse. And then I'd STILL have to settle.

So, why don't you wake up and join the rest of us in the real world? If the RIAA starts filing it's cases on some actual evidence, fine. An IP address is WAY too variable to count as evidence. No, I'm NOT a lawyer. I have been on the nasty end of a civil suit though, and even that simple little proceeding was NOWHERE near as simple as you're painting this.

And yes, piracy IS wrong. Now, if you find any swashbuckling swordsman with parrots on their shoulders stealing crates of CDs, or pressers selling illegitimate copies of discs, let me know. Otherwise, I have no idea why you're bringing up piracy during a discussion of copyright infringement. If you're going to shoot your mouth off about it, you could at least get the situation and the terminology correct.

And this doesn't even bring in the moral objections to using the court system to send miscellaneous J. Does threatening letters talking about potentially enormous fines and lord knows what else in preperation of extending a "settlement".

Kazaa users are the RIAA's candy jars

[l0ungeb0y]

This is a great business model for the RIAA.
File lawsuits a few hundred at a time and let the checks roll in.

Too bad no one stands to gain financially by fighting back.
Also too bad (correct me if I'm wrong) they choose to sue people who are either quite young or who are quite old.
Have yet to hear of the RIAA sue someone who is say... 30's to 40's, owns a house and can afford some decent attornies.

Considering the age groups I've seen publicised, it makes me wonder just how random the RIAA's Kazaa user sampling really is. Until someone actively stands up and fights back, no precedent shall be set on this.
Sure, the person might loose and have to pay more than they would have if they just settled... guess what we need is a good samaritan to step forth and martyr his/her self.
I don't mind the RIAA getting *something* for the bits that were downloaded for free, what about 0.99$ US per provably non-fair use download plus court costs for their time?

This sue for bags of cash and take a few grand to be "mercifull" crap needs to stop.

I wonder when they'll get ME..

[dustinbarbour]

Whoopety doo.. 437 lawsuits is it? And how many people did I see co nnected to KaZaA the other night? What? A million you say? Let's see. Up to now, I stand a scant 0.0437% chance of being sued. I think I'll take my chances.

Business 101

[pvt_medic]

What a great business model. You cant sell CD's because there nothing good coming out these days, and they are drastically over priced. So to stay economically viable you sue everyone. This way you dont havet to pay the artist and keep the money for yourself.

I would love to see what percentage of these agregious file sharers are sharing new songs or older songs.

Crackdown

[Caharin]

No lawsuit has gone to trial yet out of the 2,454 litigations started by the RIAA since it began its crackdown.

Extra emphasis on the crack.

RIAA

[perlfu_]

At this rate it seems they may never really put a dent in the file-sharing community!

Random observations

[boomgopher]

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.

Re:Random observations

[boomgopher]

Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating an artist's music. Notice nobody mentions the artists--it's all RIAA. The artists are forgotten in this equation, their music ripped off and not paid for by anybody.

Look, I'm just being honest. I'm otherwise a pretty conservative guy (Christian, etc.), but I'm saying that I honestly don't have any internal or moral sense that file-sharing is wrong. I feel somewhat the same about software. The only time morality kicks in is when I'm using someone's software to make money - I feel a strong sense to pay for it then.

While I wouldn't sneak in to a concert since I feel that's wrong, I don't feel the same way about downloading illegal mp3s. Why? I don't know. It's very confusing to live in the modern world, and I don't have a good answer as to why I feel this way about digital 'property', IP, etc.

Wow, we're on a roll today!

[DroopyStonx]

An interview with fuckwad Valenti, and now more RIAA lawsuits! Woweee!

They're sure doing a good job into scaring me... scaring me so much that tonight, I'm gonna be downloading more than normal!

Got Movies?
Got Music?

I do NOW, and so can you! Aim your middle fingers at them and grin, because this is the best weapon against 'em.

Re:cosmic slashdot reasoning

[dasmegabyte]

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.

Re:Defendants are listed only by their ip address

[irokitt]

...Mushroom Mushroom!

Re:Song of the piracy apologist

[shepd]

(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?

Flea Market Pirates are the Real Crooks.

[Peschula]

I am in the independent music/ film industry in Wilmington, NC and couldn't care less about who downloads my music. However if I did have some success and money invested in advertising and one of these people burned it and sold it at the flea market I would sue. I don't think the RIAA gives two sh*ts about downloaders either - just the bootleggers. It goes the same for the alcohol industry and moonshiners. In a capitalist economic system you can't have a business without a license and avoid the ability for your product to be taxed. Also these flea market distributers don't have enough command to know how to do business research on their own - only steal.

Students: Ask your administrator!

[djcatnip]

seriously, other companies are charging institutions for the privelege of offering their draconian DRM laiden music services. iTunes on campus was announced this morning, and it's free for your school! ask your administrators to please sign up for it!

CDs aren't expensive

[amyhughes]

I personally laugh at the idea of buying a $10-$20 CD anymore

I keep reading how expensive CDs are and I don't get it. I've been on a music-buying binge the last six months or so. I've probably bought 300-400 in that time.

I have a CD club membership at amazon.com. It's so unobtrusive I don't remember who runs it, but it's one of those cooperative deals where amazon takes the order and some club sends the discs. The requirement is just to buy three discs in a year, which I did with my first order and have repeated many times since. Perhaps half of what I want is avaialable through the club at $7.50-$10. Most discs are $8.50 or $10.

When the club doesn't have it amazon usually sells it for $10-$13. Perhaps 1 in 5 discs I want cost more than that. Often they are also available through Amazon's "marketplace" of individual sellers. You have to pay $2.50 for shipping but I've almost always found a marketplace seller with a good rating than can sell what I'm looking for, with shipping, for under $12.

I keep my cart full of a couple dozen things I eventually want so that I can always easily find three or more discs to get my total to $25 for free shipping. There's also no sales tax. The same rules apply for club purchases (but for marketplace purchases shipping is always $2.50).

Barnesandnoble is usually more expensive but if I find a disc that seems pricey at amazon I check b&n. Sometimes they are cheaper.

If all that fails there's always secondspin.com or even ebay.

Bottom line, average over hundreds of recent purchases I pay about $10 per CD.

Amy

My Music Library.

[Biotech9]

Around a week ago i divided my music library into 2 smart playlists, one was 'Songs I own', and the other, 'Songs I don't own'.

Intially there was just around 10 gigs I did own, and 15 i didn't. Then i decided not to add more music unless It was stuff i DID own, and I had to take away correspondingly much from the playlist of music i DIDN'T own.

I now have around 15 gigs I do own, and 10 i don't, which has led me to two points.

(1) Why did I do this, was it because the RIAA are scary? Or am i obsessive compulsive?

(2) The playlist for music i don't own is actually now (now that i've stripped it down to the good stuff), a really good shopping list of music i should buy. And i probably will.

So, does the RIAA tactics work? Am i going to buy new music because of these scary law suits?

(really, i want to know!)

Here's an idea for a backlash

[Windcatcher]

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.

Re:Song of the piracy apologist

[bechthros]

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

The expected "winnings" from Downloading

[CodeBuster]

I thought that it would be interesting if someone from the Slashdot community took it upon themselves to compute the net benefit which the downloaders accrue given that they have some probability 'P' of being selected by the RIAA for a lawsuit which they can settle for a loss of $3000. It should be possible, in principle, to compute for a given probability 'P' of being sued by the RIAA how many songs (at $0.99 per song as per the iTunes rate) one should be willing to risk downloading before the total 'winnings' (the money saved by NOT paying for the songs) exactly balances the expected losses from being sued by the RIAA. We will make a few assumptions in order to simplify our mathematical model...

1. Let us assume that all users on the file sharing networks are equally likely to be targeted by an RIAA lawsuit (in reality this would probably be a function of the number of songs shared, they artists and genres of the songs shared, and the amount of bandwidth devoted to sharing them out). Let this probability equal 'P'.

2. Suppose that the RIAA can sue no more than 1500 people per year (this is probably being generous).

3. Suppose that there are approximately 3.5 million users engaged in file sharing on the various networks at any given second (this is probably a lower bound and the actual number is probably much higher). Now the probability of being sued by the RIAA, assuming that all users are equally likely to be sued, is 1000/3.5 million or approximately 0.003% chance.

Let the expected losses (per year) from continuing to download be P multiplied by 3,000 which is the amount that it will cost to settle in the event that you are sued. Thus the expected losses to the RIAA for each year that you continue to download are only $8.57
which means that if you were planning on downloading more than 8.65 songs per year then your expected savings over paying the $0.99 fee per song on a service like iTunes makes it worth your while.

Now for a few caveats...I do not advocate the steeling of intellectual property music or otherwise and the above should be treated as a simple (and possibly flawed) look at the mathematics of downloading stripped of any moral pretense or consequence. However, even given the crudity of this analysis it is possible to draw a few conclusions...

1. The RIAA lawsuits will probably discourage the small time downloaders and the basically honest people from using the file sharing networks to get free music, but these users are probably in the minority anyway (most people share at about 100 songs).

2. hard core downloaders are not likely to be dissuaded unless the probability of being sued or the amount of the damages or both significantly increase.

3. The RIAA cannot sue everyone so there will always be an equilibrium whereby a user downloads and shares just enough songs not to get noticed so that his expected winnings precisely balance his expected losses.

Law Students

[TejWC]

Why is the RIAA suing Brown and Princeton students? What if they end up suing a law student?

Suing Downloaders or Uploaders?

[MrSin]

The way I understand it, they go after the uploaders NOT the downloaders right? If you share a bunch of stuff, you are a target. If you are a supernode, you are a target. But what if you bought pre-purchased music? Here in the Phx area we have several places that 'resell' music. You get yer old CDs and sell them to this place, which then resells them. Crap, that's 2 transactions RIGHT THERE that the RIAA didn't get their cut of. Why aren't they goin' after those stores? The stores are 'stealing' from the RIAA too aren't they? So, with this logic, I can go buy a CD at a re-sell shop, copy it, then re-sell it back to the same store. Sure, I'm gonna be out a difference of like $5, but that's sure cheaper than any online music store AND the RIAA gets zip of my cash.

Transformative Uses of an MP3

[blckbllr]

I don't know how many of you speak legalese, but what about a transformative use of an MP3? When determining whether a person has engaged in copyright infringement through the use of a copyrighted material, courts often look at whether the use was a transformative one. In this context, "transformative" can mean "different from."

For those of you with access to law libraries, look at Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 280 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002). The opinion in Kelly has been reissued, but it has not changed with respect to the discussion on transformative uses.

Unfortunately, I do not have the skills to implement the following idea:
What if someone could take an MP3, parse the audio signal into a series of colors and/or symbols, and reproduce that music as a digital image. For example, maybe using this software would reproduce a Korn song or a New Found Glory song into a landscape, artscape, or colorscape. This would probably constitute a transformative use because the music has been converted into a digital image. The next step would be for someone to write software that would take these digital images and re-interpreting them as music. However, the decoding process should work with any images, less a court find that the decoding software is contributing to copyright infringement. I think one tenant of copyright law is that so long as there are legal, noninfringing uses of the device, then the device is generally legal (e.g., a VCR).

Anyone given any thought to making transformative uses of MP3s? This way, one could distribute an "image" of New Found Glory's "Better Off Dead" without technically committing copyright infringement.

Love to hear your thoughts.

-BB

You want to cops scanning your computer..

[acomj]

Be carefull what you wish for...

this has got to stop and this is why....

[MoFoQ]

this really has to stop. 2,454 lawsuits, none go through, but it still, it means that the courts have to process not just the initial suits, but also the settlements. That takes time away from more deserving cases including tyco, enron, worldcom, reliant/dynergy (in california), etc. (the civil suits that is). It's a waste of taxpayers money to do this. And using public resources to further one's bottomline is suppose to be a no-no. Of course the old argument that this is a form of extortion; the fact that the whole and sole intent of filing the lawsuit is to intimidate and force those who don't have an army of lawyers at their disposal nor the law-savy to know that they have rights, pretty much get defrauded.

And another, just because they settle the civil suit doesn't mean smooth sailing from that point on. There's still the risk of a criminal suit if an "anonymous informant" gives the feds the info, in which case, the Recording Industry Ass. of America can and might get some more money. Double jeopardy in their favor (or lack there of).

In essence, you can actually categorize the Recording Industry Ass. of America as a terrorist organization. Webster's dictionary defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." Using a threat of legal action against defenseless, unexpecting individuals with an army of lawyers definitely qualifies as inducing terror as a means to coerce or to extort. Hell, I prefer the mob over the Recording Industry Ass. of America. At least they don't target 12yr-old girls. That's low; lower than Hamas in some ways. (I won't use Michael Jackson to compare and contrast....as the saying goes "innocent until proven guilty* *-Unless you don't have millions for an army of lawyers") To target kids with lawsuits, the old addage, "taking candy from a baby" comes to mind and it's not right.

At least the RIAA has finally shown its true colors. Wait until they sue someone who died while serving their country (or a person in a coma); there will be hell to pay then. I hope that the politicians (especially those facing re-election) finally set up to the plate and condemn them and start passing more strict (or start enforcing existing) laws that prohibit using lawsuits or the threat of such with the sole intent to settle, which amount to a form of extortion.

Re:Uploaders

[cpt kangarooski]

There is no question, and copyright doesn't require intent. It's a strict liability statute -- you infringe, it doesn't matter if your shit smells like roses. All that's required is that you broke the law, however unwittingly. At best the fines will be less, though there's still going to be fines.

They haven't gone after downloaders yet because it's a pain in the ass to sue anyone. So if you're going to do it, you want it to count -- you sue P2P services and shut down millions of people in one blow. You sue uploaders and shut down tens or hundreds of leeches with them. Sue a leech, and you only get one guy. It's wasteful overkill, and they won't bother with it right now.

Re:Song of the piracy apologist

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Can't resist feeding the troll

[Prof. Pi]

It's not the RIAA's fault lawyers are so expensive.

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.

ID'ing by IP address

[milkmaster]

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?