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."
Law & Order: RIAA
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.
How many times do people have to be reminded:
DON'T TAUNT THE FUCKING DYNAMITE MONKEY
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.
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.
What's your damage, Heather?
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?
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
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..
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.
Creative Demolition
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.
What is your penile percentile?
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.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
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.
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.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
However, if you're guilty, you're likely to lose.
What country are you from?
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.