Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues Nearly 500 New Swappers
Digitus1337 writes "Wired has the story. " U.S. music industry group says it has sued 493 more people for copyright infringement as part of its campaign to stop consumers from copying music over the Internet.
The Recording Industry Association of America has now sued nearly 3,000 individuals since last September in an attempt to discourage people from copying songs through peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa and LimeWire." "
The trade group, which represents the five largest recording companies, has settled more than 400 of those cases for around $3,000 each.
I know that file sharing of unlicensed copyrighted works is illegal, but the practice of threatening lawsuits left and right still bothers me. As many of you are aware, a number of the people already sued did not have the financial ability to fund a lawyer even if they wanted to. The question is, what happens if a company (like DirecTV mentioned here) starts blanket suing for something that is not necessarily illegal? These corporations have deep pockets, and they could threaten to sue the crap out of you for looking at them cock-eyed, to which many people would have to settle out of court (I'm not being literal). If you can't afford a lawyer then what do you do? 'Admit' to wrong-doing you didn't committ? Again, I realize that a lot of file sharing IS illegal, but the whole blanket lawsuit thing does raise some interesting (or scary?) questions.
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This has obviously just become another cash cow for the recording industry.
The days of them being able to sell people 9 tracks of crap because they're bundled up with the 2 good tracks on the album are coming to an end. A different economic model is taking shapem and the pigopolists are just trying to skim as much money off the current system as they can.
It's not about performer's rights to be fairly paid for their work - it's about producer's rights to snort finest peruvian coaine off the breasts of supermodels.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
They are not sueing downloaders they are suing thoses who make the files available.
Even if you had purchased the CD/record that would be illegal.
The trade group, which represents the five largest recording companies, has settled more than 400 of those cases for around $3,000 each.
I cannot imagine that the cost to figure out your name, hire a lawyer to write you a letter and serve you with papers then settle the case is less than $3000. Seems to me that the RIAA is letting people off for the cost of being told they did something wrong. I can't really see a problem with this.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Rather, the intent is to minimize new bees joining the hive, while at the same time through intimidation reduce the members of the hive contributing productively.
In the end they hope the hive will starve off from lack of contributors (sharers).
I Pre-Apologize for the extended use of a bad analogy, but I just couldn't resist :-p
I
I wish people would stop publicising the fact that the RIAA are suing people. It is the media who are now responsible for stopping file sharers, not the RIAA. The RIAA can only catch a small handful of people to set an example, if the media outlets just ignored the cases then they would most likely have to stop these heavy handed scare tactics.
Okay, so the people being sued can't afford the legal fees. However, they wouldn't be sued if they weren't performing illegal file sharing. The people they are going after aren't sharing private files, they are distributing, for free, the hard work of others. This is the risk that one takes when using file-sharing, and those users accepted that when they began the swapping. The companies are probably not going after Joe User who downloads a couple of tracks to see if he likes the music on an album before buying it. They are more likely going after large-scale file distributers. People who have hundreds of songs, movies, games, and other copywrited works. They left their server on too long, and got caught. I'd feel no more sympathy than I would for a pawn shop that got busted for fencing stolen goods.
Now before the hate replies come in, I should mention that I'm all for file-sharing. I think RIAA are a bunch of corrupt bastages who overcharge for their products and services, and underpay the real talent--the entertainers.
I think game design companies charge way too much for a product, which is not neccesarily a corruption, but a misunderstanding of market forces. They feel they have to correct for piracy by charging $50/game, when in fact, there would be a lot more copies sold if they offered the same product for half. But then, that's been said for years.
I think the movie industry...is still quite fair. They churn out movies, $5-8 is a reasonable price to pay for a couple of hours of entertainment. If one does not like what they watch, then at most, an hour's minimum wage is lost. If it happens repeatedly, then they should take advantage of the local library.
Does this mean I'm anti-piracy? No. If you got something for free, and you enjoyed it, then you should then pay for it. Because in America, votes are determined by dollars, not by voices. If you vote (aka "buy") a legit copy of that game/CD/movie that you loved, then you have just voted for more of the same genre/artist/director to be produced. Same goes for everything. Feel free to sample, if you feel you need to. But if you like it, and continue to use it, you have an ethical obligation to buy.
That said, free sampling aside, piracy and distribution of copywrited material is still illegal, and those who participate in it take that risk willingly. The piper may be a total arsehead (read: RIAA), but that doesn't mean they don't have legal right in this matter.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
-The Libra
"Please be patient--The future will begin momentarily."
I believe it was Maxim that printed a breakdown of where the money from a $20 CD goes. According to the blurb, about 50% goes to the retailer with another big chunk going to the executives/producers/management and something like 5% actually goes to the artist. Courtney Love, in one of her rare coherent moments, said something along the same lines. DMX is leaving the music business because he hates the fact that the recording companies own his music and he can't so much as use his music without their permission (even DMX would be guilty of piracy for downloading his own MP3s).
If you ask me, the biggest pirates are the executives. Litigating consumers is just a way of deflecting attention from the fact that consumers are tired of getting ripped off for buying $20 CDs worth only $2 and that the studio executives are worried about losing their profits. The real victims in the litigation are the artists.
Necessity is the mother of invention - and evolution.
In this case, I'd say greed, lack of morals, and poor character are the mother of invention. Does your mother know she raised a thief?
So neurologists often compare the brain to a hard disk, storing data, etc. So how long until you think we get sued for listening to music and remembering it (illegal copying to another media). God forbid we try and hum a bit of it to a friend, or playing a song for a friend, because then we're guilty of transferring an unlicensed copy to another party.
... never mind that the radio station has not only paid for the CD, they've also paid for the right to "broadcast" it -- that's twice the RIAA has now been paid for the legacy work, now the restaurant gets to pay then a third time for the same medium, and the restaurant down the road a fourth time, etc. ad nauseum!
Copyright law is completely out of touch with physical reality, technology, and our culture (and indeed it actively stifles the latter two).
An example of how rediculous copyright law is, and how artists as well as the industry have grown used to double dipping. It isn't enough to cell the CD, they want to get paid every time it is played in a restaraunt or bar. It is even illegal to play the radio in a restaurant or bar
But, what is often unremarked about these absurd laws, is that a person humming a copyrighted tune as they walk down the street is technically breaking the same law, giving a "public performance" without a license. As is the busker on the corner, the teenage garage band when they perform at their local high school, etc.
It really is past the time when we as a society should have repudiated the very notion that one can "own" ideas (patents) or their expressions (copyright). A far less draconian mechanism for reimbursing artists for their work needs to be devised, something that insures them a portion of the profits made without imposing restrictions on how the work may be incorporated into other aspects of our culture, but most of all, unlike copyright a mechanism that favors artists and culture rather than publishers and middlemen.
A quick example of one of the many such alternatives that have been proposed: a tax on works sold, with a set percentage (say 50%) going directly to the original artist. Anyone can publish your book (and you can't stop them) but you get half the proceeds. As an artist or author you have no control, but you are generously compensated financially.
It really is time we as a society started thinking outside the box on this issue, if we wish to have any kind of viable, free society left in the information age, and wish to do so in a manner that benefits artists and fans, rather than consortia of parasitical middlemen such as the RIAA (and more to the point, their attorneys).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The RIAA has lost a multitude of 3000 paying customers FOREVER.
Would you *ever* *consider* buying another Britney Spears (RIAA-represented) cd if a member of your family, a friend, or a neighbour was sued?
I for one welcome our new free music overlords and only listen to alternative music: trance, rock, whatever. It's there, just as good (even better!) and ready to be explored. I have over 30 GB (!) of mp3's in my shared folder, and run 30+ radio webcast stations, with solely music not represented by the RIAA. I'm still waiting for the subpoena so I can countersue for battery or slander!
LimeWire is spyware/bundled software free.
LimeWire has always been a supporter of an open protocol and open source (limewire.org). Bad Kazaa. Good LimeWire.
If I may be permitted to be a bit crass: the people running the Underground Railroad were also breaking the law, but in reality they were just ahead of their time.
Once a system is entrenched (like RIAA in the copyright system) it is basically impossible to reform it from within. You have to leverage to reform the system because the people in power built it with their own interested in mind and have no incentive to consider other possibilities. The only hope the average man has is to eventually cause enough ruckus to bring the problem to a head and force the change. That is what is happening now with file swapping, but I fear there will be a lot of dead bodies littering the field (metaphorically speaking I hope) before this battle is over.
I read the internet for the articles.
First of all, yes. The RIAA's legal stance is that any downloading is copyright infringement, even if you own the CD. But second of all, they aren't suing downloaders. They're suing people who share files, because it's an easier case to make for illegal distribution. The problem with this is that even if they're tactics worked, and every person in the United states stopped sharing files (I stopped a while ago, due to bandwidth issues...It slowed down Counterstrike) the majority of filesharers live outside the U.S. (England, Germany, Japan, hell, all of europe.) I'll do you one better, I download songs from albums I own, on vinyl. According to their website, I'm going to hell.
My user number is the sum of 4 squares.
So... if somebody keeps calling your house from 555-1212 and breathing heavily at your daughter, then is it also *your* responsibility to track that person down before you do something about it? Seems like a double standard.
And how about this for an idea:
- Don't break the law.
- ???
- Don't get in trouble.
I have no love for the RIAA or the MPAA, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what's so difficult about just following the rules.Why can I check out an album or movie at the library and watch/listen without paying, but not download it off the internet?
I just want an answer to that. With the state of todays copyright, why are libraries still legal?
Last time I went the local library had a movie selection rivaling Blockbuster and an audio section larger than Tower records.
Will video games, or other pieces of software ever be legal to borrow from the local library?
What gives? Are libaries legal only if run by the government? Are only non-profit libraries legal? Could I open my OWN library and let people borrow my CDs and books?
Please no IANAL responses, I want to know the distinction.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I don't see that there is really anything here to react to. What are the charges and from what kind od activity are they stemming from? There are big differences between the casual trading of a few songs and going into a CD distribution of entire collections. Having been a working musician I am against the duplication and mass distribution of someone's work but there is also a benefit at another level of getting a sampling of work into free distribution because it's great advertisement and public relations. This Wired article says nothing other than 493 people have been sued for copyright infringement. There is nothing here to react to, from whatever side you are on regarding this issue, since there is no reference as to the extent of the charges.
IANAL, but how would you prove that you had the CD prior to downloading the song? What is preventing you from going out and buying the CD as soon as you know that you're in legal trouble with the RIAA? Even if they ask you to provide the receipt, could you simply say that you lost it, or give a friends' receipt and say that they gave the CD to you? I don't think that receipts are incredibly solid evidence...
My dog ate my sig
Aw-crud... sorry about that... I got interrupted mid-sentance and neglected to proofread my comment enough before posting.
It should have read "However, they wouldn't be sued if there wasn't an IP address performing illegal file sharing linked to them."
My apologies for the mistake.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
-The Libra
"Please be patient--The future will begin momentarily."
That would create a legal loophole big enough to drive even SCO through it. Or perhaps, we already suffer from such a loophole. When my computer is attacked by an appearant intruder at 66.35.250.150 (using the IP from your example; I don't recall seeing it before), I conclude that someone is responsible for the intrusion. I contact the ISP to find out who, but they won't tell without a court order. Going through the paperwork to obtain a court order, especially across national borders, is something I'd like to avoid, so I'd rather sue the ISP for their involvement and let them sort it out with their customer if they want.
By requiring me to know the name and residential address of the real perpetrator before I can take any kind of legal action against them, I'm effectively prohibited from taking action against either the perpetrator (because he is anonymous) or the ISP acting as his front (because they can correctly claim that they acted on behalf of their customer only and uphold his anonymity).
I don't like being on the same side as the RIAA, and I feel their lawsuit campaign does infringe on the rights and freedoms of individuals, but it's not because those are "John Doe" lawsuits. The combined claims of "I did nothing wrong" and "I have the right to be anonymous and immune against legal action even in case of suspected wrongdoing" sound a bit hypocritical to me. I'd rather request to defend my actions in court, if I had the opportunity. If you don't trust your legal system to be fair to you, don't ask that same legal system for protection against said infairness, but ask someone else.
If i take a song, represent it in binary (create a file out of it), and then just call it a number, can't i tell the court that all i was doing was sending a number to my friend? It's not my fault if the number can be decoded into sound. An artist can't possibly own all the numbers his song could be digitized into!
I can't seems to figure out what is considered an artist's property and what is not. If i walk down the street and sing a tune to myself, can i be sued? Is it different if someone else hears me sing the tune, and then starts singing it themselves?
If i get a song stuck in my head can they do a brain scan and sue me over and over again?
All along the watchtower contains the chord progression Am, G, F, G, Am, and so does Stairway to Heaven (and many other tunes), so what's the deal with this?
Of all the justification attempts for copyright infringement, this one grates on me the worst.
If you want to listen to a certain song, you currently have several LEGAL options:
A. Buy the album (or single if available) on CD.
B. Purchase the song from an online distributor like iTunes.
C. Listen to it on the radio.
Having no intention to buy the music is NOT a valid defense for copyright infringement. There are lots of people who ARE willing to pay for it, and do so. What makes you so fucking special that you shouldn't have to?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Nothing really...
...except for the fact that those companies still charge upwards of $17 for a CD that is worth $5 at most, and keep most of that $17 for themselves
...except for the fact that those companies are approaching online music sellers like iTunes and asking them to increase the price of tracks to over $2
...except for the fact that those companies are greedy capitalist pigs that found a scapegoat in their customers and don't know when to stop.
The companies are probably not going after Joe User who downloads a couple of tracks to see if he likes the music on an album before buying it.
You are assuming too much here
Perhaps you are right, and they are only suing people that are doing something illegal. I'm not trying to bash you here, or discount what you are saying, but I have not seen any of the evidence in any of these cases (and I'm not talking about the press info, I'm talking about evidence admissable in court)
Cases are brought, and settled everyday because one party or the other feels it would cost less to settle than to pay legal fees. It may very well be that all of these people are doing something illegal & probably most are, but what about the couple that might not be. Only a court can determine legality, and if someone settles solely due to their financial situation, there is no way to know.
I was always under the impression that if you do something in numbers, that was the safety mechanism. This is a huge concept in nature for survival. 3000 out of millions! My chances of winning the lottery are only slightly worse than my chances of getting sued by the RIAA!
How can the RIAA expect to thwart something that is so widely accepted, and internationally practiced? This is the equivalent of a strike or a boycott. Obviously these lawsuits aren't working very well, and even so, the sharing networks will just end up switching to a closed system like Friendster where 'known parties' will use strong encryption to transmit data.
Well this is the crux of the problem. The people that you're accusing of *cheering the thieves on* are of the opinion that exchanging information non-commericially is not thieving. Your opinion is value laden and you can choose not to see that, but you can't prevent others from pointing that out.
Right, but for the wrong reasons.
They're publicizing that they're suing downloaders to scare people - 'cause most people don't say "I'm gonna go upload some music", they say "I'm gonna go download some music". Those are the people they're trying to scare.
Anyways, as for downloading not being illegal, yes and no. If you own the physical CD, it is legal to format shift it onto your computer... Whether that means you stick the CD in your drive and rip it, or download the tracks from Kazaa, both are legal methods of format shifting. However, if you do not own the CD, then you are not authorized to format shift if you don't own the source material. It ends up being legally equivalent to 'buying stolen goods' - you bought the goods and paid money for them, but if you knew they were stolen originally (or could strongly suspect), then you are guilty too.
Since the only people with rights to upload the tracks legally are the artists (sometimes) and the distribution houses, and almost no artists do so and no distribution houses do, it's highly likely that your source is uploading it illegally. Knowing that, your downloading is not legal...
Unless, as said before, you have the physical CD. Then it's legal, 'cause it doesn't matter where you get the format-shifted version.
So, the moral of the story is... go buy all of your downloaded music on CD in cash the moment you receive a subpoena. Since the only way they can catch you is if you're also uploading, use the virus defense to say that you never clicked a "upload my music" button and it must be a virus. And here's the CDs to prove that you own the music.
200 CDs costs a lot less than a lawyer or a $5k settlement. Buy 'em used, too!
(Not that I condone any of this, of course) ;)
-T
If every person utilizing these networks were to voluntarily pay a $5 per month fee towards a special account to fund these settlements then we would never have to worry. I personally would welcome the opportunity to buy the little bit of extra security that the $5 would bring.
How many people are using these networks?
493 people X $3,000 = $1,479,000
$1,479,000 = $5 X 295,800
My guess is that 295,800 is but a tiny fraction of the number of sharers who would be willing to pay $5 per month.
Any extra proceeds raised by the fund could be used to purchase better search/index nodes.
Except that downloading RIAA music from most P2P sources is more like a customer placing a block of cheese in the store so people can sample it.
There is a difference between the store giving away the sample willingly and the customer just handing out samples because they want to.
If the store doesn't want to give away free samples they don't have to allow it. So why do we expect anyone else to be forced to give them away?
Two things constantly strikes me when I read about RIAA suing a group or doing this to discourage me .... or any action from RIAA really.
:
1. Instead of discouraging me from sharing my music, why don't they encourage me to buy. It comes down to the same end result and this way, I don't feel attacked.
2. Its all about evolution.
History is a good teacher to prove us that if a company does not evolve, it will die. if you cannot understand / satisfy your clients, you will perish or be bought.
RIAA's model hasn't evolved from when RIAA was created at all. Back then, there was no internet, thus, the market was different.
Today, RIAA hasn't evolved one bit, they're still acting as though there was no internet, as though they had no opponent.
But they do have one opponent : Evolution. They need to update their business model so that they stop losing money when we share music.
As sad as it is for them, today, I can find most of the music I want on the internet, so why would I buy a CD ?
for two reasons
1. I really like the band and I think they deserve some money
2. The CD offers me something I cannot get on the internet.
For instance, a local artist (Francois Pérusse - http://www.zeromusic.com/perusse/) includes a small membership card with every CD, that membership gives access to a protected section where you can listen to stuff not available on the market such as unreleased material
That's one reason why I would buy his CD..and I do.
Sadly, many companies today refuse to evolve, they refuse because it'll cost them money, they'll need to change.
What they do not seem to realize is that everyday they remain as they are is another day where they lose even more money trying to stop us...and in the end, they never do.
Just my 2c.
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
It may be wrong of me to pirate, but IMHO what they're doing is more wrong than what I'm doing.
"It may be wrong of me to sodomize these prisoners with a glow stick, but IMHO what they did to us on 9/11 is more wrong than what I'm doing."
I admit, my analogy isn't perfect -- for one thing, in my version both acts are illegal, whereas you're undertaking an illegal act to respond to something that's entirely legal.
If you don't want to give your money to RIAA-member companies anymore, don't consume their product anymore! Stop being a jackass.
But I think it needs some reworking to more accurately reflect the role that the RIAA is playing now-a-days...
Let's say that the car companies got together to form the APIA (Auto Producers Industry Association) and used their considerable lobbying clout to influence Congress to pass new legislation that outlaws the selling of or owning of used cars.
Say then that the automakers decide to not sell cars in the tradional way anymore, but only lease them with extensive "appropriate-use" regulations attached and extensive monitoring equipment to ensure that you comply.
Additionally, after a couple of years when the car makers release a new model they refuse to offer any of the older models for lease and instead recall them and refuse to make these models available for any purpose.
That is closer to the situation that the RIAA is trying to bring into existence.
>If I sell crowbars it is not my responsibility if someone uses them to break into someone's house.
>Similarly, it should not be my responsibility if someone downloads a file from me that they are not entitled to.
That argument may work for non-copyrightable items, but this is like saying that just because you xeroxed a bestselling novel and put the copies on a table on Times Square, you shouldn't be responsible for people taking them. The important fact is that by providing the copy, you are facilitating the distribution of copyrighted works.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
I see little difference between someone giving away (say) Madonna's recorded music without her permission, and someone giving away her car without her permission
You may see little difference, but a little difference is still a difference.
The publisher offers a certain deal on a recording, and if I take that deal and then try to behave as though it were a different deal, I'm going back on my word and that's wrong.
It may be wrong, but that doesn't make it stealing.
A performance is not property. It happens and then it's over. A recording of a performance can be copyrighted, but it's still not property. If I take your only copy (say, the only tape containing that performance), then I've stolen from you. But if I copy it, I haven't stolen anything.
Copying your recording may mean that you don't have the money I might have paid you for a copy had I been unable to copy it myself for free, but perhaps I wouldn't have paid you for it. In any case, that's still not theft. Perhaps "theft of opportunity"?
But you can't just say "there's little difference" and therefore behave as if there's no difference at all. That, too, is wrong. "Intellectual property" is a misnomer. It's the reason the idea of copyright exists in the first place.