Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA Sues 482 More People
An anonymous reader writes "Today the RIAA said they have sued another group of people, 482 to be exact, for copyright infringement. The RIAA used their 'John Doe' litigation process in this round of law suits, because they do not know the names of the copyright infringers. After appeals court ruled that Verizon does not have to provide names of customers to the RIAA, the RIAA started using the 'John Doe' litigation process." (Similar stories at Wired News and CoolTechZone).
Does anyone know the number of people the RIAA has sued thus far? I'd be interested in a comparision between that number and the number of estimated pirates (the more accurate numbers, and the RIAA's numbers). I'm wondering if all of this litigation is a financially sound strategy for the RIAA.
.... but unless it's an odd case like a 93 year old grandmother we don't here much about the outcome. While I'm sure some have come to settlement, where are the other thousands of cases? Have ANY of them gone to trial?
What if you already own the CD? Isn't that just fair use?
Before anyone jumps on this and says it's stupid - I recently downloaded a whole bunch of songs to which I had the CDs. Why? Because my CD drive and my secondary hard drive (which housed all my MP3s) both recently went tits up. I blame a bad drive cable. Anyway, my gf was leaving town for a month and I was in the process of putting together a 'mix tape' on a portable mp3 player for her. Since she was leaving soon I didn't have time to run out to the store and buy and install a bunch of new equipment - but I could leave my p2p software running overnight.
Uncommon? Sure. But that alone doesn't make it illegal.
Just a quick link I found, pretty informative. http://www.mttlr.org/voleight/RederOBrienver5TYPE_ HTML.htm
http://www.fsckin.com/
you are not a consumer if you are offering others files for free.
"letting everyone take their product for free is though right?"
These companies likely would lose very little money to begin with because A) they would have rented it from the library B) they would have bought it used C) they would have borrowed it from a friend.
People who have time to dick around for hours looking for music online is the type of people who have little money (other wise they would have worked a fraction of that time and bought the music instead).
3dinfo@maficstudios.com
We keep hearing about another round being sued... But (and I may be wrong) I have yet to hear of a case that's gone to court. Have all of them settled? Has anyone said "fuck you" and torn the lawsuit up? (I would imagine if you're targeting college students, SOMEONE must be idealistic enough to tell them to get lost...)
The number of lawsuits must be in the thousands by now. I really have a hard time believing all of them paid the RIAA settlement... Is it possible the RIAA downplays or lets go the suits when the defendant doesn't play ball? After all, all it would take is for one case to go to court, and for them to lose, to ruin this whole strategy.
3 years ago the economy went to shit...
3 years ago CD sales went down....
Think that's a coincidence.
Also CD sales don't count as much since we got the legal downloading music DRM bullshit now... You have to count those eggs too....
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
I can't say this isn't stuff that matters, as it matters a great deal to some of us, but it looks like stories like this will be posted every couple of months for the forseeable future.
That being the case, I'd like to see the post itself contain some distinguishing marks, like a mention of what round in the series this is, or a comment on overall trends. This is the 4th round of these suits, right? (or is it the 5th?)
I know, people should read the article, and google for basic questions, and all that. However, this subject is becoming almost like SCO. There are just so many repetitious elements that it is extra easy to lose sight of the bigger picture.
Also, we can't expect the other media to convert data to knowledge. I doubt most press releases on this are going to keep track of whether the numbers per round have increased, decreased, or fluctuated both ways, for example. As another example, would you want to rely on Wired to tell you whether these clusters of suits start comeing closer together? (That's not to criticise Wired in particular, but to say that the press tends to become complacent the umpty-umpth time they are covering what sounds like the same story.).
Who is John Cabal?
It's highly unlikely that they're suing downloaders anyway. I believe everyone thus far sued have been sharing files. The media just latches on to "downloading music" for some reason--either as scare tactics, pressure from the RIAA to spin it this way, whatever. And really, it makes sense. Unless the RIAA were hosting files and tracking the IP of people who downloaded them (a shady practice to say the least) they've got no way of knowing who's downloading something. All they can really do is scan the P2P network and see who's offering, get the IP, and sue.
Now it's still alleged if they didn't actually check every file to make sure that it's actually music instead of crap, viruses, etc. But I suspect that unless you re-shared those files that you downloaded, you won't have any need to fear getting sued over your download.
When we come across a user who is distributing copyrighted music files, we download copyrighted music files (of our member companies) the user is offering, as well as document the date and time that we downloaded those files.
Do any P2P clients keep a log of files up/downloaded? If so, record your own song and give it a clever name like 'Timberlake's Justified'. Stick it up and wait for the RIAA to come along and snag it. Then sue/countersue them.
Lewis Carroll taught me how to do it:
Second, I believe sharing music is protected under free speech. It is no different than if I have a book and give it to a friend to read. What if I want to make a copy of a CD to give to my wife, so she can listen to it in her car, do I have to buy a second copy of the same CD? It would seem rediculous if the music industry expected us to buy the same product over and over again, at inflated prices.
I also want to add that I am all for supporting the artists. But the music companies treat the artists with the same heavy handed, one sided manner they treat the rest of us. They force new bands to sign contracts which give the bands next to nothing. Only the top singers can force the record companies to pay a fair wage, and that is only if their original contract is set to expire.
What should be done is the music industry should charge a fair fee for CD's and pay artists a fair wage. But until they start showing they want to be fair, I say why should we concede anything to them?
So I ask everyone, what is a fair price for a CD?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
At least here in Norway, and I suspect many more euro countries, you're permitted to download all you like for personal use. It's when you start sharing you become a "problem"... So downloading Britneys latest album over bittorent is not legal, but over kazaa is. (Why would you want to though?)
Every penny they con out of people with this scam goes to Sen. Hatch and his cronies, for more sub-moronic laws.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
For those of you that don't know, here is how this works: A company that has a bunch of musician / whores working for them produces a product. This product is sold to you under a contract. That contract has various things that you agree to when you buy it and play it. It does not allow copying 10,000 times to give to all your friends. It does not allow putting it on the Internet for others to download for free.
This is a simple contractual issue. By buying the music you agree to the terms. If you violate those terms, they sue you for damages. It's that simple.
Please do not respond to this post with pseudo-legal or pseudo-Socialist rants. This is a VERY SIMPLE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE. If you don't agree to the contract, don't buy the music.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
First, they came for the top distributors.
I wasn't among them so, I didn't speak up.
Then, they came for the next top infringment violators.
I wasn't among them so, again, I didn't speak up.
Next, they came for random P2P users and, since I wasn't among the ones they targeted, I still didn't speak up.
Then they came for me and there was noone left to speak up.
--blatently lifted from history, but, you get the point.
i use kazaa-lite, and what i do is i downoad about 32 songs only, then i turn the program off
while i'm downloading, some dude might start uploading from my temporary download folder
this is the point at which the riaa can sue you
however, i'm protected by the fact that i basically download european trance music for jogging purposes
only through kazaa am i allowed to sample artists i would never be able to explore in any other forum: cds, too expensive; radio, nonexistent play; legal paid downloads, too constrictive on my selection and the rights they grant me
and i believe that international issues, even if both nations involved have fierce copyright laws, leads me to feel comfortable and confident: i'm probably downloading from european kazaa users, and uploading to them too... the riaa does not involve itself in international transfer cases: too complicated
so since i avoid the pop shit, the odds of me getting sued enter the realm of me winning the lottery
the day i win the lottery is the day i'll begin to worry about the riaa
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is a VERY SIMPLE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE.
If that were true, then the RIAA could only sue people who had bought the music and were distributing it. But lots of people distribute music they never bought.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
>SCO isn't suing its consumers. It's suing companies that use a competing product that they claim infringes on their property.
The moment you quit viewing people using or considering a competing system as customers is the moment your company ceases to expand.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
You sure are demanding a lot.. Before I rebut you, a question:
Is owning a license to the content actually a right to the content, or only the content on the medium you purchased? Has this been tested in court? Is there any legislative backing to your
claim?
When I bought the record, I bought a lifetime right to the music.
I'd like to see one shred of legislative evidence that this is the case.
Now....
I demand the right to download any and all of the songs that I bought as a kid in the mid 1960's. I demand that the RIAA prove that I didn't buy the recording before sueing me for downloading it. "... pretty, pretty, Peggy Sue...".
Assuming your statements about content vs medium are accurate, you have this right. In fact, they aren't suing US downloaders. They're suing the UPLOADERs, who do NOT have the right to distribute the music.
Now your right doesn't amount to a hill of beans if the copyright owners don't provide some way for you to download the music. They don't have an obligation to help you fulfill your assumed right of download. They don't have to offer up every song for download at no charge, assuming that only people with a license to the content will download it. So until they actually sue a downloader for downloading the music, this argument has no bearing on these cases.
We are innocent until proven guilty.
In criminal law, sure. Not in a civil matter. So far, all the suits filed have been civil.
I demand the right to be able to download any song that has been played on the radio long enough to have had the copyright period expire. In this case I mean the copyright period in legal effect when the recording was originally released and purchased by me.
Then write your congresspersons and bitch about extended copyrights. But again, you should really be wanting the right to distribute such content legally, since that's the crux of the current situation. No one is obligated to provide you with downloadable music, so demanding the right to do so means very little. The RIAA could come out tomorrow and say, "Everyone is free to download any music they wish," but if they don't say "Everyone is free to upload any music they wish," then it's moot, since the only legal distributers would the the members of the RIAA, and you can bet that they're not going to give their product away for free.
I demand the right to publish on third world websites the names, addresses, and social security numbers of the members of the legal team that is using vague and legally unsubstantiated copyright to extort money from me.
Why third world? And why can't you do this now? All you have to do is get the information. I bet you could do it if you tried. Have you tried, before insinuating on Slashdot that you don't have the right and/or ability?
Fuck these people! Let's cut their heads off instead of those of ordinary technicians who just happen to be working in Allah-land and got kidnapped by religious psychopaths.
Excellent idea! Why have we (the US) been cutting the heads off of those ordinary technicians who just happened to be working in Allah-land and got kidnapped by religious psychopaths?!? All of a sudden, it all makes sense. We (the US) shouldn't be cutting off the heads of those technicians at all! You should be in politics!
You almost sound as if those people that downloaded music on the internet are saints. Well, mind you, they still broke a law. So I'd say that all in all, they deserve some punishment.
Now the way they do it and the fact that thay suck as a commercial entity is another matter altogether.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
The link wasn't working(space between 6 and 1), and many people won't read it since it's copy and paste ;)
RIAA Agents Murder Unarmed Man
Maybe this has been answered before, but nothing in the 3+ modded questions even alludes to it.
What the hell is the point in filing 482 John Doe lawsuits? Or 3000+ for that matter?
I mean, ignoring the usual debate over whether or not they should be filing any lawsuits, and just assuming they're in the right, why the hell are they doing it this way? Isn't there precendent to say that the RIAA can't force ISPs to reveal the name of the person behind a given IP address? How do you extract money from a 32-bit number? How do you instill fear in a 32-bit number? Am I missing something?
Clueless
Putting a share up on Kazaa is not fair-use. The RIAA is going after the big offenders. It doesn't make sense for them to go after the little guys. If the big-offender happens to be a tenny-bopper so be it.
There is a legal recourse for copyright holders to pursue against infringers, this is it. I agree with you that that crippling devices is bad. It interferes with fair-use, just like Macrovision interferes with fair-use. But, if we close off prosecution what other path can copyright holders pursue? We need to prop up legal recourses. This needs to be the way the RIAA handles copyright infringers. This gives us leverage to save our devices.
Copyright law does need to be changed for the public's benefit, but that is a side issue. And civil damages are insane, but that is also a side-issue.
Look, the RIAA knows that their copyrights are being infringed in honest to goodness definitely not-fair-use ways. I believe them. I have every confidence that they can convice a congressmen. How much infringement actually takes place is up for debate. But, we need to support this legal action. They will not give up because they have money riding on this. And the alternatives are prevention and anti-circumvention. I'd rather deal with copyright in the courts than those other two (which I'm convinced are utterly evil).
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -Homer Simpson
The numbers tell a different story. In the decades before World War 1, americans were drinking about 30 gallons of beer per capita, in 1935, two years after Repeal, only 15 gallons per capita. It would take forty-five years for consumption to return to pre-WW1 levels, and then only with a significantly less potent product. U.S. Consumption of Beverage Alcohol.
Check yourself against EFF's list
I may just be tired, but why can't those who are being sued claim that the music they were offering for upload was initially downloaded by them under the assumption that it was available (legally) for free? Why is it presumed that the accused should know that the songs offered for download on their P2P software are being offered illegally?
I would love to see someone argue that they had no idea who Britney Spears was and assumed they wanted their music to spread widely and so had allowed it to be distributed.
Absolutely. BitTorrent is primarily intended for legal stuff. Yes, you can find illegal stuff, but it's actually even worse than HTTP for that, because not only do you know who's hosting it, you know who else is downloading it. Microsoft's lawyers, for example, know this. When the Windows code leaked a while ago, someone set up a torrent with linux-2.6.2 as a joke ("Kernel source here!"). A few days later, he and people who downloaded from him were C&D'ed. I remember reading a thread about this here, but the best link I could find now is this.
Incidentally, I have never heard of a single artist who turned down a contract merely because it was with an RIAA label.
Ever heard of Rancid?
After the "Ruby Soho" craze, they had people beating down their door, throwing money at them. But, they were unwilling to give up the freedom that being on a small label gave them - they weren't willing to sign their lives away for the money, when what they wanted was to not get screwed.
~Will
sig?
Nah, the effect of this is that an RIAA backed record label will buy out the newly popular label and start flooding the airwaves with whatever stuff was selling hoping to cash in.
What's an "RIAA backed record label", isn't RIAA just a joint association of record companies etc? I don't think the "back" anything or anyone, they're just trying to protect their members' rights. When their members' product is distributed for free by hundreds of millions of people, I think they'd not be doing their job if they just looked the other way.
Distributing music on the internet isn't as innocnent as many people would like it to be, either. Any person with any knowledge of economy will tell you that the determining factor of the price of any product is supply and demand. P2P is an almost infinite supply and there is virtually no cost to the file sharers. Record companies, however, have a lot of running costs. So even if they drop their prices to next to no margin, there's no way in hell they could ever compete with P2P.
BTW. major labels aren't the greedy assholes many people would like to see them be. In fact, AFAIK the Warner/EMI merger didn't happen because they both have so much debt (IIRC EMI is something like $300,000,000 in debt). Basically the shareholders aren't making any money, and the managements get replaced every once in a while, so they don't really get the chance to get rich either. There's only a select few benefitting in the recording industry at the moment, and they are mostly people who write music (or artists who can repeatedly sell out huge venues).
But hey, who cares, so long as I don't need to pay for my music. It's a political statement, innit? Right? Yeah, right. What the fuck do I know anyway, I'm just a recording engineer who has no clients (anymore).
As a Canadian reading this thread, I wonder, is everyone in the US a lawyer? Why so much suing going on?
Funny, I was having a similar discussion with a Canadian friend just this weekend. In the U.S. there is a prevalent attitude that if anything bad happens to us or is perceived to happen to us (as indiviuals...sometimes as groups) it's somebody else's fault. I suppose suing is better than some of the alternative remedies. We don't all think this way, and hopefully most of us don't think this way, but it is a widely held and noticable attitude and is my theory as to why our courts stay so busy.
Generally speaking, when something bad happens to me, I try to figure out the cause and take steps to prevent it again. Example: if someone ran into me and knocked me over, breaking my leg, I wouldn't sue the person that bumped into me. I would go to the hospital, have it looked at, and have it put in a cast or whatever... I would learn from that mistake and watch where I'm going in the future.
:)
If someone does something bad to me on purpose (something along the lines of a lie, cheat, steal, etc) I don't sue them. I learn what types of people are likely to do that to me again in the future. I strengthen my guard or take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from happening again. It's a learning process.
I didn't turn 18 and immediately start walking down the street thinking that everyone owes me something and that I'll sue them if they don't give it to me. I get the impression that's what a large portion of the population thinks. I won't even say large; just a portion. I don't walk down the street thinking that everything that happens to me is some scheme perpetrated by shady invisible evils that need to be discovered and sued.
Well, this is the USA.... A lot of things are schemes against me (and others) perpetrated by shady invisible evils (read: corporate decision-makers and marketing execs). I just learn from all of the times I've been burned and try not to get burned again. See, I LEARN.
Mod me down as offtopic, I guess. I had to get it off my chest... fingers.. whatever.