RIAA Sues More Music Lovers

DominoTree writes "The RIAA, a trade group representing the U.S. music industry has filed a new round of lawsuits against 744 people it alleges used online file-sharing networks to illegally trade in copyrighted songs, it said on Wednesday."

Comments

A chilling effect on sales?

[erick99]

Yesterday I was taken to task about my comments related to a similar article where I stated that the RIAA was suing more of it's customers. I say this because there are plenty of people who download a song or even an album (I hate to buy an album and find that only one song is any good) in a "try before you buy" spirit. I did this recently and then took advantage of Real's $4.99 price for an album. I know that a great deal of people simply download and do not buy but it cannot be a blanket statement. Anyway, this particular round of suits are, once again, filed against John Does:

The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) said the various suits, filed in courts across the country, cover "John Doe" defendants whose true identities are unknown to the group.

From the previous group of John Doe suits more folks have been identified:

Separately, suits covering 152 people who were previously sued anonymously but later identified and offered the chance to settle, were refiled with their true identities after they ignored or declined those offers, an RIAA (news - web sites) spokesman said.

I still maintain that suing your customers, whether your are the RIAA or SCO, can have a chilling effect on sales.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[poofmeisterp]

I still maintain that suing your customers, whether your are the RIAA or SCO, can have a chilling effect on sales.

...which will lower their revenue further... which will make them find a scapegoat... which will target more technologies... which will prompt the creation of new technologies... which will prmopt more lawsuits.....

You see where this is going.

Also, wouldn't suing your customers piss them off, making them switch to alternate providers, further lowering sales, prompting you to sue more people in a desperate attempt to preserve your business model, causing them to stop purchasing from you (resume loop)?

I'd love to be in the room when the "brains" behind the RIAA finally say "screw it - we lost."

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[harlows_monkeys]

I say this because there are plenty of people who download a song or even an album (I hate to buy an album and find that only one song is any good) in a "try before you buy" spirit. I did this recently and then took advantage of Real's $4.99 price for an album.

Of course. Numerous studies have shown that file sharing probably overall does more good for the RIAA than harm, and so they should embrace it, at least somewhat.

However, one point that is often overlooked here is that this is their decision to make, not ours.

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[jest3r]

I wonder when the RIAA will figure out that they are suing the wrong people ...

For starters the Internet is a global medium. I really don't see how picking on a handful of John Does in the United States will limit the availability of audio on P2P networks as a whole. Even if the RIAA managed to shutdown every computer sharing audio files in the United States people would still be downloading (from the rest of the world) and not buying.

The fact is it doesn't matter where the people sharing are ... because in order to stem to decline in CD sales you have to stop the downloads themselves.

I think the more successful campaign revolved around flooding the networks with low quality audio files. This way they could market CD's as a big step up. In fact even today low quality audio files are a major drawback of using P2P for regular folk.

Furthermore I wonder why the RIAA hasn't gone after .binaries newsgroups, torrents or some of the other networks where people have been "sharing" high quality MP3's and lossless audio for years. Torrents have made sharing audio via websites even more accessible than ever before: to the point that Google searches for band name / torrent usually get results.

The RIAA seems to be 2 steps behind what is going on in the real world.

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[evil carrot]

Also, wouldn't suing your customers piss them off, making them switch to alternate providers

That's one of the issues here that you won't find in other situations - there's no legal way to acquire this music without the RIAA getting a cut. The RIAA knows this and the organization plays that card with a bit of hostility.

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[southpolesammy]

Three reasons:

• P2P clients are much easier to use than torrent or newsgroup clients.
  
• The breadth of coverage available at any given time on P2P networks far exceeds that via torrents or newsgroups.
  
• Many P2P clients automatically setup the user as both a user and a supplier, which allows the RIAA to determine if someone has crossed that line into sharing, not just downloading. Without that ability to monitor for sharing, the RIAA is powerless unless they co-opt the ISP's to allow RIAA drones to monitor their network traffic.
  

Remember, the RIAA is targeting distributors. The fact that some just happen to be users is coincidental.

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[halowolf]

Well luckily in Australia music sales revenue has been going up not down... oh, but we don't talk about that... never mind!

It looks like however that the RIAA will need to be taken, kicking and screaming into the new age of music. An age where hopefully more quality music will be produced and less populist blond breast augmented voice modified bimbo' won't be ruling the charts. Oh and a place where they might not be particularly relevant anymore.

I've been finding it harder to do the try before you buy thing as many stores I go to don't let you try before you buy for some bizarre reason. I find it bizarre because I would of thought that music stores would want to encourage people to buy music not make it harder for customers to pick something they would like. And the stores that do usually charge some quite unreasonable prices on their CD's for the priviledge, or simply don't have a good range of music to listen to.

But of course, its all the customers fault that they are demanding more than they are getting, and when they don't get it they then take it. Thats a rather naive however, there are people that will always steal music, software etc because they see it as better than paying. I don't but hey thats just me. Those people, I have no problem with them having to defend their actions in court. However this situation we are in is infact many shades of grey and not just black and white with such simple examples as those I have described. The RIAA members steal from artists too, that is documented in places that I can't be bothered finding.

Bah I can't be bothered wondering if what I've just written makes any sense. I'm going to bed! :)

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[squiggleslash]

I still maintain that suing your customers, whether your are the RIAA or SCO, can have a chilling effect on sales.

Which is presumably why the RIAA is suing people it clearly believes are not "its" (or rather its members') customers. Remember, the RIAA is suing people for "sharing" (mass distribution to anonymous strangers without authorization) the music made by its members, so that those anonymous strangers do not need to visit record stores or the iTMS and actually buy anything. I don't see a customer relationship there, I see a competitive relationship (copyright infringers vs the members of the RIAA), and one where one of those groups, the infringers, are apparently acting illegally.

Back when Napster was having every law in the book thrown at it, many Slashdotters argued that this was morally wrong because it was only Napster's customers who were infringing on copyrights, not Napster itself. In general, the operators and creators of these networks have, quite deliberately, created a tool that makes copyright infringement easy and potentially accidental. Meanwhile the focus has changed to these people.

I'm really wondering who's morally in the wrong here. The RIAA? Music owned by the members of the RIAA (and their suppliers) is, very obviously, being illegally distributed on P2P networks. The users? In many cases, the redistribution is obviously illegal but many still seem to believe in some kind of loophole to protect them, from a belief that they only downloaded the music (not realising that it became automatically "shared" the moment they did, and in any case knowing full well they were encouraging that illegal distribution to begin with), to a belief "fair use" implies any kind of not-for-profit redistribution (it doesn't..)

Sharman networks and their ilk? I'm sure there are a few idealists amongst these groups who envisage millions of garage-based bands turning their music into MP3s and distributing it for free, but, come on, when Shawn Fanning wrote Napster as an alternative to IRC based distribution, what were the majority of MP3s that were being distributed?

Sometimes it's necessary to side with the "bad guys". The entire problem with P2P could have been resolved had anyone been willing to build responsibility into the networks, so that nobody would have thought redistributing music without authorization was something they could do without getting caught to begin with. All this infrastructure has been built instead of building something that would have created a genuine, independent, alternative to the major commercial record labels - I say instead, because as things currently are, the current infrastructure is open to legal attack, and, clearly from the lawsuits, the networks seem to be predominantly used to distribute the music of the major commercial record labels, not the alternatives.

So, what we have here isn't custom, it's competition. It's legally challenged competition. It's not really doing anything the swivel-eyed idealists said P2P would do, because it's not designed to. I don't think the RIAA is suing its (members') customers.

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[fakeplasticusername]

I guess my argument would be that i think i shouldn't have to pay for music. I think the ideal would be realized if the artists distributed their music for free, and made their money off of performances. I would compare this to the art world. I can go to google and search for any work of visual art and find an image. Yet there is no uproar from the fine art world. If i want a more immersive experience, i go to the museum.

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[drinkypoo]

It is their decision to make because we have made it their decision, and as a nation we [should] have the power to revoke that right. The fact that we haven't yet done so suggests that we are not in control of our nation - the corporations are. (This is not a surprise.) The Sonny Bono copyright act should have been seen as the clear conflict of interest that it is, but sonny met up with an evergreen and now we're going to be stuck with the damn thing probably forever.

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[Simonetta]

I clearly, openly, and honestly maintain that since the RIAA (and Disney) stole the public domain by indefinitely extending the copyright period, any and all downloading, copying, and sharing of anything, anywhere is morally and ethically justified. By using overwhelming financial resources to destroy the legal balance between copyright and public domain, they have abrograted their legal 'right' to own anything. Their claim to legal ownership is meaningless given their felonious actions. Any act that they do against us is a crime: extorting money from us and stealing our property.
They are the ones who have destroyed the copyright laws, not us. We are only protecting the public domain for future generations. It is right and proper that we do so.

Has there ever been an actual court case

[ralf1]

or is the RIAA just using mass-mugging tactics? Seems the ACLU or EFF or someone would want to make a big public test case out of some individuals lawsuit defense.

Kudos.

[Sj0]

Kudos on the inflammatory title. They're not even infringers, they're "Music lovers"! :P

Keep it coming

[maximilln]

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

Please continue turning a blind eye to reality. Please continue to pulverize youngsters for sharing music, which youngsters have done since anyone could copy a tune on a banjo or flute. Please continue to support corporations with broken business models. Please continue to encourage businessmen to neglect the physical realities of their product in favor of government backed enforcement of arbitrary laws.

Some day, all of these evil p2p sharing kiddies will come visit you in the nursing home. Enjoy your power while you've got it. It'll never substitute for intelligence.

Steven

When will they learn?

[cecil36]

It was in the article that fans are stating that the decline in CD sales is not due to piracy, but the quality of the music (in terms of performer's talent) being published. It's not mentioned in the article about the cost of CDs being a contributing factor. The RIAA lost a class-action suit for setting CD prices high. When you set a price for something, there is a certain demand for the product at that price level. If there is a significant price increase, the demand will drop off to where only the people who really see value for what they are going to spend will buy.

All the better reason for me not to buy another CD again. Last time I bought one was in '99.

Euphemisms

[essdodson]

"RIAA Sues More Music Lovers"
I guess that sounds a little nicer than the truth. "RIAA Sues More People Who Habitually Break the Law"

Re:Euphemisms

[Evil Adrian]

If you don't like the price of something, then don't buy it -- you don't have any right to take it for free.

Taking something offered for sale without rendering payment is UNJUST.

Re:Euphemisms

[wazzzup]

I can't believe you placed laws against stealing music in the same category as slavery. The suffering you incur buy paying $9.99 for an album doesn't even begin to encroach on the suffering slaves endured.

I'm continually amazed how the average person's sphere of awareness drops off dramatically roughly where his nose ends.

Mod me down now, since I haven't defended stealing music. Where this topic is concerned, opposing thought at Slashdot is quickly quashed.

Boycott?

[Glock27]

An effective response to this type of behavior would be to boycott RIAA products.

Sadly, this would probably be trumpeted as "yet more evidence that piracy hurts CD sales".

I don't download music, and I haven't bought a CD in years.

BTW, an interesting alternative is to digitize analog from FM or digital cable, then rip to MP3. It's even legal (VCR law). ;-) You won't notice a quality difference in most situations.

Just don't share.

Misleading headline

[Evil Adrian]

The headline is misleading, and puts an obviously pro-filesharing (pro-piracy?) spin on the whole thing.

It's like if someone was getting mauled by a dog, and another person ran over and killed the dog to save the person, and the headline ran: Man Beats Puppy To Death

A bit misleading, no?

Not so innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is suing *distributors*, not mere downloading "music lovers". Distributing copyrighted content has never been legal. It's not fair use to serve up a song for download by others.

If some guy is selling ripped CDs on the side of the road that's illegal, just because you're doing it online for free doesn't make you any better.

If they were suing people for downloading a song we'd have something to be outraged about, but people serving the downloads have brought it on themselves.

Re:what is the RIAA again?

[log0n]

A good writer knows that you should never assume your audience can read your mind. When in doubt, elaborate. You may know what the RIAA is and find the info redundant, but don't assume everyone else pulls from the same bank of knowledge as you.

Re:This is why...

[stubear]

"This service is excellent because the RIAA and MPAA and FBI and whomever else cannot I repeat CANNOT get you on law breaking. As the 'swapping' happens offline, they have no way to find out about it."

Ummmm...can you say "Sting Operation" boys and girls? How the hell do you think they catch kiddie porn freaks who try to meet up with kids offline? Do you know you're not setting yourself up to illegally distribute songs offline with a cop of FBI agent?

Simple cure..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

put low quality mp3s for free download (add an advert at the start and the end to hence make money) and let people download them. If they like them then people will goout and buy them.

It's a simple cure AND they get money from selling thr advertising space. Why haven't they tried this yet? They can also track who downloads it, put upa mini survery, whatever is popular they can whore even more.

It's fucking common sense and costs alot less then repeatedly sueing people.. and makes you get a free fans.

Basic legal fact.

[Kjella]

Settling is a lot faster than trial. RIAA has no hurry either, it is the press coverage they seek. The settlements are slump change to the RIAA. Don't expect any rulings for quite some time.

Kjella

More rationalizations for being cheap

[CajunArson]

"It's not stealing, only the big evil RIAA loses money!"
I know somebody who is not rich, not an evil RIAA executive, and hell, he doesn't even make music, but he has personally been hurt by P2P file traders who think it's their 'right' to get everything they want for free.
This guy does in depth analysis of political issues and publishes research online that are used by high school and college debate teams. He provides a very valuable service since there would not be enough time to stay abreast of current political issues and also be prepared to debate so his reports act as executive summaries to condense all the garbage floating around on Google.
So what happens to his stuff? Well there are a few people out there who will pay for it, but then P2P kicks in and for every 1 debate team that buys the report there are probably 10 that don't.
"Information wants to be free!" "It's evil to want to get money for your work!" (in which case why do you complain when your job is outsourced?)
This guy is providiing a valuable service, and he does it all on his own, but I'm sure there will be 10 posts rationalizing why stealing his work is OK and he is worse than Bush for daring to charge to make the lives of other people easier.

Re:This about sums up the story.

[mabinogi]

All crime is artificial, and most of the implementations of the laws are flawed.
That doesn't mean they're _not_ laws.
Go ahead and practice civil disobediance if you wish, that's up to you, but don't pretend that copyright infringement is any less against the law than any other type of theft.

If obtaining something that is not rightfully yours (and no, it's NOT - a musicians music isn't yours to take any more than a sculptur's sculpture would be) is not stealing just because there isn't a tangible decrease in a inventory somewhere, then what is it?
The only English word that comes close to fitting is Steal. Which, being a word that comes from Old English originated in a time when the only method of stealing involved physically removing. The world has moved on now, and there are ways of illegally obtaining something from someone without physically removing it.

Also, it is quite acceptable to use steal in the sense where the owner is deprived of something, but you don't actually gain it yourself (stealing someone's life for example) so why not the other way round?

The "it's not stealing/piracy it's copyright infringement", is a straw man argument that misses the point that no matter what you call it it _is_ illegal whether you think it should be or not.

Re:Fair Sentence

[3terrabyte]

Shoplifting CD's from a store wouldn't get you into a $150,000 per infringement fiasco by the RIAA though. Instead, you can 'settle' by pleading guilty to the misdemeanor crime.

Re:This about sums up the story.

[maximilln]

All crime is artificial

Most crime is real. Intellectual property and copyright are intangible. Can you tell the difference between music which was purchased vs. music downloaded with only your ear? If someone tells you they have a "great idea" can you immediately swear that they didn't hear it from someone else two days earlier?

a musicians music isn't yours to take any more than a sculptur's sculpture would be

A musician's music isn't the musician's anymore. It belongs to some media conglomerate. You're attempting to arouse sympathy for a group of people who aren't even involved anymore.

not stealing just because there isn't a tangible decrease in a inventory somewhere

It's not stealing. The product was legally sold. Rights of ownership were transferred at the point of sale. Misrepresenting a rental as a sale is a poor way of defending business stupidity. If they feel they are losing profits they should reevaluate the worth of their product.

Take the agricultural industry. They produce genetically engineered crops. They only sell seed which produces sterile crops because they are intelligent and they know that otherwise the product would be EASILY COPIED. The agri industry could have lobbied for federal oversight and DNA testing of crops. They could have run down farmers for "stealing" their intellectual property. Instead they 1) subsidized, out of their own profit margin, engineered crops in order to put them in the marketplace and 2) invested in the research to produce seed which produced sterile crops.

The music industry should take a lesson. Making criminals out of customers is the wrong business model. Why not admit,"We're so stupid that we didn't realize our product was so easily copied."

The product was legally sold. The government is not their personal Guido.

But you will always share what you download...

[Penguinisto]

"I think that the cases here are for people sharing music, not the ones downloading, that is relatively easier to find than people downloading."

Just one prblem - while you download a song, you are also sharing it.Even if you download it and immediately remove it from your shared folder/directory, you're still sharng the thing while downloading, even if only from the temp directory where the file is being stored for assembly.

Some P2P systems, such as BitTorrent, in fact rely on this very thing to exist at all.

/P