RIAA File-Sharing Lawsuits Top 10,000 People Sued

An anonymous reader writes "While Firefox broke the 50,000,000 barrier today, the RIAA broke a more dubious barrier this week: It has now sued over 10,000 file sharers for copyright infringement, making it a good time to ask if the RIAA will ever throw in the towel. Taking an academic look at what's best for the industry, this economics article shows the financial upside to P2P file sharing. And on the flip side, this legal article argues that file swappers have a constitutional right to pay much smaller penalties than the millions of dollars they can be liable for under copyright law, making the RIAA's lawsuits much less profitable."

Comments

throw in the towel?

[Schlemphfer]

It has now sued over 10,000 file sharers for copyright infringement, making it a good time to ask if the RIAA will ever throw in the towel.

Doesn't your corner only throw in the towel if you're getting your ass kicked? From what I understand, the RIAA is settling nearly each of these cases out of court for a substantial profit. If that's the case, why would they ever throw in the towel?

Re:throw in the towel?

[nwmakel]

Though, arguably, on a whole it's not stopping the P2P flood. So they're facing a losing battle in that sense.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Kaenneth]

Has anybody really tried to fight one of these suits yet?

Re:throw in the towel?

[pomo monster]

Um... on what grounds would you make your defense?

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

> From what I understand, the RIAA is settling nearly each of
> these cases out of court for a substantial profit. If that's

That is exactly correct. So far one person has stood up and resisted settling out of court.

So a press release saying the RIAA has sued 10,000 people is a complete fabrication. The RIAA has threatened to take people to court for everything they own over IP violations, and the people have backed down and paid multiple-K settlements instead.

They haven't paid the RIAA through judgments, they haven't paid *fines* to the RIAA, they haven't paid legally required fees to the RIAA, they have paid a *settlement* to the RIAA in order for the RIAA to not go ahead with legal action.

Repeat after me: The RIAA have not yet sued anyone. They have applied extortion using the threat of a costly legal battle involving megacorporation vs one individual.

Re:Throw in the towel?

[blueadept1]

Task?

Generally, something that you profit from isn't called a task. More like an event.

Maybe they could pool all of their lawsuits into one day, and we could declare it an international holiday!

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... on what grounds would you make your defense?

On the grounds that they cannot prove it was you who did it. Why is everyone treating an IP log as gospel?

Re:throw in the towel?

[Baricom]

Repeat after me: The RIAA have not yet sued anyone.

Yes, they have.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

More press taking the RIAA line as fact. None have yet been sued. it is all threats.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

What grounds? That I'm a 12-year old girl, or a 80-year old grandma without a computer.

Seriously,tho:
1) Prove it was me. I don't mean showing some "IP logs". Any idiot can make up "logs". What real proof do they have?? (Hint: no proof, no case!)

2) _IF_ they can prove it came from my DSL line, they then have to prove it was MY computer, and not someone who hitched on my open WiFi.

3) _IF_ they can prove it was MY computer, well, gosh, gee... looks like I have a backdoor trojan (BO2K, subseven, Donald Dick, whatever), and maybe someone else was using my PC to relay the files.

Use those 3 things, in order, and throw in a heaping helping of "Poor me, being attacked by a huge corporation with fancy expensive lawyers, and I can't even afford one...", mix with plenty of media attention, and viola: One beaten lawsuit.

Re:throw in the towel?

[turnstyle]

"From what I understand, the RIAA is settling nearly each of these cases out of court for a substantial profit."

Actually, not quite right -- in all likelihood, the per-case settlement amount is less than the per-case legal expenses.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're getting payed big money for something that most people wouldn't have bought anyway. How's that a losing battle, on the whole, from RIAA's perspective?

Re:throw in the towel?

[uberdave]

I simply must remember to update my honeypot system with one of these backdoors. I mean, as long as the RIAA gets a reasonable explanation, other than my REAL server...

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love all the tough talking ACs on these "Your right to pirate online" stories.

Apparently, the RIAA is settling the cases for roughly the purchase price of the music at iTunes. When they come for you, you will pay for the music you pirated, call it a wash, and settle the case. Don't even pretend for a second that you wouldn't.

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

Because they only need a preponderance of evidence. That is, if it was marginally more likely that you did it, based on the IP log, than that someone else did it, it is proof that it was you.

Or to put it another way, if, based on the IP log, there is a 51% chance it was you, then that's proof it was you.

Absolute proof is not required.

Re:throw in the towel?

[ScrewMaster]

I dunno ... the recent case posted here on Slashdot of the woman returning fire to the RIAA because they simply turned over her personal data to a collection agency (thereby avoiding any legal expenses whatsoever) indicates that they may indeed be profiting by this. Or at least intending to profit. Giving cuts to middlemen as appropriate, of course.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love all the tough talking ACs on these "Your right to pirate online" stories.

I never said I had a "Right to Pirate" (ARRRR, Matey!)

I responded to someone who asked "on what grounds would you make your defense?" And those grounds are:

They have no legal proof it was me. Period. ...and I showed 3 ways that was true.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or to put it another way, if, based on the IP log, there is a 51% chance it was you, then that's proof it was you.

I can make up an IP log that shows RIAA was surfing Kiddie Porn.

Or a log that shows a computer in RIAAs netblock was using script-kiddie tools to try and hack my computer.

Do you REALLY think those 'logs' will stand up in court?

Then why should RIAA's logs?

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

The submitter is probably the blog author, and if you look at the blog, you can see what she means: "Or will the RIAA give it up some day? I mean, given that there will always be some file sharing, at what point does the RIAA say that it's won?"

So the submitter must mean "throwing in the towel in victory" and is asking how the RIAA defines success.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, the RIAA is settling the cases for roughly the purchase price of the music at iTunes. When they come for you, you will pay for the music you pirated, call it a wash, and settle the case.

You are partly right:

I will happily pay for all the music they can PROVE I pirated.

Which is none.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fantastic point.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is just factually wrong. The RIAA has indeed sued people as shown on the EFF's webpage here. The fact that the defendants have capitulated and settled does NOT mean that the RIAA did not file a complaint against them -- all that is required to constitute a "lawsuit." Perhaps you are confusing "being sued" with "litigating."

Re:throw in the towel?

[Baricom]

Apparently, a Google search is too complicated for some people even when spoon-fed to them. I'll summarize.

The mere fact that the RIAA knows who is doing the file sharing is a result of them filing lawsuits. Judges have limited the scope of the RIAA's legal activities at least twice. The first action required the RIAA to file a John Doe lawsuit, rather than merely requesting customer identities from ISPs under the DMCA. The second action, filed last year, requires the RIAA to file separate lawsuits for every John Doe they wish to challenge.

The RIAA is obviously suing - if they didn't, they wouldn't know where to send the extortion (err, settlement) letters.

Re:throw in the towel?

[grolschie]

Though, arguably, on a whole it's not stopping the P2P flood. So they're facing a losing battle in that sense.

It's never been about stopping the P2P flood. It's always been about making money.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously,tho

all that has to be shown in a civil case is that is more probable than not that you were the source of the files. plural. as in, who do you think you're kidding?

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, once a suit has been commenced, RIAA will have access to discovery procedures.

Basically they can subject your computer to forensic analysis (which is much better than people often think it is), and they can ask you under oath. That, combined with their logs -- which will in part be verified by the ISP -- all seem convincing.

Plus, they're a big industry association with a good reputation. You're just some guy, and are probably a music pirate. They have a lot to lose if they aren't straightforward, and copyright suits are so open-and-shut, especially factually, that there's not even a good reason for them to make it up.

On the whole, much as I dislike them, I'd generally be inclined to believe that RIAA's evidence was accurate, if the matter had progressed that far, unless some significant hole in it could be found.

There's a reason why so many people settle. Because they really did it, and they know (or are advised by counsel) that they stand no chance in court.

If I had a client in one of these matters who really hadn't done it, then it might be worthwhile to fight, but it doesn't make much sense to do so when they're right.

If only they were bringing trademark infringement suits or something, where it's not quite as plaintiff-friendly.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> They have applied extortion using the threat of a costly legal battle involving megacorporation vs one individual.

I'm betting virtually everyone who is served by the RIAA are counseled by their lawyers to settle. Do the math - pay a settlement that'll be less than your legal fees or face the prospect of a court ordered fine that crushes you financially from now to retirement.

Small wonder people reach settle.

Re:throw in the towel?

[DoasFu]

Repeat after me:

You can be sued, and then settle out of court afterwards.

Re:throw in the towel?

[dougmc]

That is, if it was marginally more likely that you did it, based on the IP log, than that someone else did it, it is proof that it was you.

That's a very interesting viewpoint. So if the the alleged copyright infringement was tracked down to a specific computer, and person A used the computer for 4 hours that day, and person B for 3 hours that day, and they can't narrow it down any more than that, person A is guilty?

I thought it was all about convincing the judge and/or jury, and if I honestly knew that the odds were 51% that the guy was guilty, I'm not so sure I'd say he was `guilty' (though this is a civil thing, so I'm not sure that `guilty' is the right term.)

Absolute proof is not required.

Absolute proof is not even required in a criminal trial. In that case, it's `beyond a reasonable doubt'. (But this is a civil matter, so things are different.)

A 51% change of being guilty is far more than a `reasonable doubt'. Apparantly the definition of the phrase preponderance of the evidence is rather subjective as well.

I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Ok, you're a lawyer. (I'm certainly not.) What is your specialty?

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically they can subject your computer to forensic analysis

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought only the police could do that.

Othewrwise, some spy could accuse a Defense contractor of hacking their 'puter, and thereby get accesss to all the data on all their harddrives.

and they can ask you under oath.

I always thought I'd be great at that. I can split hairs with the best of them.

"Were the files on my computer? No" (It was my wife's computer.)

"Did I download the files? No." (The computer downloaded the files.)

Etc.

Plus, they're a big industry association with a good reputation.

Yeah- a reputation for sending threatening letters to 12-year-olds and Grandmas who don't have computers, and dead women.

They have a lot to lose if they aren't straightforward

What? A few thousand bucks, and a little more bad publicity. What do they care?

there's not even a good reason for them to make it up

Maybe. But they HAVE made mistakes before.

On the whole, much as I dislike them, I'd generally be inclined to believe that RIAA's evidence was accurate

Congratulations-you proved it came from my DSL line. Now prove it was MY computer, and that it was ME.

BTW- I can simply nuke and pave, or swap out my computer with a friend's if I think they will confiscate. (Or just store everything on removeable media.) How do you think the court case will go if they don't have any proof of music files on my PC?

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I maintain that a text log showing IP address 1.2.3.4 accessed a file somewhere is NOT sufficient.

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

That's a very interesting viewpoint. So if the the alleged copyright infringement was tracked down to a specific computer, and person A used the computer for 4 hours that day, and person B for 3 hours that day, and they can't narrow it down any more than that, person A is guilty?

Actually, something even better occurs.

First, we're talking about civil suits brought by a civil plaintiff such as RIAA, not criminal suits brought by the United States. So this also means we're looking for liability; not guilt.

This is also why the burdens are different. In a criminal suit, you generally have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is much harder than merely proving liability by a preponderance of the evidence, as is the norm in civil suits. (An intermediate step is proof by clear and convincing evidence)

Anyway, in a scenario such as you describe, what is actually likely to occur is that A and B are jointly and severally liable. The idea is that the plaintiff shouldn't lose just because he can't narrow it down between such a small and defined group of plaintiffs. So A and B together have to pay the sum of the damages (no doubling of the amount, mind) and can then work it out between themselves who did it, with the liable party repaying the non-liable party.

You'll find that US law is quite favorable to civil plaintiffs.

Ok, you're a lawyer. (I'm certainly not.) What is your specialty?

If this answer doesn't prove I'm a lawyer, probably nothing will.

As it happens, lawyers sometimes aren't allowed to claim to have a specialty, as the rules governing the profession are greatly concerned with misleading actual or potential clients and the public. Even when we can, it holds us up to a higher standard of conduct than usual.

So, if you're simply asking what sorts of cases I generally work on, then I generally work on copyright and trademark matters. And of course, like most lawyers, I also end up with some other sorts of cases at times.

Re:throw in the towel?

[penix1]

"Well, once a suit has been commenced, RIAA will have access to discovery procedures"

And discovery goes both ways...It would be a chance to get their books opened up for one.

"Plus, they're a big industry association with a good reputation. You're just some guy, and are probably a music pirate. They have a lot to lose if they aren't straightforward, and copyright suits are so open-and-shut, especially factually, that there's not even a good reason for them to make it up."

No....They would NEVER make them up...Dead people are all pirates according to the RIAA...

http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Deceased _Grandmother/1107532260

B.

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought only the police could do that.

Nope. Rule 34 allows this. It's often used to require parties to give copies of all relevant documents to the other side. But it can also be used to inspect things, such as your computer.

Discovery rules do accomodate concerns about abuse, so it'd be difficult to use them to engage in outright espionage, I think.

I always thought I'd be great at that. I can split hairs with the best of them.

You can ask questions other than those with yes or no answers. And you can get in trouble for avoiding them too creatively.

See the thing about civil litigation is, the entire system is designed so that there are no secrets, and no surprises. Each party knows all the relevant facts about the case, way in advance, so that the case can be dealt with as rapidly as possible while still being fair.

Congratulations-you proved it came from my DSL line. Now prove it was MY computer, and that it was ME.

Like I said, probability is sufficient. If it was probably your computer, and it was probably you using it, then it was. Once a probability has been shown, it's up to you to refute it.

Also failure to comply with discovery -- e.g. hiding evidence -- can end up with you in jail for contempt of court, if carried too far. And it makes the judge really pissed off, which means that whenever he could be lenient, but isn't required to be, he probably will not be.

And your lawyer, faced with your shennanigans, may end up quitting, forcing you to find new representation, if someone will take you.

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

And discovery goes both ways...It would be a chance to get their books opened up for one.

But discovery doesn't extend to everything -- it's only really for things relevant to the case at hand.

So... how are you going to use their books to prove that you didn't do it? If you don't have a good reason, the request will be challenged, and you'll lose.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

AH, yes. That article is FULL of interesting points:

the RIAA accused 83-year old Gertrude Walton... alias "smittenedkitten."

83yo, "smittenedkitten"!!!

Walton had passed away in December ... refused to even have a computer in the house.

No computer!!

"Our evidence gathering and our subsequent legal actions all were initiated weeks and even months ago,

She DIED months ago! You were researching a dead woman!

"We will now, of course, obviously dismiss this case."

If I recall correctly, the woman's daughter faxed them her death certificate, and they still send threatening letters to the dead woman!! Now, once it hit the newspapers, they'll "of course" dismiss it.

Asshats.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is that the plaintiff shouldn't lose just because he can't narrow it down

I accuse everyone in the world of copyright infringement. Therefore, everyone in the world must pay since I can't narrow it down??

I know, you said "between such a small and defined group of plaintiffs.", but that make some hell of a precident.

Can I get money from every employee of a company because I say I have logs showing someone at the company copied one of my files?

Sweet. (RIAA is a company, right??)

Re:throw in the towel?

[westlake]

Repeat after me: The RIAA have not yet sued anyone. They have applied extortion using the threat of a costly legal battle involving megacorporation vs one individual

settlement out of court is the norm in civil cases and talk of extortion is just so much hot air.

Re:throw in the towel?

[myke113]

So you mean... if someone IP spoofs my IP address... I'm liable?

Re:throw in the towel?

[penix1]

"So... how are you going to use their books to prove that you didn't do it? If you don't have a good reason, the request will be challenged, and you'll lose."

It would go to the RICO counter-suit I would file along with the request for the 10,000 other cases they settled...

B.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule 34 allows this. It's often used to require parties to give copies of all relevant documents to the other side. But it can also be used to inspect things, such as your computer.

And, how are they going to get my computer? Ask me to send it to them? Or call the cops and have them bust my door down at 4am to retreive it?

Either way, a nuke-n-pave as soon as they actually sue will probably take care of it. Unless you really think they'll pay $10,000 for a lab to look at my HD with an electron mocroscope. (Besides- WHICH HD?? I have 3 in my computer right now. The boot drive doesn't have squat on it, and they are welcome to look at it all they want. The others can removed in less than 2 minutes.)

Oh- and I'd want to 'inspect' the computer that supposedly logged me. Plus all other computers that had access to that computer. For signs of tampering.

Like I said, probability is sufficient. If it was probably your computer, and it was probably you using it, then it was. Once a probability has been shown, it's up to you to refute it.

Like I said, an open WiFi AP or a trojaned computer certainly refute it.

Also failure to comply with discovery -- e.g. hiding evidence -- can end up with you in jail for contempt of court, if carried too far.

Only if they can prove (there's that word again!) you did it!

Too bad no judge got pissed of by RIAA sending threatenign letters to little girls and dead grandmothers.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Dachannien]

Sort of makes you wonder what would happen if all 10000 defendants stood their ground and forced the RIAA to take them to court. Would the legal costs be so high for the RIAA that they would have to drop all but the most potentially profitable suits? And if the RIAA did take all those cases to trial, would Congress take action to free up the court system from the tremendous burden that would result from actually trying all of those cases in court?

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you would learn something by looking up extortion in a dictionary. The difference is only in how it is being done.

I suggest looking up naive as well.

Am I wrong? If the RIAA are not extorting, then what is it that they are doing?

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

And, how are they going to get my computer? Ask me to send it to them?

Yes. And you're going to, or else, like I said, you end up in trouble for contempt.

Either way, a nuke-n-pave as soon as they actually sue will probably take care of it. Unless you really think they'll pay $10,000 for a lab to look at my HD with an electron mocroscope. (Besides- WHICH HD?? I have 3 in my computer right now. The boot drive doesn't have squat on it, and they are welcome to look at it all they want. The others can removed in less than 2 minutes.)

They'll request it all. And they'll likely ask you under oath if you erased anything. And what it was that you erased. And why you decided to erase it.

The fact that you took action that would destroy evidence, in direct response to the commencement of a suit, strongly implies that you're liable.

Trust me -- better men than you have tried to foil discovery.

Like I said, an open WiFi AP or a trojaned computer certainly refute it.

The former likely will not; most wifi traffic over wifi installed in homes is probably not that of third parties. The latter might, but only if it were trojaned at the time, and on the whole, it's still a fairly improbable circumstance. You're going to have to work hard to convince the court that it really wasn't you.

Only if they can prove (there's that word again!) you did it!

Failure to comply is easy to prove. Ignoring a request too long, or explicitly refusing to comply is sufficient, unless the judge decides that the request wasn't proper.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

People sure pay a lot of money for something they "wouldn't have bought anyway."

Maybe they should have not downloaded the stuff and done without it, that way they wouldn't get charged such a large fee for it. Or maybe they should have bought it anyway, as it would have saved them a lot more and it would cost less then what they had to pay the RIAA.

Plus the RIAA isn't going after the small frys, so they probably did have a lot of stuff they "wouldn't have bought anyway."

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

And, how are they going to get my computer? Ask me to send it to them?

Yes. And you're going to, or else, like I said, you end up in trouble for contempt.

1) They have yet to prove I HAVE a computer. Remember the DEAD women they sent a letter to? 83 years old when she died, didn't have a computer?? Or how they accused a woman with a Apple computer of using a Windows-only P2P program??

2) I have several computers. How the heck would they know if I send them my (clean) backup computer instead of my primary??

3) Contempt Of what? RIAA?!? If it's "Of Court", then it is the COURT ordering I turn over the computer, and I'll send it to the court, NOT the RIAA.

They'll request it all.

Point is, they don't know what "it all" is. Can't ask for something you don't know exists.

Besides, do you know I run a business off that computer, and I have my own and other's personal email on it? I'm sure there are some laws that protect my (and other's) privacy, as well as my livelihood.

And they'll likely ask you under oath if you erased anything. And what it was that you erased. And why you decided to erase it.

And I have no moral problem lying under oath to those bastards.

The fact that you took action that would destroy evidence, in direct response to the commencement of a suit, strongly implies that you're liable.

I nuked-n-paved the day _before_ I got your letter. So sorry.

Failure to comply is easy to prove.

... explicitly refusing to comply

SO, you're saying failing to comply is proof I failed to comply? :-)

What differentiates a situation where I am UNABLE to comply from a situation where I AM able, but FAIL to comply??

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

all that has to be shown in a civil case is that is more probable than not that you were the source of the files. plural.

"You did it"

"No I didn't"

"Yes you did"

Does not meet that standard.

However, the RIAA might be able to subpoena enough records from your ISP to make a case (the mere fact that you sent unknown (unknown other than as accused by the plaintiff) data at a given time on a given day would not be enough, a pattern of data transmissions might be enough to draw implications).

The fact that everyone is (seemingly) settling strongly implies that at least most of them did copy the files. If many of them didn't then it's likely that more people would fight in court.

Re:throw in the towel?

[VistaBoy]

If the RIAA are not extorting, then what is it that they are doing?

Suing people they have traced infringing their copyrights by downloading RIAA music over P2P sources. Let's look at it from the other side here. The people being sued have (probably) broken the law themselves to get into this position. How exactly is this situation "extortion" if the person broke the law in the first place? I mean, legally the RIAA is entitled to the damages that the law permits them to receive from these law-breakers. It's being lenient to allow these law-breakers to settle for so little.

Yes, it may be unfair if you legitimately didn't do it, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of the people that the RIAA is suing actually broke the laws in question. Chances are, these people have been chronically breaking the law, and there's probably a huge paper trail.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Tranquilus]

Actually, although I'm sure you didn't mean to be misleading, remeber that in certain very limited circumstances you are ethically allowed to claim a specialty (Admiralty and Patent) and you can always mention that you choose to limit your practice to certain areas (i.e. all the "have you been bitten by a dog recently?" ads you see on late night TV).

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, they're a big industry association with a good reputation.

Hah! Yeah, thanks a lot for Britney Spears, RIAA member companies!

Re:throw in the towel?

[Tranquilus]

i mean remember and this is my lame girlfriend writing in. who wants friends.

Re:throw in the towel?

[dougmc]

Actually, something even better occurs.

Better if you're the plaintiff, of course. Not better if you're the guy who happened to be using the library computer on the same day where the allegeded copyright violation happened, but didn't do it.

You'll find that US law is quite favorable to civil plaintiffs.

Apparantly. And the RIAA is using civil law to punish people (and profit!) for what has traditionally been the sort of thing that has been a criminal case. [Though I'm not sure that sharing some mp3s or movies is even a criminal matter at all, just a civil one (I'd assume that you know, however). And if it is, it's not something the police are likely to care about it, not on a small scale anyways.]

It seems to be the new legal `thing' -- when criminal charges fail, go with civil charges. OJ was found innocent of murder (I certainly agree that he seemed guilty, but `beyond a reasonable doubt' ? Probably not ...) but he lost the civil suit, and made the family of his dead wife lots of money.

Maybe it's time to start applying criminal trial standards (i.e. you can't be forced to inciminate yourself, `beyond a reasonable doubt', court appointed attorney for those that can't afford their own, etc.) to certain sorts of civil cases, because they're being used like criminal cases. Of course, merely mentioning this on /. isn't going to make it happen. But I wonder what the ACLU, EFF and others think about it ... [hmmmm] ...

If this answer doesn't prove I'm a lawyer, probably nothing will.

It doesn't prove it. It makes me perhaps 70% sure you're a lawyer. (The other 30% could be a guy who googles a lot, or somebody who didn't make it through law school, or ...:) )

As for `probably nothing will', I imagine there's some paperwork that goes along with passing the bar -- a certificate, a diploma or something similar. That would probably provide better `I'm a lawyer!' proof than merely not answering a question in a direct manner :)

(No, I'm not asking for proof.)

Re:throw in the towel?

[Pofy]

>Repeat after me:....

OK, I have repeated both whay you said and what those replying wanted me to repeat. Now what?

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can extort people for all sorts of things. If i witness you cheating on your taxes, and then demand money in exchange for silence, I'm still extorting you.

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

The third one is trademarks, actually. And at any rate, I'm licensed in MA which has opened it up for anything. But there's still the higher standard applied if you use the magic word. Thus, it's probably possible to get a similar effect ethically, without incurring the increased burden.

And of course, I do not mean to mislead.

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

And the RIAA is using civil law to punish people (and profit!) for what has traditionally been the sort of thing that has been a criminal case. [Though I'm not sure that sharing some mp3s or movies is even a criminal matter at all, just a civil one (I'd assume that you know, however). And if it is, it's not something the police are likely to care about it, not on a small scale anyways.]

Actually, copyright infringement has been civil far longer than criminal. In fact, I don't see why it should be criminalized at all. It's easy for copyright holders to sue themselves, receive damages which help cure whatever harm they've suffered, and stop infringers, in a purely civil system.

Also, it's a federal crime, a felony, so you end up seeing federal law enforcement, often, but not always, the FBI. Criminal copyright suits must be brought by the US Dept. of Justice.

And sharing them can easily be a criminal matter, especially with the new law passed just recently that expands criminal liability.

It seems to be the new legal `thing' -- when criminal charges fail, go with civil charges. OJ was found innocent of murder (I certainly agree that he seemed guilty, but `beyond a reasonable doubt' ? Probably not ...) but he lost the civil suit, and made the family of his dead wife lots of money.

Not really. Civil plaintiffs aren't really helped at all by criminal prosecution. Hence the separate courses of action. In fact, you usually want to have the civil suit first so that the defendant has money to pay damages -- otherwise he'll spend it all on his criminal defense, or won't care since he's already in jail, and you can't make his life significantly worse.

It doesn't prove it. It makes me perhaps 70% sure you're a lawyer.

Well, that's good enough in most civil suits! ;)

I imagine there's some paperwork that goes along with passing the bar

When I was sworn in, I got a wall certificate. When I paid my dues, I got a little card that I keep in my wallet, and it has my ID number on it. Gotta have that in order to submit paperwork to court.

The MA wall certificate isn't very fancy looking though, given how much I paid for taking the bar and in dues. Thus I will plan to become a member of the US Supreme Court bar, which has a much more impressive looking piece of paper.

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

They have yet to prove I HAVE a computer.

Well, it's that you, at the time had one. They just want to look at it now. If you didn't have one, you need only say so. But don't lie, since then you start getting into trouble.

You seem to keep trying to lie in order to escape justice. This usually comes out in the end, and it doesn't work well for you.

3) Contempt Of what? RIAA?!? If it's "Of Court", then it is the COURT ordering I turn over the computer, and I'll send it to the court, NOT the RIAA.

If you don't comply with a discovery request, the requestor goes to court to get a court order demanding that you comply with the discovery request. If you still do not do so, you are in contempt of court, and the court may fine or jail you until you turn it over to the party making the request. The court doesn't want to see the computer. Frankly, it likes it when people settle.

Looking at evidence is the job of the parties; they winnow it down to what they cannot agree on. Then, if there is anything they can't agree on, that gets decided in court.

Point is, they don't know what "it all" is. Can't ask for something you don't know exists.


That's why the request is made in a very open-ended fashion. They'll just say something like 'all computer storage devices you had on such and such a date.'

The purpose of discovery after all is to fill in gaps in each side's knowledge.

Besides, do you know I run a business off that computer, and I have my own and other's personal email on it? I'm sure there are some laws that protect my (and other's) privacy, as well as my livelihood.

That just means that they have to be careful in how they conduct their discovery. You can't avoid it, however.

And I have no moral problem lying under oath to those bastards.

Fair enough, but perjury is a crime.

What differentiates a situation where I am UNABLE to comply from a situation where I AM able, but FAIL to comply??

Providing an adequate explaination to the court as to why you are unable to comply, and getting the court to accept it.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Freaky Spook]

Whats to stop you using the argument, I have an unsecured wirless network & didn't realise people were leeching off me?

Re:throw in the towel?

[Kythe]

If I had a client in one of these matters who really hadn't done it, then it might be worthwhile to fight, but it doesn't make much sense to do so when they're right.

Just out of curiosity, why would it be worthwhile to fight? If, as you say, a plaintiff only needs to set up a 51% chance of being right, and considering the difficulty of convincing a judge or jury that the RIAA's simply wrong, then why would the simple fact of innocence change anything?

I would think that evidence would be the deciding factor, and that in the vast majority of cases, innocence or guilt would play only a small role in whether a defendant settled. In other words, as things stand the RIAA can do pretty much whatever it wants, up to and including falsifying evidence, with little chance of getting caught.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Kythe]

They'll request it all. And they'll likely ask you under oath if you erased anything. And what it was that you erased. And why you decided to erase it.

I'm sure they would. Of course, if someone were going to fold on the stand in the first place, obtaining forensic evidence from a computer would hardly be necessary.

Re:throw in the towel?

[h4rm0ny]

It's never been about stopping the P2P flood. It's always been about making money.

Rubbish. The money an organisation the size of the RIAA is doesn't care about the dribs and drabs that they can get out of individuals. It's about (a) stopping the sharing of music that the record labels think is costing them so much and (b) the RIAA capitalising on the record label's belief so that they can justify their existence further and make more money out of the record labels.

Artists no longer need the major labels for distribution and that's what scares them. The lawsuits are just trying to fit the genie back in the bottle.

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

If they really didn't do it, then there are likely to be facts supporting this that can successfully rebut the prima facie case. Of course, the costs involved may yet be prohibitive -- that's what's usually going to result in settlement.

For the RIAA to falsify evidence, however, is highly risky for them, their lawyers, etc. And given how many people really do pirate music, why the need to do so? These suits are fish in a barrel easy.

Frankly, these suits aren't intended to turn a profit (though they should be self-sustaining). They're meant to put the fear of God into people.

Re:throw in the towel?

[PsiPsiStar]

as the rules governing the profession are greatly concerned with misleading actual or potential clients and the public.

I love the ambiguity in this statement.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's never been about money. When Napster offered to give a sizeable amount of its first year income to RIAA et al in order to stay alive, RIAA declined. The estimated amount would have been in the billions of dollars. It has always been about control. The RIAA, being a middle-man, does not want the distribution of content to slip from their grasp. P2P and related technologies allow the common person to acquire any music they desire, regardless of locale. New technology in the future will allow people to donate money directly to the artist. RIAA does not, and cannot allow that to happen if they wish to survive.

Re:throw in the towel?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"Apparantly. And the RIAA is using civil law to punish people (and profit!) for what has traditionally been the sort of thing that has been a criminal case."

Uhhh... no? Copyright infringement has only recently been punishable under criminal law, and only then in limited circumstances.

"It seems to be the new legal `thing' -- when criminal charges fail, go with civil charges. OJ was found innocent of murder (I certainly agree that he seemed guilty, but `beyond a reasonable doubt' ? Probably not ...) but he lost the civil suit, and made the family of his dead wife lots of money. "

OJ was found "not guilty". He was not found to be innocent. The family has the right to sue for damages. You'd probably do the same thing.

"Maybe it's time to start applying criminal trial standards (i.e. you can't be forced to inciminate yourself, `beyond a reasonable doubt', court appointed attorney for those that can't afford their own, etc.) to certain sorts of civil cases, because they're being used like criminal cases."

Except that they aren't. The RIAA is suing for damages. They can't put you in jail. Moreover, you aren't fighting the government. It's not the same thing.

Re:throw in the towel?

[jabuzz]

Like I said, probability is sufficient. If it was probably your computer, and it was probably you using it, then it was. Once a probability has been shown, it's up to you to refute it.

That it came from your DSL line is nowhere near enough proof that it was you or even probably you. Apart from it being someone else using your computer, your computer could be infected by spyware/viruses and being used by someone else to mask their tracks. In the UK a huge proportion of broadband internet connections are infected with such nasties. That wireless DSL router could have been hijacked by someone else becasue there is very little you can do to secure WiFi connections. That is just two to start with off the top of my head. I am sure given a bit of time I could think of many more. Tracking any downloading to an IP address proves very little indeed.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Taladar]

It is widely accepted that it is much harder to prove you have not done something (especially something that has no fixed location/time associated) than it is to prove the you have done something.

Re:throw in the towel?

[mpe]

Doesn't your corner only throw in the towel if you're getting your ass kicked? From what I understand, the RIAA is settling nearly each of these cases out of court for a substantial profit. If that's the case, why would they ever throw in the towel?

In the vast majority of cases the RIAA have sucessfully bullied people into handing over money. If the RIAA are going to get their "ass kicked" it would most probably be by a judge with a case actually making it to court.

Re:throw in the towel?

[mpe]

Plus, they're a big industry association with a good reputation.

A good reputation on what planet?

On the whole, much as I dislike them, I'd generally be inclined to believe that RIAA's evidence was accurate, if the matter had progressed that far, unless some significant hole in it could be found.

The fact that they accused someone who didn't have a computer and was dead dosn't say a lot for the quality of their evidence.
On the other hand plenty of people in the US appear to accept complete fiction if it comes from the right people.

Re:throw in the towel?

[mpe]

It's often used to require parties to give copies of all relevant documents to the other side. But it can also be used to inspect things, such as your computer.

If this mechanism can be used to allow plaintiff to examine computers belonging to the defendent it can just easily be used by the defendent to examine computers belonging to or used by the plaintiff.

Re:throw in the towel?

[mpe]

But discovery doesn't extend to everything -- it's only really for things relevant to the case at hand.

How and why the plaintiff is accusing the defendent is very relevent.

So... how are you going to use their books to prove that you didn't do it?

Isn't it for the plaintiff to prove that the defendent "did it". If the plaintiff's "books" were to show things like random accusations their case(s) would collapse.

Re:throw in the towel?

[mpe]

And, how are they going to get my computer? Ask me to send it to them? Or call the cops and have them bust my door down at 4am to retreive it?

The cops are not going to bust down your door unless it is a criminal matter. If this happened the RIAA would lose control over the case and you would get a free lawyer.

Oh- and I'd want to 'inspect' the computer that supposedly logged me. Plus all other computers that had access to that computer. For signs of tampering.

As well as exactly what the computer in question actually was doing and how likely it would be to generate a false positive.

Too bad no judge got pissed of by RIAA sending threatenign letters to little girls and dead grandmothers.

There isn't much any judge can do, until a child or (the estate of) a dead grandmother turns up in his or her courtroom.

Re:throw in the towel?

[mpe]

2) I have several computers. How the heck would they know if I send them my (clean) backup computer instead of my primary??

Or a router. That being the only "computer" which ever used the IP address the complaint relates to.

Besides, do you know I run a business off that computer, and I have my own and other's personal email on it? I'm sure there are some laws that protect my (and other's) privacy, as well as my livelihood.

Another poster specifically mentioned that "discovery" has specific protections against being used for espionage. No doubt there are also protections against it being used to disrupt your business. Otherwise it would be routine for companies to sue their competitors on questionable grounds.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

>If this mechanism can be used to allow plaintiff to examine computers belonging to the defendent it can just easily be used by the defendent to examine computers belonging to or used by the plaintiff.

Only if you can come up with a plausible explanation of what you're looking for. The judge sees to it that neither the plaintiff nor defendant get to go on fishing expeditions.

Re:throw in the towel?

[klang]

your Intellectual Property has an address?!?

thank you, I'll be here all week.

Re:throw in the towel?

[dougmc]

"Apparantly. And the RIAA is using civil law to punish people (and profit!) for what has traditionally been the sort of thing that has been a criminal case."

Uhhh... no? Copyright infringement has only recently been punishable under criminal law, and only then in limited circumstances.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Generally, the RIAA and MPAA and others would like us to look at `copyright infringement' as stealing. (Many agree with this view, and many do not. I won't get into that here.) But stealing has generally been a crime, and when you're caught stealing men in blue come and lock you up. That's what I meant by `this sort of thing'.

But copyright infringement has generally been a civil issue, not a criminal issue.

OJ was found "not guilty". He was not found to be innocent. The family has the right to sue for damages.

The Constition is still the law in this land, right? (I realize that GWB and others are chipping away at that, but ...)

`Innocent until proven guilty'. He was not proven guilty, so he's still innocent in the eyes of our legal system. You can nitpick about `innocent' not being the same as `not guilty', but as far as our criminal system is concerned, as far as I know, they're the same thing.

You'd probably do the same thing.

Just because I'd probably do the same thing, that doesn't mean it's right. If somebody had killed my daughter, and I got the opportunity, I'd probably kill them. Especially if I wouldn't get held accountable for it (like if nobody knew I did it.) Even if a court had found them `not guilty' (but I knew they were.) I'd know it's wrong, but I might do it anyways.

Except that they aren't. The RIAA is suing for damages. They can't put you in jail. Moreover, you aren't fighting the government. It's not the same thing.

If I go into a store and steal a few CDs and get arrested, I'm not likely to go to jail. (As long as the dollar value is low enough.) Instead, I'll probably get a ticket, and a summons to appear in court. It'll work almost exactly like a traffic ticket, where I can just pay the fine (and therefore plead `guity' or `no contest') or go to court and fight it. (Yes, the officer could take me to jail, but this rarely happens here (Texas) for minor offenses, and shoplifting is one.)

If I put a CD up for download, and the RIAA sues me, I won't go to jail. I'll end up either settling for a few thousand dollars, or get sued for a few hundred thousand dollars.

To make matters worse, if the RIAA sues me, not only are the penalties much higher, but apparantly they don't even have to be reasonably sure that they have the right person, and I don't have the fifth amendment to protect me. As far as the defendant is concerned, it's like a criminal case -- but worse in every possible way, except that it's harder for him to end up in jail. (He could still ultimately end up in jail -- but for things like not paying a judgement, or contempt of court, etc.)

As always, our legal system is out of control, and the RIAA and others are taking advantage of this. And my whining about it on /. isn't going to fix it, and even talking to the ACLU, EFF and others isn't going to do it. But at least they're generally fighting the good fight, so I send them money every year so I can tell myself I'm doin something to help.

Re:throw in the towel?

[mpe]

Just out of curiosity, why would it be worthwhile to fight? If, as you say, a plaintiff only needs to set up a 51% chance of being right, and considering the difficulty of convincing a judge or jury that the RIAA's simply wrong, then why would the simple fact of innocence change anything?

Effectivly you are arguing that the majority of judges and jurists would believe the RIAA regardless of the evidence.

I would think that evidence would be the deciding factor, and that in the vast majority of cases, innocence or guilt would play only a small role in whether a defendant settled.

Thing is that the evidence is not in the RIAA's favour at all. They have accused people without computers, people who are dead, people who's computers do not run the software they allege was used.

In other words, as things stand the RIAA can do pretty much whatever it wants, up to and including falsifying evidence, with little chance of getting caught.

Only so long as they are allowed to.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

>A good reputation on what planet?

Slashdot and it's assorted dorkish denizens do not constitute the world, my friend.

>The fact that they accused someone who didn't have a computer and was dead dosn't say a lot for the quality of their evidence.

Less than 10 mistakes out of 10,000 is pretty good, don't you think? I'd be worried if I were you.

Re:throw in the towel?

[mpe]

For the RIAA to falsify evidence, however, is highly risky for them, their lawyers, etc. And given how many people really do pirate music, why the need to do so? These suits are fish in a barrel easy.

Then how is it possible for them to accuse people who cannot possibly be guilty? It's more likely that they are fundermentally incompetent at gathering evidence that actually trying to make it up. "Shooting fish in a barrel" still requires the gun to be pointed in the right direction.

Re:throw in the towel?

[mpe]

1) Prove it was me. I don't mean showing some "IP logs". Any idiot can make up "logs". What real proof do they have?? (Hint: no proof, no case!)

Nor is a file name regex matched by machine. It isn't hard to fine examples where machines appear to be sending out lawyer's letters without any human oversight. Even if the filename and size was consitent with it containing something infringing without looking at it there is no way of knowing. If the RIAA were to download it there are 3 possibilities, that it is an infringing work, that it isn't (e.g. white noise) or that the RIAA themselves have infringed copyright.

Re:Throw in the towel?

[kilodelta]

Interestingly I haven't bought a new CD since the RIAA started this crap a couple of years ago.

Quite frankly, the new music being put on the market by the record companies is nothing by recycled pablum for the most part.

But here comes the interesting part. They can only nail you if you share files OUT. Download like a fiend - most of the P2P programs out there are UDP now anyhow and UDP is connectionless. That's why they rushed to shut down the Bit Torrent sites, once a stream was started it could be going to one or ten thousand people.

So the solution is to host share outs in a country that doesn't subscribe to the RIAA dominated copyright theory. China would be a good start.

The efforts to get people to legally download are ridiculous. At a dollar a track there really isn't any cost saving to the consumer, yet the industry can cut a large part of their overhead costs. At $0.25 a track it might be more attractive and they'd still be making money hand over fist.

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

The problem is that those are all fairly low probability events -- not that it's infected, but that someone would zombie your machine just to download music.

Most music piracy on the net is fairly straightfoward. Grasping for alternative theories isn't going to help much in a civil suit, unless it is an extremely strong one.

Basically, the preponderance test can be thought of as occam's razor. If you discover that someone at an IP address is downloading music, which do you honestly believe is the more likely scenario: that the person who lives at the place the account is supposed to be used by is doing it, or that a third party is?

Re:throw in the towel?

[hostguy2004]

Your post is accurate in the balance is favored towards the plantiff. I do not download MP3s at all, because most P2P software is a good way to screw up a perfectly good computer.

However, If I ever got sued by RIAA, I would probably counter-sue under RICO(Racketeering) laws. These cases of a grandmother who never owned(or operated etc) a computer being sued etc. is example enough that their process is flawed, and any subsequent proceedings is a fishing exercise for evidence.
Also, I do host unsigned artists on my servers, and since the RIAA doesn't have any legal claim to their work - any action on their part as a result of the unsigned work would be perjurious or otherwise illegal.

~Hostguy2004
PS. I am not a Lawyer

Re:throw in the towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Question....since i have paid for my cd's and the intellectual propery on them, can i return said cd's containing the intellectual property for a refund?

Re:throw in the towel?

[bigtangringo]

From TFA:

And given the news reports of $3,000 average settlements, this means the RIAA's probably collected over $30 million from individual file sharers.

Sounds like a whole lotta moulah to me.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Kythe]

Effectivly you are arguing that the majority of judges and jurists would believe the RIAA regardless of the evidence.

Actually, what I'm arguing is that the evidence is likely to be pretty much the same in most cases: the presentation of an IP address, server logs and perhaps a traceroute, etc. The RIAA is likely to have the same material on anyone it sues. And that evidence certainly CAN point to the wrong person.

If the evidence is good enough to convince a jury in one case, it makes little sense to me to say that the mere fact of innocence should be what determines whether or not a defendant should fight. Perhaps on principle, this is true, but it won't make much difference in the outcome.

Re:throw in the towel?

[Flendon]

So they only go after the big fish? I'm sorry as many P2P users as are out their I find it hard to believe that 10,000 and still counting of them are the big fish. I know P2P has some big numbers, but enough in the US alone so that a small minority equals 10,000? You will have to show me some numbers please.

Re:throw in the towel?

[cpt kangarooski]

But copyright infringement has generally been a civil issue, not a criminal issue.

It's more civil than criminal, but some copyright infringement has been a federal crime since 1897. I think it should be purely civil, but it's not a recent thing.

`Innocent until proven guilty'. He was not proven guilty, so he's still innocent in the eyes of our legal system. You can nitpick about `innocent' not being the same as `not guilty', but as far as our criminal system is concerned, as far as I know, they're the same thing.

They're not the same thing. Plus, it's generally more proper to simply say that the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal defendant is guilty. As opposed to innocent until proven guilty. It's just discussing who has to do what in a case.

Re:throw in the towel?

[h4rm0ny]

Alright, it's not negligible. If they've really settled with 10,000 people then that's money for them and so long as people don't take it to court then it may remain self-financing.

But though $30 million may sound a whole lotta mullah to you, frighteningly it isn't to the RIAA. Rod Stewart made more than that in one year alone from his back catalog. That's Rod Stewart, by the way.

Yep, you're right to point out that I understated the profits from litigation - I hadn't played with the numbers when I posted - but the main drive behind this is the desperate need to preserve the labels' role in distributing music. If the law-suits were costing them money the only negative effect would be the bad PR from looking like idiots, the financial cost they can bear.

10,000 settlements out of 10's of millions of downloaders? It's like the lottery in reverse. They're doomed. It's Steam Eng... I mean P2P time. :)

The RIAA Will Never Quit

[StarWreck]

The RIAA will never quit suing P2P users because the RIAA is making a profit from it...

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[mirqry]

Of course they are making money from it. They are collecting the money for songs, that people had downloaded illegally and not paid for.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[StarWreck]

They are collecting the money for songs

Too bad the RIAA is keeping the money for themselves (only paying the Lawyers and the CEO's). Not a single penny from any of the 10,000 lawsuits have gone to the artists from whom "the money was stolen".

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[mirqry]

While I agree that the artists are underpaid. The money won in court/a settlement for violating a copyright, goes to the person that owns the copyright, which in most cases is the record company. If someone is concerned about the artist they buy music and give the arist, i agree, an pitifully low percentage. Because downloading it the artist gets zero.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[Reaperducer]

Not a single penny from any of the 10,000 lawsuits have gone to the artists from whom "the money was stolen".

That's a pretty broad statement. Care to provide a citation?

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[DoorFrame]

A: I doubt that is true even in the spirit that you meant it, can you prove it?

B: The artists are indeed receiving a portion of that money as that money is part of the RIAA's income and higher income will ultimately allow them to pay higher salaries to artists.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[mirqry]

and someone downloading music, instead of buying it and giving the artist their normal percentage is concerned about the artists?

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[jimboisbored]

Here's one for him, I just pulled a paper out of my ass on this topic and this[LAWeekly.com] was one of my sources.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[Detritus]

The RIAA is a trade association. It does not pay a nickel to recording artists.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[mirqry]

Its the fault of who ever downloaded the music that the RIAA is getting all of the money, and none is going to the artist.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[NanoGator]

"B: The artists are indeed receiving a portion of that money as that money is part of the RIAA's income and higher income will ultimately allow them to pay higher salaries to artists."

No it doesn't. They're paying for how much is sold, not how much money they have. That's also one of the reasons they're not on the hook to pay the artists when they settle a lawsuit.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[Anonymous Coward]

and someone downloading music, instead of buying it and giving the artist their normal percentage is concerned about the artists?

You have the same ignorant knee-jerk reaction that the RIAA has: that downloading music is supplanting the purchase of music.

For the small minority of people that are downloading instead of buying it is more accurate to say that they are stealing from the RIAA*, which is OK in my book ;)

*Artists typically get > 10% of the sale, the majority of the sale goes to the members of the RIAA.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[BrookHarty]

Humm, maybe the artists should start sueing the RIAA, Oh yea, its only fair.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA (or agents) must obviously be downloading files from people sharing them on the P2P nets. If they didn't do this they could never collect the needed evidence. It's not enough just to look at a list of titles offered. There is a lot of purposely misnamed junk floating around. You wounldn't want to accuse someone of infringement when the files contained the wrong content so you have to download to be sure.

Let's make a program that will generate haiku poems based on your artistic input and add a copyright statement to each poem.

Now during the P2P transfer randomly replace each 10th block with a copyrighted poem. Now there is no way for the RIAA to verify that you are sharing a copyright work without also violating your copyright. By proving you shared, they will also prove that they infringed at a ten to one ratio.

Can a scheme like this work?

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[Reaperducer]

Not exactly an authoritative or credible source, especially considering the person being interviewed wouldn't go on the record and is only known as an anonymous inside.

Anyone else?

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[lachlan76]

As opposed to if they hadn't downloaded the music, where the artists would have gotten...none. Of nothing.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[Travelsonic]

While I agree that the artists are underpaid. The money won in court/a settlement for violating a copyright, goes to the person that owns the copyright, which in most cases is the record company.

And they said that they were doing this for the artists. If the copyright holders are the companies, then I find that claim almost impossible to believe.

... Because downloading it the artist gets zero.

Assuming of course the person would buy the music in the first place.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[mirqry]

Yea... I'm sure every single person that downloads music would never buy music, if they couldn't download it.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[mirqry]

By stopping illegal downloading, people will have to PAY for the music they want to listen to. So by the RIAA sueing downloaders, they are trying to discourage people from downloading. Thats why they aren't taking everyone to court for the $100,000 per song, or whatever the max is. They just want to scare everyone, make them pay a little. That way they will goto the store and buy music, and everyone gets their normal cut. I can't see how we can fault a group for sueing people that are knowing violating a copyright that they own.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[lachlan76]

Shit, I'm sure I'm not alone in only buying stuff from artists who i've downloaded a few tracks from myself.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[wannasleep]

what's RIAA's return on investiments?

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[Taladar]

I don't know about other people but I stopped buying music roughly twice as many years ago as have passed since the invention of Napster. It simply isn't worth it due to the 1 good/19 crappy songs business model.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[Travelsonic]

By stopping illegal downloading, people will have to PAY for the music they want to listen to. So by the RIAA sueing downloaders, they are trying to discourage people from downloading.

I feel sorry for the independent artists who share the music online (websites & P2P) because by scaring people off of donloading in the "free " way, the RIAA is also will most likely (that is if they succed) make it diffucult for legal sites like DMusic.com, where they have free/legal music up for download from indepndent aritsts, to get people to

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[mpe]

For the small minority of people that are downloading instead of buying it is more accurate to say that they are stealing from the RIAA*, which is OK in my book ;)

There are 3 general catagories of downloaders
A) Those who would never buy it (or cannot buy it).
B) Those who would (and could) otherwise buy CDs, DVDs, tapes, etc.
C) Those who buy because they have had access through downloading.

The RIAA, MPAA, etc. claim that B is the vast majority (and that C dosn't exist at all). What actually matters to their profits is the relative size of B & C. If C is larger P2P is actually a benefit to their business. The size of A (which quite likely is the majority) is utterly irrelevent here.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[mpe]

By stopping illegal downloading, people will have to PAY for the music they want to listen to.

It could just as easily result in people listening to less music...

So by the RIAA sueing downloaders, they are trying to discourage people from downloading. Thats why they aren't taking everyone to court for the $100,000 per song, or whatever the max is. They just want to scare everyone, make them pay a little. That way they will goto the store and buy music, and everyone gets their normal cut.

They can also only buy the music the store is selling. Which excludes "out of print" CDs, independent musicians, etc.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[mirqry]

I do too. All these people downloading illegal material is bringing all this attention to P2P and messing it up for any legitamate users.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[mirqry]

It could just as easily result in people listening to less music... And if that happens the RIAA is going to have to suck it up. Recording companines will have to look for some real original talent instead of all the pop crap, and maybe we will get better music out of it. By violating copyrights because you want something, but don't think its worth the money they are charging, isn't the answer.

Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit

[Travelsonic]

do too. All these people downloading illegal material is bringing all this attention to P2P and messing it up for any legitamate users.

Not only that, but the feeble-minded legit users, or those that are easily frightened that they might be sued won't download indie music even though that indie music is legal to download/share, even though it is the RIAA music that is being targeted.

Networks?

[killawatt5k]

I am under the impression emule is safe. Anyone heard otherwise? Any other p2p networks I should know about?

Re:Networks?

[RichardX]

It's not a file sharing network per se, but i2p is an anonymity layer for the 'net which allows, amongst other things, for anonymous bittorrent.

Re:Networks?

[Anonymous Coward]

I download music using an Emule-like client. I never share music however and while I'm downloading, I'm sharing so much pr0n that no one is ever able to try to download my partially loaded music files, i.e., pr0n is in such high demand that the music files are completed and unreachable long before anyone could successfully download even a single bit from me.

Re:Networks?

[Anonymous Coward]

I once received a few bytes of the movie "Matrix Reloaded.divx" or something, by mistake. Emule immediately puts the downloaded file, even those few bytes, available for others to download.

Some company in New York City scanning eDonkey network, saw it on my machine (even if they were few bytes only) and 2 days later I received an e-mail from my ISP that this company sent them an e-mail threatening a law suit..

It is a company getting paid by movie studios and other interest groups, for scanning these networks. And I was using E-mule.

Don't use those P2P things much anymore.. not sure if that anonimity layer or something is new.. this incident was almost 2 years ago I think.

Re:Networks?

[MrDomino]

I2P isn't ready for prime-time yet. The code can't handle large numbers of network users currently (though that's on the way to being fixed), and the developer prefers to test things on a smaller network.

As such, I can't say that linking to the project's homepage from Slashdot right now is a very good idea.

Re:Networks?

[mankey wanker]

No non-anonymous method is "safe."

Instead, try meeting in real life and trading whole databases of music. That's what I do with my friends.

"I'll swap you 100 GB Jazz for 100 GB Classical..."

Re:Networks?

[Anonymous Coward]

/me files that idea away

Re:Networks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about the ants p2p available from sourceforge.net. This p2p network doesn't directly transfer from source to destination, but has an algorithm to relay data through p2p neighbors, so it's more anonymous.

Re:Networks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suuuure it will work.

Have you no idea the amount of money that would be invested--invested--to make sure it did not?

Have you no idea how quickly an agent provocateur can set up a patsy with child porn, tip off the police and media, and have the whole technology tainted?

See, I like geeks. I really do. But so many of you have this silly idea that technology can solve non-technological problems. Reality is what those who have money and power allow it to become.

Doesn't really matter...

[RichardX]

Either the RIAA throws in the towel, or advances in anonymous secure filesharing make their efforts redundant - there are already several very promising and useable systems in development.
Either way, the RIAA can't keep up forever.

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[01000011011101000111]

I had a badge once. It read "Don't steal, the government doesn't like the competition".

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note I will not reply to any 'ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!' replies

It's easy to 'win' an argument if you refuse to acknowledge the opposing facts.

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[NanoGator]

"It's easy to 'win' an argument if you refuse to acknowledge the opposing facts."

Though I agree with you that he's full of shit, I do understand that little disclaimer. Often people will rehash the same old argument, presumably to gain a karma point. It's tiring. I imagine his motivation was "Nobody's sold on the theft argument, gimme something new."

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[EvilStein]

Well, they can always lobby for a "media tax" (like in Canada) to "support the artists" because blank media is used to "burn pirated material."

What a crock of bullshit that all is, but it's something that the RIAA would love to have in place. Imagine, giving them $$ everytime you buy a hard drive or blank CD, simply because you *might* use that media for pirated material. Oh, but even though you're paying for it, it's still illegal.

THey'd LOVE to have it both ways..

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do understand that little disclaimer. Often people will rehash the same old argument...

a:"I think God created the Universe in a week, 6000 years ago."
b:"Well, what about all the fossil evidence?"
a:"I refuse to respond to that 'same old argument'"
b:"Well, what about the speed of light and how we can see stars further away than 6000LY?"
a:"I refuse to respond to that 'same old argument'"
Etc...

Doesn't really make 'a' the winner, does it?

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[Travelsonic]

Please note I will not reply to any 'ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!' replies

If you didn't want to hear the replies (the replies don't ends up in your exaderated '7331' (leet) talk, admit it) correcting you on the legal FACT that the crime is infringement of copyright infringement, then why the hell did you make the argument in the first place? Is the internet REALLY full of people who are so stupid that they hate to have a certain reply, but post something that the only *real* reply would be something like that in the first place?

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[Travelsonic]

I imagine his motivation was "Nobody's sold on the theft argument, gimme something new."

I see, but it is kina hard to believe given the way he presented his post.

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[NanoGator]

I didn't say it made for a winning argument, I said I understood where he's coming from.

"b:"Well, what about all the fossil evidence?"

Obviously something about that isn't selling them on it. Are they being ignorant? Maybe. Frankly, though, if God is capable of making this planet in 6 days, he's also perfectly capable of dropping dinosaur remains here that also quite happily double as a source of fuel for us. It may seem futile to win with them (and yes, it probably is), but the truth is that you won't ever really know for sure what the truth is. You'll either have to have a chat with God or build a time machine. People believe what they believe.

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

if God is capable of making this planet in 6 days, he's also perfectly capable of dropping dinosaur remains

SO, god is trying to trick us? He's LYING to us?

Doesn't sound like a god I'd like to worship.

BTW, why does the Lord's Prayer (which you pray to God, remember) contain the plea "...lead us not into tempation..." I mean, why are you asking (begging!) GOD not to tempt you??? Satan is supposed to be the evil on and do the tempting. /"Eye. Warship. Satin?"

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[NanoGator]

"SO, god is trying to trick us? He's LYING to us?

Doesn't sound like a god I'd like to worship."

I'm not really well studied enough to give you a useful answer either way. I will say this, though: Too much faith can lead to danger. You've heard stories of people who refuse medical treatment because they believe God will help them? A few years ago, Slashdot had a story about how there were plans to build some sort of gizmo that would result in the appearance of sound coming from the sky. The idea was to use it as a psychological weapon, make people think God was talking to them.

If you think of God as a parent, then it's reasonable to assume that there might be some mis-information in place to make us good children. I don't know how dinosaurs play into that (I don't buy the 'test of faith' argument), but it is interesting that by the year 2000 (roughly the time Judgement Day is supposed to happen...) we use the remains of those dinos as a source of fuel. Interestingly enough, the oil is causing tension across the world. Now, maybe I'm full of shit, but it seems as though dinosaurs have resulted in a very important element of our civilization. Like a trust-fund, in a way.

"BTW, why does the Lord's Prayer (which you pray to God, remember) contain the plea "...lead us not into tempation..." I mean, why are you asking (begging!) GOD not to tempt you??? Satan is supposed to be the evil on and do the tempting. /"Eye. Warship. Satin?"

I'll take a stab at answering, but first I should let you know that I have not studied religion. I believe in God and a lot of my values are Christian in belief, but I'm not well studied. I figure you should know that before taking what I have to say into consideration.

Temptation is dangerous. I think this point is understood. Greed, for example, has caused much suffering to people. "Lead us not into temptation", to me, reads like "keep us away from it." Sort of like saying "I'm on a diet, please don't leave cupcakes around."

A lot of people look to God for a direction to go. They're willing to do the right thing along the way, but they'd like to be kept safe. That sorta make sense?

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[Legion303]

"Well, they can always lobby for a 'media tax'"

They already have. Blank cassettes were taxed first, pissing me off because all I used them for was storage for my own original 4-track music. Then they tried to pull the same shit with blank CDs, but clued elected officials (iirc) slapped them down and compromised by charging a tax only on special "audio" CDs and not data CDs. The downside is that consumer CD recorders refuse to accept data CDR disks, so that musicians are forced to use a CDR drive to avoid tax on their own fucking IP.

Frankly, I would not be sad to see every executive employee of the RIAA buried in a mass grave.

Re:Doesn't really matter...

[h4rm0ny]

I saw a bumper sticker back in the days of tape cassettes that read: "Home Copying is Killing Music."

And then underneath it said, "So are Venom." :D

Average Joe doesnt care

[Anonymous Coward]

i fit home systems for a large PC company and the first thing customers ask me when i have installed their broadband and PC is

"where can i download MP3s ?"

"illegal or legal ?"

"i dont care"

Re:Average Joe doesnt care

[compm375]

Good idea with the AC, but I don't believe you. If you really worked for a large PC company, you would talk to your customers in capital letters.

Re:Average Joe doesnt care

[DigiShaman]

I can vouch for this as well. When I worked on home PCs that had broadband, I would often get asked by the pre-teens in the home where I could get MP3s. At the time (5 years ago), I would say Kazaa Lite after the fall of Napster. But nowdays with all the suing going on, I wouldn't give such advice now. I would feel guiltly for leading them down a road to a potential lawsuit by the RIAA.

If I got asked this question again, I would just suggest searching for indi music through google or check out Apple iTunes. Also, less chance of getting infected with spyware and viri too.

Re:Average Joe doesnt care

[nametaken]

(5 years ago), I would say Kazaa Lite after the fall of Napster. But nowdays with all the suing going on, I wouldn't give such advice now. I would feel guiltly for leading them down a road to a potential lawsuit by the RIAA.

If I got asked this question again, I would just suggest searching for indi music through google or check out Apple iTunes. Also, less chance of getting infected with spyware and viri too.

Oddly, I think the RIAA AND most of us slashdotters would agree with you on that. :)

Re:Average Joe doesnt care

[halivar]

If the vast majority of Americans think downloading music is ok, and only a minority of Americans think it is wrong, should we allow corporations to direct public policy concerning it? IOW, should something be criminalized when only a minority of Americans consider it wrong, morally or ethically?

To the corporate shills lurking /., let me ask you this: if you won't let me determine criminal law for the masses based on my minorty religious beliefs, why should you be allowed to determine criminal law based on your pig-minded, fascist, money-grubbing definition of "property"? Especially when everyone else in the world thinks you're a freaking retard for thinking the way you do.

When everyone started breaking the speed limit, they got rid of the stupid federal 55 mph speed limit. Well, now everyone's downloading, and it's time to get rid of the DMCA.

Re:Average Joe doesnt care

[Anonymous Coward]

Our democracy was founded on the principle of protecting the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

When it was first stated, it was meant to say we need to keep the rich people rich, even if there are so many poor people they could overrun them and eat their babies.

And the same principle holds true today.

If the vast majority of american's think anything at all, its something along the lines of "damn, i wish so and so would have won American Idol. I'm going to go get some Taco Bell."

Re:Average Joe doesnt care

[halivar]

I thought our democracy was founded on the principle of not letting a minority aristocracy (royalty then, capitalists today) dictate on what terms we're supposed to live our lives.

Re:Average Joe doesnt care

[Anonymous Coward]

If the vast majority of Americans think downloading music is ok, and only a minority of Americans think it is wrong, should we allow corporations to direct public policy concerning it? IOW, should something be criminalized when only a minority of Americans consider it wrong, morally or ethically?

It worked for prohibition, didn't it? ... What? Oh... Nevermind.

Re:Average Joe doesnt care

[Kythe]

Our democracy was founded on the principle of protecting the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

Actually, both are important: protection of the rights of the minority through a framework of laws, and following the will of the majority via representative democratcy.

Ultimately, if the vast majority of people want something, it will happen, even if it takes Constitutional amendments to make it happen.

Re:Average Joe doesnt care

[mpe]

If the vast majority of Americans think downloading music is ok, and only a minority of Americans think it is wrong, should we allow corporations to direct public policy concerning it? IOW, should something be criminalized when only a minority of Americans consider it wrong, morally or ethically?

The most obvious historical parallel is that of "piano rolls". One of the earliest forms of recorded music.

The towel will be tossed

[nurb432]

The day they are out of business, or they have managed to have every customer jailed. Remeber this is their new long term business model.

However, as time goes on the effects will diminish and they will look even more foolish.

Re:The towel will be tossed

[Anonymous Coward]

The day they are out of business, or they have managed to have every customer jailed. Remeber this is their new long term business model.

Worth mentioning is they have not jailed anybody, because none of their cases have reached a court. none of their cases have reached a judgment for or against the RIAA. none of the cases have required a person to pay a fine or payment to the RIAA after being found guilty of copyright infringement.

What they have done is threatened to drag individuals through the legal system for all they are worth, and instead of facing this people have the option to settle for $5k, $10k etc.

"nurb432, pay me $5,000 or I (on behalf of megacorporation) will drag your ass through the legal system until you bleed. your choice"

Re:The towel will be tossed

[01000011011101000111]

Love to see that sum over here! In the uk, under £5000 is small claims court. So they sue me, I say ok, wait until it goes to court, don't turn up, they win, the bailiffs come round to collect and... I don't let them in. As they have no rights (IANAL, but my lecturer is, and i got this from her) to enter a property w/out permission, they get £0. Then the BMI/*AA get their... £0... which after their expensive lawyers fees of £10,000 ish means they get a whopping £-15,000 for suing me... Cool!

Re:The towel will be tossed

[mikael]

The day they are out of business, or they have managed to have every customer jailed.


Then they will campaign to have prison life improved through the availabilty of Internet access, MP3 players and PC's.

Re:The towel will be tossed

[mobby_6kl]

> have every customer jailed

Those getting sued aren't their customers. That's the point. And the "customers" aren't getting jailed...

Re:The towel will be tossed

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, it wouldn't shake out that way in the US.

Here, all copyright suits can only be heard in federal court. RIAA would probably allege damages of $150,000 per work infringed. Plus court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

If you don't respond promptly, it is likely that a default judgment will be entered against you. If you don't pay, it isn't long before the local sheriff has seized and auctioned off your personal belongings, debts owed to you, your savings, your wages have been garnished, etc. in order to pay for the debt. It is possible to lose your house, car, etc. They do have a right to do this, by the way, if the proper process has been followed.

Depending on what the judgment is, you may or may not be able to discharge it in bankruptcy. If you cannot, you're stuck with it for life, or until you pay it off.

Ignoring a lawsuit brought against you is among the stupidest things you could do.

Re:The towel will be tossed

[Anonymous Coward]

> have every customer jailed

Those getting sued aren't their customers ...and they certainly won't be in the future!

Re:The towel will be tossed

[kurzweilfreak]

Right. If they've taken music without paying for it in the past, there's no reason to expect that they would in the future.

Re:The towel will be tossed

[mpe]

Love to see that sum over here! In the uk, under £5000 is small claims court. So they sue me, I say ok, wait until it goes to court, don't turn up,

If you contest it the first thing which will happen is that the case will be transfered to the court nearest to you. If you do turn up to the hearing you represent yourself and have a perfectly good chance of winning. Even if you lose there is no way you will be expected to pay for the plaintiff's lawyers.

who told you emule was safe?

[Anonymous Coward]

R144 0wñz j00 1P!

Re:who told you emule was safe?

[killawatt5k]

"R144 0wñz j00 1P!"
Well I haven't heard from my lawyer yet. Emule does have an IP filter which blocks requests from know IPs from the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:who told you emule was safe?

[Nasarius]

Well I haven't heard from my lawyer yet. Emule does have an IP filter which blocks requests from know IPs from the RIAA/MPAA.

Of course, such a filter is nearly worthless. It's trivial for the RIAA to get a consumer ISP account and gather data with that.

You fund this by buying CDs

[BinBoy]

You fund these lawsuits every time you buy a CD. Then they sue you, you settle and they sue even more people. Solution: stop buying CDs.

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[jesser]

And don't get sued, because your settlement will fund their lawsuits too.

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[Turn-X Alphonse]

you're talking crap. Every time you buy a CD they get like £1-2 at very most. It doesn't even dent the money they have laying around. Several billion makes buying CDs laughable when you can just sue people and get a few thousand.

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out an important step: You fund these lawsuits every time you buy a CD. You rip mp3s and post them for others to download for free. Then they sue you, you settle and they sue even more people. Solution: stop buying CDs.

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[geekee]

"You fund these lawsuits every time you buy a CD. Then they sue you, you settle and they sue even more people. Solution: stop buying CDs."

How about stop uploading copyright music illegally online for a solution? That would stop the lawsuits, and BTW, if you're paying for your music by buying CD's why do you care who's getting sued for copyright infringement.

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[eclectro]

Solution: stop buying CDs.

I wouldn't go that far. Buy the CDs used or from indie labels. The RIAA hates this as they don't see a dime and it validates the concept of "owning" a piece of music.

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[Omnieiunium]

I have no clue what the situtation is like here in Canada, but it is not as bad as the states.

I will continue to buy CDs regardless if they are funding the lawsuits. The reason I buy CDs is because the music I listen to is hard to find on the net. I've search bittorrent, e-mule, and limewire for the same songs and they rarely come up with anything.

Of course, if you stop buying CDs, how will you get new music?

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution: stop buying CDs.


NOT a solution- they will blame lowered sales on Piracy, and threaten to sue MORE people.

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[Stormwatch]

> The reason I buy CDs is because the music
> I listen to is hard to find on the net.

On the other hand, some of the music I listen to - old videogame soundtracks - is easy to find on the net and almost impossible to find in stores. Fuck, I can't even find Chris Isaak or The Bolshoi albums around here!

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably funding the terrorists as well.

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[SlimFastForYou]

Sounds like a "You're either with us or you're against us" argument. Or have you been taught that anyone who has Kazaa on their computer will never ever buy anything when they can "steal" it instead?

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[line.at.infinity]

If you don't like the RIAA, just buy CDs from non-RIAA labels.

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[Baricom]

BTW, if you're paying for your music by buying CD's why do you care who's getting sued for copyright infringement.

Because I believe 10,000 lawsuits by the same entity in the span of less than two years indicates that something is broken in the legal system.

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[klang]

.. not only that .. you fund this by buying BLANK media!

Solution: Stop making backups!

Re:You fund this by buying CDs

[klang]

Because I believe 10,000 lawsuits by the same entity in the span of less than two years indicates that something is broken in the legal system.

For companies suing citizens: "Please deposit the amount of cash you sue this person for. If you win, you will get your deposit back." ...no, it's never going to work...

Throw in the towel?

[ctk76]

True, they've alienated a lot of their potential customers, but have they really lost that much? I don't think they're gonna stop any time soon; it might even become their perennial task.

How about trying to 'fix' it...

[Anonymous Coward]

They've always been so adamant about file sharing being a huge problem for the industry, but they could be using part of the money they spend on legal fees by helping develop a solution to the "problem."

Re:How about trying to 'fix' it...

[stubear]

The solution is for people to stop buying CDs and listening to music created by members of the RIAA. Until you stop doing this the "problem", as you put it, will continue.

Re:How about trying to 'fix' it...

[xtracto]

That is something a lot of people has thought... but I would like to see an extensive list of authors that are not assosiated in any form with the RIAA and also another extensive list of the RIAA's groups, It would be good to have an easy accessible list on the internet.

Currently I mostly listen to European metal music (like Axxis, Stratovarius, Dream Theater, Kamelot [this is US], Children of Bodom, etc...) I do not know (but certainly would like to know) if any of these groups are in some way assossiated with RIAA because I would stop listenting to them. I mean, I really want to do something. Fortunatley I am from Mexico where our goverment has lots of more problems than being worried about this kind of bullshit but nowadays I live in UK, so its more likely I am affected...

Profits from suing

[Corpus_Callosum]

The RIAA will never quit suing P2P users because the RIAA is making a profit from it...

How right you are! Imagine, 10k lawsuits. Let's assume that each one of them settles for an average of $5k (a pittance compared to what they could get by copyright law, and I believe many of these settlements are much higher).

At $5k a pop, 10k of these settlements is worth $50,000,000 dollars.

How long will it be before the profits from lawsuits exceeds that of music licensing for the RIAA? Is it really that far fetched to imagine? Settlements are better business than records ($5k vs. $9)...

Perhaps, like antivirus companies spinning virus out into the wild, the RIAA will begin quietly sponsoring P2P programming efforts in an attempt to expand their new market (defendants)...

These are strange times...

Re:Profits from suing

[SIGALRM]

At $5k a pop, 10k of these settlements is worth $50,000,000 dollars.

It costs alot of money to prosecute a case in a Superior Court my friend. There is no "profit motive" as you suggest in the suits, but rather a pandering to their constituency.

There is no "market" in suing the general public.

Re:Profits from suing

[Anonymous Coward]

It costs alot of money to prosecute a case in a Superior Court my friend. There is no "profit motive" as you suggest in the suits, but rather a pandering to their constituency.

There is no "market" in suing the general public.

And the RIAA know this. They also know that none of the 10,000 people they have threatened to sue have actually gone ahead to any form of prosecution. It's all settlements.

The RIAA has NOT YET SUED ANYONE, they have ONLY THREATENED TO. They may very well win if it came to it, but so far they threaten to sue, people pay up. It's little more than the cost of their own internal lawyers to the RIAA.

Re:Profits from suing

[djward]

But most of these suits never go to court. If people could afford to defend themselves, and make the thing go to court, it might not be profitable for the RIAA - in fact the RIAA might start losing. Problem is, they're suing for an amount just small enough that it's cheaper to settle than go to court. Clever, they are.

Just good, old-fashioned extortion. Almost protection money. This is getting out of hand.

Re:Profits from suing

[LurkerXXX]

How much does it cost to have your lawyer send out a boiler plate letter threatening a lawsuit if you don't settle for $5,000? Even if you need to have your lawyer talk to them for a couple hours?

Probably $500 investment for a $5,000 profit. Not a bad return on investment. I don't think they will throw in the towel on that rate of return anytime soon.

Re:Profits from suing

[imroy]

But aren't most people settling out of court? Isn't the standard threat "pay up and sign this document or we go to court and ream you out good"? Sure, there'd still be some cost. But nothing like going to court, so it's a profit for them.

Re:Profits from suing

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, like antivirus companies spinning virus out into the wild

They are? Proof, or is that your tinfoil hat speaking?

Re:Profits from suing

[NanoGator]

"At $5k a pop, 10k of these settlements is worth $50,000,000 dollars."

How much do the lawyers get?

Re:Profits from suing

[Corpus_Callosum]

It costs alot of money to prosecute a case in a Superior Court my friend. There is no "profit motive" as you suggest in the suits, but rather a pandering to their constituency.

Have they actually prosecuted any of the 10k cases? My understanding is that everyone settles...

There is no "market" in suing the general public.

If the RIAA was suing kids to get settlements from parents and doing it at a high profit, then they have effectively established a business. It's predatory and extortionist, but it's a business. Their market is that group of people (mostly kids) who swap songs on P2P networks.

If the RIAA wanted to expand their market, one of the easiest ways to do that would be to quietly fund the development of more P2P network efforts. By owning the software (incognito), they could control a variety of things and would be in the position to more easily get their marketing leads (uh, I mean the list of defendants)...

Yes, this is a joke... I think...

Re:Profits from suing

[mingot]

Well, you can actually hire lawyers. As employees. Trades the whole percentage/hourly billing thing for a nice yearly salary. So assuming they have a few lawyers and small army of paralegals (who are fairly inexpensive) doing the majority of the gruntwork I'd answer your question with "very little".

Re:Profits from suing

[tftp]

It only takes 5 seconds of lawyer's time to sign the initial letter. If the client bites, then as someone else commented above, maybe an hour or two on the phone to explain to him why settling is good. This is not too expensive. Besides, this doesn't have to be a good lawyer - this is not a trial.

Re:Profits from suing

[Sponge Bath]

How much do the lawyers get?

Too much?

Re:Profits from suing

[L0k11]

What if I dont pay the $5000-250 000?

Remind me to put everything I own in my partners name

Re:Profits from suing

[LurkerXXX]

Then they sue you. It doesn't really matter if you put everything you own in your partners name. Bush and the Republicans just shoved a new law through, declaring bankruptcy does nothing for you. A part of any money you make from now on will go to the folks you owe money to (RIAA in this case). So unless you are able to somehow never work again, your pretty much SOL for the rest of your life if they have the evidence against you.

Re:Profits from suing

[bm_luethke]

Considering who the RIAA is and what they do, I would imagine 100% of the money.

I don't think that's exactly what you meant though. I don't think (google may say I'm wrong) that they use outside lawyers. Given that a large part of thier job is with legal handlings of the recordings I would say they *are* the lawyers. It's like asking when a law firm sues someone and wins how much do the lawyers get.

But, even if they use outside lawyers and they get 50% of the money both sides of the plantiff are making a lot of money.

Re:Profits from suing

[L0k11]

hmmmm... well i am in australia so i dont know if that applies, it probably does though with the "free trade" agreement (we are free to trade our laws with US laws) and all

what about fleeing the country?

Re:Profits from suing

[loraksus]

They are running these settlements like your average inbound call center. Unskilled labor (ok, maybe budding law students) answering calls with no lawyers to be seen.

Good luck calling and speaking to an actual lawyer.

And why not? Nobody challenges it (ok, 2 in 10,000, but let's be fucking realistic, that is basically "nobody"), if you can save money by using someone who gets paid minimum wage +$1 (plus a modest commission), why not?

Of course, if a company can be so arrogant (mass mailings, as well as the bullshit they pull when they get sued for price fixing time after time), it shows that there is clearly something wrong with the legal system. Up to this point, there really wasn't anyone abusing it to this extent against the average joe, maybe there will be some backlash and something good can come out of this.

Either that, or some mentally ill person will crack and go on a shooting spree at RIAA headquarters or their call center.
Both would work for me.

Re:Profits from suing

[patio11]

Why did this get modded to +5? Its in Slashdot fantasy land. One corporate lawyer who writes three letters to get a $5k settlement has already eaten half of it (and even $50m wouldn't rate a line item on a single record company's annual report). The suits are only an adjunct to their anti-pirating publicity campaign -- its a strategic hedge to ensure that their constituent companies can continue making $9 / CD.

Re:Profits from suing

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did this get modded to +5? Its in Slashdot fantasy land. One corporate lawyer who writes three letters to get a $5k settlement has already eaten half of it (and even $50m wouldn't rate a line item on a single record company's annual report)

That is one expense corporate lawyer!

50,000,000 wouldn't register on the RIAA annual report? From their website:

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

... Music is the world's universal form of communication. It touches every person of every culture on the globe to the tune of $40 billion annually, and the U.S. recording industry accounts for fully one-third of that world market. It employs thousands of people, including singers, musicians, producers, sound engineers, record promoters and retail salespersons, to name only a few.

What we see from this is that the U.S. record industry has a cummulative revenue stream of about 1/3 of $40 billion or $13billion. If we assume that half of that is profit for the labels, then the total profit is about $6billion or roughly 100 times the profit generated by the RIAA in their legal attack on filesharers.

Since there are many record companys, that 1% of total profit for all U.S. companies starts to look pretty significant, to any balance sheet...

Re:Profits from suing

[mpe]

How right you are! Imagine, 10k lawsuits. Let's assume that each one of them settles for an average of $5k (a pittance compared to what they could get by copyright law, and I believe many of these settlements are much higher).

How much does it cost them to get that $5k? They are probably looking at a huge "profit margin". Whereas if they actually took the cases to court it would cost a lot of money to put together a case which had a chance of winning. If they won the case they might get more (assuming the defendent could actually afford the judgement) but that would have to be offset against their legal fees. As well as the legal fees for cases they lost and sucessful counter suits. With the big risk that if they didn't win substantially more cases than they lost every one they accused (including those who had originally settled "out of court") would want their "day in court".

Re:Profits from suing

[mpe]

It only takes 5 seconds of lawyer's time to sign the initial letter.

It dosn't take a lawyer to sign a letter or to take a pile of mailmerged summons forms to the local court.

If the client bites, then as someone else commented above, maybe an hour or two on the phone to explain to him why settling is good. This is not too expensive.

Where it starts getting expensive is if the defendent contests, even if they later settle out of court.

Re:Profits from suing

[mpe]

If the RIAA was suing kids to get settlements from parents and doing it at a high profit, then they have effectively established a business. It's predatory and extortionist, but it's a business.

Wonder if anyone has taken out a patent on this "business method".

New business plan...

[blueadept1]

1) Start a band (Alternatively: illegally download some techno making software)
2) Release some songs on p2p networks
3) Wait for it...
4) Wait for it...
5) Sue 10,037 people for a profit. ("...the RIAA's probably collected over $30 million from individual file sharers.")

Absolutely perfect. I see no flaws.

Re:New business plan...

[01000011011101000111]

Until the guys who first downloaded the tracks from you (legal copying, with license to distribute) come forward, give evidence you publicly released your music, and you get a class action from 10,037 people for (slander/libel - I can never remember which is which).

Re:New business plan...

[Lehk228]

that would be called perjury when you lie in court, then bubba makes you his new "special friend"

Re:New business plan...

[blueadept1]

I am sure that they could be released in such a way that they would have a hard time tracing it back to you. As well, if 10,037 people are willing to settle out of court with the RIAA, why not with me?

Re:New business plan...

[geekee]

" 1) Start a band (Alternatively: illegally download some techno making software)
2) Release some songs on p2p networks
3) Wait for it...
4) Wait for it...
5) Sue 10,037 people for a profit. ("...the RIAA's probably collected over $30 million from individual file sharer"

I know this was supposed to be a joke, but it doesn't make sense, because why would 10,000 people download a song from a band they've never heard of (unless you make the file name a song they have heard of)

Re:New business plan...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, who the F*** will remember who released it? Do you know who released a particular rip of a certain movie 3 years ago?

Re:New business plan...

[Gentlewhisper]

Until the guys who first downloaded the tracks from you (legal copying, with license to distribute) come forward, give evidence you publicly released your music, and you get a class action from 10,037 people for (slander/libel - I can never remember which is which).

Simple, make them agree to a "EULA" when they download the music!

They will stop....

[Palal]

.... only after people stop settling outside of court and ask for jury trials.

Re:They will stop....

[blueadept1]

Can they do this? I thought that only criminal cases can go to jury.

Re:They will stop....

[stubear]

What happens when people start losing? And they will lose, big time. How about you step up to the plate though and show us all how it's done.

Re:They will stop....

[pomo monster]

You do realize "It's not stealing, Your Honor, it's just copyright infringement" isn't a valid legal defense, don't you?

Re:They will stop....

[Palal]

First, RIAA has no reason to sue me. Second, if everyone starts going to trial, it won't be worth it for RIAA. Third, if people on the jury do filesharing (and your lawyer should make sure some do), then you have better chances of winning.

Re:They will stop....

[dsanfte]

No jury will fine someone a billion dollars for sharing music.

Re:They will stop....

[Anonymous Coward]

They file for bankruptcy and start over. If you are a college student with little or no assets then chapter 7 is the way to go.

Re:They will stop....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it isn't stealing, it is copyright infringement. The law sees it this way as well.

Re:They will stop....

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're in court accused of theft, that is. :)

Re:They will stop....

[X0563511]

The jury doesn't decide how much, they decide whether you are guilty or not. The Judge's job, other than to precide over the court, is to determine the sentence (in this case, the fines).

Re:They will stop....

[Stonehand]

It doesn't change points of law, and the court can award court costs to the winner if it chooses.

Re:They will stop....

[westlake]

.... only after people stop settling outside of court and ask for jury trials.

You need a factual dispute to get and keep your case before a jury. If it is generally agreed that you uploaded files and can't produce a license to distribute them, there is nothing left for a jury to decide.

Re:They will stop....

[VoidWraith]

Isn't the US judicial system based upon innocence until proven guilt? Isn't there also something that juries are supposed to uphold called the benefit of the doubt? Generally agreed upon isn't anywhere near enough for a jury to not have anything to think about.

Re:They will stop....

[Stonehand]

The burden of proof for a civil action is considerably lower than that for a criminal prosecution. Consequences can still be pretty ugly, however.

Re:They will stop....

[FidelCatsro]

Actualy it may just be a valid defense , it all depends how the case it worded .
If it can be made clear they are trying to sue you for theft or misrepresenting the case so as to show you as a thieft as oposed to an "Infringer".
Then quite possibly you will have a rather nice defense , as you are by definition not guilty of the crime.

Re:They will stop....

[sacrilicious]

You do realize "It's not stealing, Your Honor, it's just copyright infringement" isn't a valid legal defense, don't you?

It's perfectly valid, if indeed what you did was not stealing and was instead copyright infringement. If someone accuses you of murder and what in fact you did was shoplift, then it's to be expected that you'd say "It's not murder, Your Honor, it's just shoplifting". Doesn't make shoplifting legal, but that's not the point is it?

Re:They will stop....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's perfectly valid, if indeed what you did was not stealing and was instead copyright infringement. If someone accuses you of murder and what in fact you did was shoplift, then it's to be expected that you'd say "It's not murder, Your Honor, it's just shoplifting". Doesn't make shoplifting legal, but that's not the point is it?

The idea being to get the judge to dismiss the case since only a fool would hear a case where the accusors couldn't even get the accusation right. Judges generally don't like to be seen as acting like fools, especially in their own courtroom.

High profits with than without

[Anonymous Coward]

We show that the matching effect may dominate so that a label's profits are higher with P2P networks than without.

Yeah, but they'll be even higher with the networks and the lawsuits. I think everyone who's given the matter even a moment's though realizes that the lawsuits are not stopping file-sharing. It's just that they can milk their "opposed" position for settlement money in addition to benefitting the the "matching effect."

I doubt it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until their puppets in other countries penetrate their copyright laws.

Are they even losing money?

[Zencyde]

For some reason no one seems to ever ask the question, are they really losing as much money as they say they are? I, for one, would do without something I don't want to pay for, which is why I "pirate" it, the programs, games, and other media that I really think are worth buying I do pay for, am I the only person who does this?

Re:Are they even losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you aren't.

Re:Are they even losing money?

[Murphy Murph]

For some reason no one seems to ever ask the question, are they really losing as much money as they say they are? I, for one, would do without something I don't want to pay for, which is why I "pirate" it, the programs, games, and other media that I really think are worth buying I do pay for, am I the only person who does this?

You aren't the only person who claims to do this...

Re:Are they even losing money?

[funkywhat2]

No, he's (she's?) got a point. If you're the average home user is there ever a chance of you actually buying a copy of Photoshop? You're not a customer, and probably never will be (for that product, at least) so how can they call it a loss? While corporate piracy could potentially be a loss, home piracy (of software, at least) usually isn't.

Re:Are they even losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

As Murphy Murphy let me be to the first to agree with you.

Re:Are they even losing money?

[Stonehand]

Visit a digital photography forum.

If I buy a Canon 350D or other mass-market digital SLR, and a lens or two, I'm already spending enough money that would make me an obvious potential customer for Photoshop CS -- plus it's a product that would actually be very useful for me. Even owners of cheaper cameras sometimes spend considerable time post-processing. *shrug*

For the slightly less serious, Adobe offers PS Elements.

Re:Are they even losing money?

[funkywhat2]

Is Joe Blow, with his three year old Kodak, really gonna go drop a few hundred dollars on a copy of Photoshop? How can Adobe or Microsoft or Apple whoever call that a loss?

Re:Are they even losing money?

[Stonehand]

Have a look at DSLR prices, and the cost of lenses. While they're not yet ubiquitious, they ARE selling pretty well -- at about a grand apiece for a cheap body, and a very wide or telephoto lens can easily set you back a couple of thousand. A tripod and head to hold it all can cost several hundred more, if you want to go carbon fiber. It's a fairly expensive hobby if you want to shoot something that you can't shoot well with a (generally much cheaper) portrait lens.

Compared to that, Photoshop is a small expense. There's your potential market.

Although actually JASC (well, now Corel) might have even more reason to complain -- as a much less expensive competitor, if Photoshop couldn't be readily had for free, JASC might be scooping up sales instead.

Re:Are they even losing money?

[djlowe]

Your reasoning skills are lacking, so I'll help you out:

If you're using a copy of Photoshop that you obtained through copyright infringment, then the loss to Adobe is the amount that they would have made if you bought it. It doesn't matter whether or not you WOULD have bought it, since you're obtaining the benefit of it, and it is exactly that benefit which Adobe licenses for a fee.

So, every act of infringement is a financial loss for the copyright holder, by definition, since you're NOT buying the IP itself, only the right to use it under the terms dictated by the copyright holder, and it is the fee that you've avoided by pirating.

Hope this helps.

Vote with your wallet

[Rupan]

Now I know that many people enjoy music as a form of entertainment. However, consider also what the politics behind this entertainment are. What kind of companies are you supporting by listening to / buying this music?

When the RIAA started these lawsuits a few years back (what was it? 1999? 2001?), I was shocked and outraged. I couldn't believe what lengths these corporations would go to in prosecuting what amounts to a few cents' worth of theft per song. The defendants, while they did execute illegal act(s), are being punished far beyond the damages they caused.

What can one do, then? I decided to stop buying music CDs. I no longer listen to the radio, and hardly ever download music from p2p. I believe that since these lawsuits started several years ago, I have bought a total of about 3 CDs. Instead, I spend my time with more productive activities such as programming or spending time with my wife.

I know this isn't an option for many people, but it works for me. By refusing to purchase CDs, I vote against the RIAA with my wallet. By not listening to the radio, I don't support the stations that license the same music. You, as a reader of slashdot, might do well to try to find something like this to voice your disapproval. Heavy-handed tactics used as a business model = lost customers.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Nasarius]

By refusing to purchase CDs, I vote against the RIAA with my wallet.

Sorry, but this simply isn't an option for people who actually enjoy music from artists on RIAA labels. Boycotts can be effective, but it's not the greatest idea to make the artists suffer because of the actions of an organization that their record label belongs to.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[01000011011101000111]

I agree totally. I've recently grabbed a copy of irate - rate & download freely released & CC'd music, by unknown bands - no license fees to anyone. The only downside of this is that now I want to go see a load of bands in other countries (e.g. Quick Fix - Boston, Girl With A Monkey - Stockholm)

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, I spend my time with more productive activities such as programming or spending time with my wife.

You can't listen to music with your wife, or as you program?

Re:Vote with your wallet

[SocialEngineer]

You don't have to completely stop buying CDs - I stopped buying NEW CDs (except for those released under labels not affiliated with the RIAA).. Click here to find out whether a CD is or not.

I hit used CD stores all the time - not only do I get my music without supporting the RIAA juggernaut, I get it CHEAP. I can get 5 CDs for around 30 bucks or less (Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, Depeche Mode, Led Zep, VNV Nation, Holst, Vivaldi, KMFDM, and way more).

Plus, a number of used CD stores give indie artists an outlet for distributing their own music. I've both distributed my own and purchased others through lots of smaller shops.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[linguae]

There is a solution to get your music legally (in the United States, don't know about other places) without funding the RIAA; just buy used CDs and tapes. Your local library might have some CDs and tapes that you can borrow for a few weeks and listen to. In this scenario, you can get your music legally without giving the RIAA any more cash. Try it before the RIAA bans the resale of music.

Now, this idea isn't effective for the latest music available, but you should be able to get lots of old CDs of many genres and musicians.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of companies are you supporting by listening to / buying this music?

None whatsoever, since every time I hear about record companies acting in an abusive manner, I am further discouraged from buying music. I download it instead.

Back when I was at university, I had a stupidly fast connection to the Internet. I downloaded a lot, but when I found stuff I liked, I usually bought a few albums by that artist.

After I left university, I had a slower Internet connection and much more disposable income. You'd think I'd download less and buy more, wouldn't you? Nope, the more I heard about how the record companies act (including what any reasonable person would consider government corruption in more than one country), the less I bought and the more I downloaded. A couple of years ago I stopped giving them any money whatsoever.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[geekee]

I buy cds, and have no problem with them suing people guilty of opyright infringement. That's much better than suing people making p2p software, which isn't a strategy that's working in court.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

rather than not buying CD's, try not buying from artists who are signed to an RIAA label, to find out whether an artist is signed to an RIAA label check out the RIAA Radar: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

Re:Vote with your wallet

[melikamp]

I know this isn't an option for many people, but it works for me.

Why, I think it certainly is an option for many people, for everyone even. If one is broke, it may not be an option to pay for the CDs, but how's not buying them can break anyone's back? And besides downloading music (which can still be accomplished quite safely) there are also live performances and friends. When I stopped buying CDs a few years ago, I found that my friends are more than willing to (a) tell me what music they like and (b) make a copies for me. They will do these things almost to the point of being obnoxious. Just recently, a guy I hardly knew burned for me a compilation of Underground, just because I chatted with him about his music interests for 10 minutes.

This, I believe, is the reason why IP will ultimately be ineffective in the realm of popular art: regardless of what they think about feeding artists, people believe that they have a God-given right to share their interests with others, and they will do so even if it involves investing time and effort, and without any material gain to themselves.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is very aware they're making a business decision -- but for every potential customer they piss off, they probably scare ten people off the filesharing networks. The key is to just keep it up until every kid knows someone who knows someone who got busted.

Frankly, most people don't buy a lot of music after they hit 25 or so. The people that are "self-aware" enough to join your boycott are probably not very valuable customers anyway.

The rest of the hurd is still operating in animalistic Carrot (free music) and Stick (lawsuits) mode, including most of the reactionaries on slashdot. There's only one kind of logic 'those people' understand.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[aussie_a]

Sorry, but this simply isn't an option for people who actually enjoy music from artists on RIAA labels

They chose a bad organization to represent them. They have a choice, make it big and go with the RIAA, or not support an organization with questionable ethics. If they have no problem with the RIAA's ethics, then they have to accept the good with the bad.

If you're boycotting the RIAA, you should think about looking for indie artists you like and support them.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Technician]

I buy MUSIC CDR's. I put my downloads on them. They charded a royalty for the CD. The royalty has been paid at the price they set. So sue me.

In other news, I used a pre-paid phone card. I don't expect to get sued using it either.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[ScrewMaster]

Why? That's a ridiculous argument, really. In fact, it is the argument that the RIAA uses: "Think of the children ... I mean .. uh ... the artists! Think of the artists!" How much do we have to put up with from the music industry's leaders before we realize that the music isn't worth it. It just isn't. The RIAA (and their soulmates, the MPAA, oh, and let's not forget Disney) have already done permanent damage to the United States' legal system with far-reaching effects. Don't excuse their aberrant behavior by invoking the artists. I might be more accepting of your point of view if the RIAA hadn't been manipulating, cheating, ripping off and otherwise abusing their "artists" for damn near a century.

Any "artist" that signs a deal with the RIAA knows full well that he is making a deal with the Devil before he drops his John Hancock, is morally complicit in the RIAA's legal intimidation tactics, and so far as I'm concerned has no right to any sympathy from me or anyone else. I've felt this way since I first began to research copyright and the music industry back in 1983 or thereabouts ... I've only bought one (ONE) disc since then, regardless of whether or not I like music (and I do.) The fact they've caused significant harm to the public domain, rewritten copyright law to suit their ends with no regard for anyone or anything else, are using Mafioso tactics to extort money from citizens (bypassing due process) are issues that you really should consider before defending the RIAA in the name of the "artists".

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Rupan]

Don't forget that the artist get something like 0.5% of the final sale price of the album. Don't be so naive.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[AussieVamp2]

interesting one of the computer mags here (owned by a big media company of course) had 25 mp3s on it a month for a few months, Girl with a Monkey was one of them, liked it as well those irateradio type things will definitely be cool when you can listen to them at work behind firewalls etc now and then - at home not in front of a computer recently for long enough stretches (or being used for other things like work) does sound like a danger though, find 57 bands you like too

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Adrilla]

Unfortunately, even if everyone on slashdot boycotted the RIAA, it still wouldn't be that much of an effect, we're just a few thousand nerds compared to the millions that buy most of the music. We're not the mainstream and we don't support the mainstream artists. Meanwhile, the rest of the world doesn't have the morals and the will that we have, and to be honest, neither do all of us. It's a vicious cycle, and it's not going to stop soon. They've brainwashed the masses, paid off the powers that be, and those who have dissenting views are either ignored and/or sued, even if it's their own customers. It's futile and disgusting, and at the core it's downright sad. To be even more honest, downloading music isn't the answer either, it's bolsters interest in the artists, and it gives the RIAA a target to sue. Boycotting is the best solution we've got, but it isn't THE answer.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. When I made music, used CD shops were the only places that would give us the time of day and shelf space and they were more than happy to do it, they even let us set our own price, thus letting us price our things cheap enough that someone may have interest in trying out a group they've never heard of. It didn't turn us a lot of profit, but that wasn't our intention, we just wanted exposure, and thanks to the good folks at Music Trader, we got it.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[BlueStrat]

"Boycotts can be effective, but it's not the greatest idea to make the artists suffer because of the actions of an organization that their record label belongs to."

Perhaps if the choice of an artist to sign with an RIAA-member is made even more unattractive, more artists will start looking for alternate methods and entities to distribute their work. Too many artists still see a big RIAA-label contract as the big payoff, despite horrible contract terms and the current bad publicity.

If the money dries up even further, they might finally overcome this "big-RIAA-label-contract=riches" meme, and start to deprive the RIAA and their labels of cheap fodder.

Btw, I am a linux/FreeBSD-using musician with one CD out and another in the works, so I am sympathetic to musicians/artists. Just not to those that choose to encumber themselves and support, through the power that this grants the RIAA and labels, the further abuse of both consumers and fellow musicians/artists.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Vote with your wallet

[aussie_a]

All you can control is you. Are you happy to know you support (however miniscule amount) an organization you believe to be unethical?

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Adrilla]

I try to not support them at all, I only bought 10 cds in over a year and a half, where I used to buy that sort of quantity in a week or two, and no that hasn't led to me downloading music, I don't want to give the RIAA the satisfaction of harassing me. Even that amount has me a little disappointed in my own weakness. I just wish I didn't have to feel so guilty about supporting artists that I really love. It's unfortunate, music shouldn't be this political.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

The CD was still bought in the first place (funding the RIAA) and by buying it used you're creating demand for used CDs. I'd argue that if demand for used CDs is up, then people know they can easily get a few bucks for selling their CDs, and are more likely to buy new ones, thus funding the RIAA.

Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[thorpie]

Can anyone actually comment on the legality of downloading what you already "own" in another format?

I am a fairly old fart and mostly I have downloaded music that I have already paid for, mostly old vinyl records and some that I have on video

Just what are the legals of this situation in the USA? What are the legals elsewhere, europe & Australia?

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[Starbreeze]

It's not the downloading... it's the uploading/sharing that is illegal. You can justify it as format shifting. Just don't share it back out. Though, I know that's how the networks actually survive.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[YrWrstNtmr]

No one (to my knowledge) has been sued by the RIAA for mere downloading or posessing mp3's. They are going after uploaders.

I've found it MUCH easier to record my own LP's into mp3/OGG/format of choice. No problem with dicked up recordings from dubious sources.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[abbamouse]

During the Napster case, the Napster people called this "space shifting." The phrase was meant to evoke the "time shifting" that the Supreme Court had ruled was fair use for owners of VCRs. The district and appeals courts both rejected the argument that consumers had the right to download MP3s of songs they already owned so they could listen to them away from home.

Unless you are personally making the copy from the actual physical CD or LP you own, owning the music in a different format is not a defense. If you personally rip your own CDs to MP3s, however, then you're actions are legal under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[abbamouse]

Ack.
"your" not "you're"

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[linguae]

Well, if I understand the law correctly, in the United States, you're not allowed to download unauthorized copyrighted material, even if you already own a copy of it. The reason for this is because you are still infringing the copyright of the owners of the material; even though you're not the one redistributing the material, you're not legally allowed to knowingly get a bootlegged version of copyrighted material. However, you are allowed to "rip" the tracks off of the vinyl (I'm using CD terminology here) and place it on another medium, since that is fair use and you're not distributing it to the general public.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading music that you didn't pay for is indeed illegal. Copyright infringement cuts both ways. RIAA is only interested in those who facilitate it, not those who download.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[putaro]

Pracically speaking, the legalities would only matter if you were threatened by the RIAA and had enough resources to fight them in court rather than paying them a settlement.

Were you to be making a copy of the records you own, the law seems to be pretty clear on that point - you're allowed to make a backup copy. Once you get beyond that, the actual legalities are pretty fuzzy. One of the problems is that "copyright" focuses on the right to "copy". Looking back a hundred years this made sense. Copying a book by hand is not really feasible. Make a single copy of a book using a printing press is not cost-effective. So, if you were copying materials you were probably doing it on a commercial scale and trying to make a profit which is pretty clearly against both the letter and spirit of copyright.

What did you buy when you bought those records? Did you buy a piece of vinyl that you can do anything with afterwards (such as resell, loan)? Or did you purchase a license to a certain song and the vinyl was merely the distribution media? I don't think there's a clear answer. Certainly records have been treated as the former ever since we've had records. The record companies have recently become schizoid in their attitudes favoring one interpretation or the other depending on the restriction they're trying to put on you to make more money. And, in all fairness, we (customers) tend to favor one or the other depending on if it matches what we want to do at the moment.

In your case, what's fair and ethical? My opinion would be that if you're downloading digitized versions of your records that would be fair. However, if you're downloading the same songs that had been ripped from CD's that doesn't seem fair. After all, they usually remaster music for CD release. That takes a fair amount of work. If you want people to do that work you have to give them an incentive somehow.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

That was MP3.com, not Napster.

You do have the right to stream MP3s that you made of CDs that you own, hosted from a secure server. However, MP3.com had a different system, where you proved you bought the CD through some trivial mechanism and they just gave you rips that they had made with no authorization. Nice idea, but illegal copyright infringment.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[cpt kangarooski]

AHRA does not cover ripping to mp3. It only covers rips made through analog equipment or to analog media, or through certain specified digital equipment, or to certain specified digital media.

Computers, and hard disks in computers, do not qualify, per the Diamond case (which first set forth the theory of space shifting). Instead, you'd want consumer grade DAT, Minidisc, or Audio CDR (as distinguished from regular, cheaper, CDR).

Space shifting is a form of fair use, but downloading in order to avoid the burden of space shifting might not be looked on so favorably.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[cpt kangarooski]

Were you to be making a copy of the records you own, the law seems to be pretty clear on that point - you're allowed to make a backup copy.

The law is not clear on this at all. But feel free to point to a relevant statute. 107 is your best bet, but is unclear. 108 is only for libraries, et al. 117 is only for software where you own a copy of it (EULAs interfere with this). 1008 has nothing to do with whether you own it, but requires special devices or media -- computer rips don't qualify.

Or did you purchase a license to a certain song and the vinyl was merely the distribution media?

This virtually never happens. EULAs in the computer realm are hotly disputed and pretty much limited to there. When you buy copies, as a rule, you just buy them. No license is involved. Hell, the idea of a use license is stupid in the extreme to begin with, and evokes Bobbs-Merril.

The record companies have recently become schizoid in their attitudes favoring one interpretation or the other depending on the restriction they're trying to put on you to make more money.

I have never heard of record companies suggesting that they license when they sell CDs, etc. I do hear a lot of people on the Internet misunderstanding copyright law to that effect, however.

That takes a fair amount of work.

Sweat of the brow is not a constitutional justification for copyright. Whether work is hard or easy makes no difference.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[Stonehand]

There's a concept called contributory copyright infringement that could likely nail the downloader.

There are two reasons why they're not being sued en masse, however.

One is that as a practical matter, it's far harder to track a downloader than it is to find a server that's offering files. A file request can be used to find servers, but to find a downloader you'd need pretty broad eavesdropping or to lure a downloader to one of your servers.

The second is that the spokes can't do anything without the hubs. Scare people into not offering copyrighted materials online, and it won't matter how many people are trying to download.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are personally making the copy from the actual physical CD or LP you own, owning the music in a different format is not a defense

Theoretically, a rip of one CD is exactly the same as a rip off a different copy of that CD.

Thus, there is no difference in a file I rip from a CD I have in my hand, or a file I download from you that you ripped from your CD in your hand.

So, since there is NO difference, where is the crime? As long as I have the CD, I AM allowed to rip an MP3 (for backup, or format-shifting), and therefore, I SHOULD be allowed to DL the same MP3.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks - when people know what they're tlaking about it makes reading /. worthwhile.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[AussieVamp2]

were the laws different at different times? say your dad asks you to turn his 50s rock records into CDs for him to listen too, and they were bought in the 50s as compared to now, are the same laws going to apply?

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[cpt kangarooski]

The last major revision to copyright law was the 1976 Act, which became effective in 1978.

But generally what's important is the date that things occur. If you reproduce the record now, then that falls under current law, because you're doing it now. Prior law may have some impact (e.g. did it enter the public domain under the 1909 Act?) as may other law, but mainly you can expect the current law to control.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

If your using a Windows OS get Audiograbber and the LAME codec, both are free.
Plug your stereo's audio out into your computers audio in and rip them yourself.
Audiograbber will auto spit songs on an album or tape, then use an Mp3 tag tool to enter the album info.
You can even get programs that will aid you in removing any static, etc. from vinyl and tape rips. Cooledit or Soundforge being the best one's to get, however they ain't free. I'd suggest Audiology which is free, but it ain't that good yet.
Your then legal and have a new hobby to boot.

Re:Legals of Old fart digitising his vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

That's irrelevent. Just because it's the same data means nothing. Copyright is about the ACT of COPYING. Making a copy of something you own for backup and downloading a copy of it from someone on the internet are two different acts.

In honor of a certain recent movie release

[Lumpmoose]

...making it a good time to ask if the RIAA will ever throw in the towel.

Shoot! It's hard enough to fight a behemoth conglomerate like the RIAA without it having the most useful thing in the universe on hand.

Re:In honor of a certain recent movie release

[Lars T.]

Psst! Why do you guess he wants them to throw it?

download now, pay later?

[mrterrysilver]

the referenced legal paper says:

Abstract:
When a minimum statutory damage award has a large punitive component, the danger arises that the award's punitive effect, when aggregated across many similar acts, will become so tremendous that it imposes a penalty grossly excessive in relation to any legitimate interest in punishment or deterrence.

i believe this means the RIAA is suing for ridiuclous large sums of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars for each mp3, even though in actuality the damages to the RIAA is much much smaller than what they're sueing for. a similar type of incident occured before in a court case:

BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, where the Court held unconstitutional a jury's punitive damage award of two million dollars to a plaintiff who suffered four thousand dollars in actual damages from the defendant's deceptive trade practices.

the author of the legal document is simply making an argument that the ruling of the BMW v Gore case should also apply to this case. the actual damages to the RIAA are a closer to a few dollars per song rather than the hundreds of thousands they're suing for. it will be very interesting if anyone being sued actually takes this kind of approach.

Re:download now, pay later?

[mobby_6kl]

I don't think that BMW v. Gore is about actual damages per case (song), but rather that total punitive damages shouldn't be calculated by multiplying the damage caused by one violation by the number of violations:

The Alabama Supreme Court did, however, rule in BMW's favor on one critical point: The court found that the jury improperly computed the amount of punitive damages by multiplying Dr. Gore's compensatory damages by the number of similar sales in other jurisdictions. Id., at 627. Having found the verdict tainted, the court held that "a constitutionally reasonable punitive damages award in this case is $2,000,000,"

The text I borrowed this from is here, although I don't know how complete it is.

Re:download now, pay later?

[Anonymous Coward]

The BMW v. Gore case in the referenced legal paper says that when a jury award is "punitive" (that is, not payback for some money lost), it can't be out of proportion to the seriousness of the illegal act.

Applying that here, the author points out that while the recording industry can collect $750 per song, perhaps only $1, $5, or $10 is compensation for a lost sale. The rest is a punishment of the file sharer, and the seriousness of the illegal conduct (file sharing) doesn't warrant a $740 punishment per song. Especially when its a $740 punishment times 1,000 songs.

The xxAAs aren't going to stop until ...

[crovira]

WE come up with a business model that THEY can live with (from/via/off of/.../whatever.)

They're in the business of sueing people until they don't have a reason to do so anymore. That's what they've been doing since the nineteenth century and before.

Every advance from the piano roll to the MP3 has been met with the kind of dogged, to the death, resistance normally encountered in a Pit Bull arena.

When you're stealing other people's creativity and have none of your own, you defend your right to be a parasite with legal anti-piperazine.

Of course, every now and they they go too far and get their wrists slapped, like the last time they were convicted of price fixing in California.

They emptied they warehouses filled with every piece of back catalog crap that time. "We ripped you off. Have this audio dog, uh, wonderful vynil recording of "Milton Freebish sings 'Sony and Cher'" album to make up for it."

You want's to get them to cease and desist, you have to figure out a way that they can keep on collecting money for other people work every second of every day.

That's when they'll shut up. Not before. They're thieves egardless of how they justify it. And YOU are going to have to find them a new pocket to live in.

Re:The xxAAs aren't going to stop until ...

[geekee]

"When you're stealing other people's creativity and have none of your own, you defend your right to be a parasite with legal anti-piperazine."

You should apply this concept to yourself and the majority of people posting about this article, inluding the original poster. It fits you better than the recording industry, who are actually creating something people want. It's you who are the parasite.

Re:The xxAAs aren't going to stop until ...

[melikamp]

Arrr! We, pirates, take nothing from the artists. We are in no relationship to them. We did not promise them anything. We did not sign a contract. We never expressed a desire to have music produced in the first place. We did not break into their houses and steal their secrets.

We look at what is available to the general public and we pay our own money for re-distributing it for our personal use.

We are most certainly not parasites, and RIAA is.

Now, we -- Americans, we do have a relationship with Artists. We gave them IP, hoping that it will encourage the creativity in arts and sciences. And guess what, it looks like it did for quite a while.

But we, conscientious pirates (Arrr!!), believe that IP is not working anymore the way it was designed, blame digital technology, and so not even as Americans we have any reason to keep this deal with the Artists. IP has to change or to go away.

Re:The xxAAs aren't going to stop until ...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is pretty much no industry or business in the world like the Music biz - a middleman that contributes nothing to the product or creative process in any way but yet reaps >90% of the profits of said product. There is no justification in any economic sense for the existance of the RIAA at all. They are an anomaly that cant maintain the various fictions that perpetuates their existance any longer.

After the so called 'copyright extension' Sony Bono Act, they decided to pillage billions of copyrighted works ( how many copyrighted works do you think are created in a 20 year period? Billions is IMHO a big understatement ) from the several hundred million people that constitute the public domain in the USA. The dollar value of this heist is nearly incomprehensible even if you impose a mere single dollar per infringement cost, let alone the hundreds or thousands of dollars that the RIAA routinely claims as damage for each work.

I figure the RIAA owes me and everyone else a stinking great amount of money in damages, and see no problem in repossessing this from them via any means possible, including the download their precious 'art'

OK

[hackstraw]

Granted that copyright infringement is against the law and should be pursued more by the government like other crimes that the government has established, I wish the government would rerecognise their belief in a free economy and that no company has any right to profit nor compensation for loss of profit.

I don't do MP3, so I'm free of this, but the core here is not copyright infringement, but rather the price of distribution of a product. This is pretty much exclusively what the RIAA companies make money on. The sale of an aluminum disc impregnated in plastic. However, these guys are getting their music in an inferior format with a different distribution channel at a much lower cost of distribution.

Am I missing something, or is this how supply and demand works? I pay 80+ dollars a month for cable and about 40 for broadband internet that satisfies a good deal of my music concerns. I just paid almost $2,000 for my car stereo in my new car and I buy blank CDs in bulk. In the past week I spent about $150 in concert tickets.

What the fuck else do these people want from me? Its getting to the point that it almost appears more productive to simply go to prison or jail the rest of ones life, but even then your subject to chronic searches and whatnot to make sure your not doing what your "supposed" to do while there.

In summary, fuck you RIAA. Provide at some bare minimum a competing product to p2p downloads, or just go away. Music has lasted before you, and will outlast you. Your relationship with the music industry is entirely up to you. So long as you are providing a valuable product to consumers, you will exist. So long as you sue your customers, your annoying.

Re:OK

[mirqry]

I just don't understand how people justify... violating a copyright, stealing, ect....what ever you like to call it, because the company charges too much. Just don't buy the product, and they will have to fix their ridiculous prices. By stealing it and getting caught you are stuck giving them more money then if you bought it.

Re:OK

[derEikopf]

no company has any right to profit nor compensation for loss of profit

But if the profit was lost due to illegal actions or law enforcement negligence...should that be reimbursed? If so, by whom? The people or the law enforcers?

Re:OK

[Hatta]

I just don't understand how people justify... violating a copyright, stealing, ect....what ever you like to call it, because the company charges too much.

It's easy. Since we've already eliminated buying the disc, there are two possibilities:

1. Download the disc
   • RIAA does not profit
   • You get music and are happy
2. Do not download
   • RIAA does not profit
   • Remain bored and unhappy

Now the basis of any sane moral calculus is this: Do the most good for the most people. Since the RIAA doesn't profit in either case, you can disregard them. Since downloading the disc is going to make you happy and nobody sad you are morally justified in downloading music. QED

Re:OK

[Travelsonic]

By stealing it and getting caught you are stuck giving them more money then if you bought it. BLOCKQUOTE>
I am aware that copyright infringement is a crime, and illegal, and so is shoplifting (which are both legally and possibly philosophically different) ect, but it is ironic that stealing a product (I.E a CD out of a store) you end up paying LESS in fines than settling over copyright infringement with the RIAA. And if this isn't 100% true, at least the money demanded is less than what the RIAA is asking. (I only post this because it is irony I noticed since you brought up stealing, this example was triggered.)

Re:OK

[Anonymous Coward]

And how, uh, would you suggest that the RIAA compete with the "Every Song You Want Available For Free, Instantly" model?

Re:OK

[kcbrown]

Granted that copyright infringement is against the law and should be pursued more by the government like other crimes that the government has established, I wish the government would rerecognise their belief in a free economy and that no company has any right to profit nor compensation for loss of profit.

The government believes no such thing. Quite the opposite, actually: the government believes that the largest businesses do have a right to profit. Worse, it believes that they have a right to do so in perpetuity (hence, the ever growing copyright term length). It believes that small business entities must compete, while large ones shouldn't have to.

One need only look at the kinds of legislation that has consistently been passed over the past two decades, and the treatment of very large corporations and those who run them, even when they get caught redhanded at something which brings great harm to a large number of people (e.g., Enron executives).

The government is completely bought and paid for. This shouldn't be a surprise, since one can't get elected without a lot of decent media exposure (see Howard Dean for an example of what happens to your election chances when the media decides it doesn't like you anymore), and the media is owned by a small number of very large corporations, whose owners care only for their own wealth and power. You should be able to work out the further implications of that for yourself. Those who believe that large businesses have a right to profit are precisely the same people who own the government.

Re:OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, for mod points.

Please, mod up parent!!!

Re:OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy only functions if the P2P networks are distributing music that they have created. Instead they are taking works that belong to the RIAA and redistributing them, without consent, for free. It's simply not possible to compete with that.

Re:OK

[Anonymous Coward]

(see Howard Dean for an example of what happens to your election chances when the media decides it doesn't like you anymore)

Voters in Iowa decided they didn't like Howard Dean anymore.

If the media elites had their way, he would be president.

Re:OK

[mirqry]

Its just how it is. When you steal something from the store, its 1 copy for you. When you are convicted of copyright infringement you are being convicted of distributing it in mass when you don't own the copyright on it. So the copyright fine is more.

Re:OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, this rationalization is really stretching.

Re:OK

[Anonymous Coward]

That does not seem to add up mathematically. If you are downloading and uploading at the same time, how can you be giving more than you recieve? Furthermore, your download bandwidth is less than your upload, so you download more quantity than you upload. It is not download one, upload many, but rather, download some upload a little less.

Re:OK

[Anonymous Coward]

They should produce such good music that people give them money freely in appreciation of their efforts.

Re:OK

[Anonymous Coward]

My personel justification is "Download for evaluation". I am currently listenning to music I evaluated like that. After a few songs heard on the radio, I got 12 songs from the Net. 3 weeks later I bought ALL of their albums and later got tickets for a great live show. I did not 'evaluate' their latest release, just got it on day 3 it was out.

Note that the first thing I did (like all CD I buy) is to rip them so all 7 discs now fit on a single CD.

My entire music collection is burned on DVD. I listen to them trought my DVD player. 1 'clasic' disk, 2 'rock' and 2 'various'. All the originals (3 boxes of CD and jewel case) are stored in my parents basement miles from here.

Before P2P I bought so much crap based on a single radio 'hit' I stopped buying CDs (from 1988 to 2001), since I use P2P, I spend about 50$/month on music. The difference is that I actually like what I buy, my collection is extremelly diversified (not just radio based hits). Jazz, blues, classic, electronic ... many incredible things that never plays on radio anymore.

ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[killawatt5k]

When I'm not selling drugs or mugging people, I am donwloading err STEALING mp3s. but seriously how does this affect you? I am a musician, I've got an album out now! Do I encourage downloading my bands songs? YES! then more people would PAY to get into venues where my band is playing. If most bands weren't lazy they could make money off of playing live shows. Ever seen Forbes magazine? Each year who do you think the wealthiest musicians are? THE ONES WHO ARE TOURING! I've never seen someone make that list just off of CD sales...You insensitive Clod!

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[Future Man 3000]

I'm not a big fan of the RIAA's behavior or our current copyright laws (the length of copyright should have gotten shorter since Jefferson owing to cheaper production and wider/faster distribution), but I would have a hard time dictating artists must perform their work live to get paid.

Not all music translates well to concerts. Not all artists want to or have the health/lifestyle that permits them to tour or play live continuously. Some depend on album money and honestly wouldn't produce any music without it. I believe the current market can sustain casual downloading if it is followed up with enough music purchases, but you can't enforce that and if people were told tomorrow that such an honor system was in effect the industry may very well be bankrupt by the end of the year.

Watch the lifecycle of a BitTorrent stream if you don't believe me. Features like ratio-enforcement and banning appear because if you rely on the goodwill of the masses you'll get screwed over. That doesn't even take money into account -- just bandwidth.

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[NanoGator]

"Do I encourage downloading my bands songs? YES! then more people would PAY to get into venues where my band is playing"

There's also something to be said for honesty.

I used to have a sig that read: "If it's theft to listen to a song before buying, then it's theft to refuse returns on albums that suck."

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[killawatt5k]

Not all music translates well to concerts
Examples? Give me a break! I am talking about real musicians here. Not Djs. let me put this into perspective here.
cost of a CD: $10 (that's how much we charge)
cost of a ticket to a show: $5-$30+
cost for a shirt:$10-$15
my point being if you really like the band you WILL see them when they come to your town & more than likely spend money on merch, even if you "illegally" obtained their album.
total money spent by "Legit" fans: $25-$55
total money spent by "Pirate" fans:$15-$45

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[vinlud]

[advocate of the devil mode]

Whether you should be allowed to copy music freely is a decision to be made by the musician imho. If an artist only wants to sell cd's it's his right to decide so and in such circumstance copying his music would be illegal.

I also read the assumption that its good for musicians to distribute their music freely so people will flock to their concerts. As someone pointed out already it is not always possible for an artist to constantly play live shows to earn a little money. Also it will be good for that particular artist but because of the finite amount of money and time of the consumers to visit concerts their probably wont be a net increase in income for the artists at all.

Each year who do you think the wealthiest musicians are? THE ONES WHO ARE TOURING!

Well probably the wealthiest musicians are also the most popular and therefore have the greatest audience which would go to concerts. Touring is mostly a consequence instead of a cause I think.

I've never seen someone make that list just off of CD sales...

Enigma comes to my mind, and surely there are plenty of other examples.

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[CockblockTheVote]

enigma is an anomoly. they are GOOD.

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[KiloByte]

Well probably the wealthiest musicians are also the most popular and therefore have the greatest audience which would go to concerts. Touring is mostly a consequence instead of a cause I think.

Yeah... and tell me, what's the cheapest way to get popularity, together with good karma in the fan's minds?

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[Decimal Dave]

So, what about music that can't be performed live? Techno isn't generally, or any other sort of music where a single person plays more than one instrument track. Don't forget that a lot of music that is still being sold has even outlived it's performers.

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[GFono]

Well, then there's no need to worry about the artists, in that case, is there? It seems to me that if the artist is dead, the songs should become public domain

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are in an indie band that nobody cares about. It's presumptuous to suggest that you speak for an entire industry.

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[1ucius]

Not to mention songwriters, producers, etc. I guess musicians could pay for their services upfront, in cash. It would be a huge financial risk for a new artist.

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[MrByte420]

Phish for example, allowed free copying of any concert recoding and even sold "taping tickets". They never made alot of money off records nor did they ever have a pop single. They kept their tickets under $50 to"Do I encourage downloading my bands songs? YES! then more people would PAY to get into the very end and still were one of the top grossing concert acts of 2004 with 10 shows.... You don't need the RIAA to get rich off music.

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[klang]

..depends on your choice of Techno group.. Underworld (Trainspotting) and Koxbox (Grand Turismo 4) do play live.

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[lee1026]

Do not be that certain that musicans would be able to live off of concert tickets. I once had a former music teacher who explained this to me. Basicly touring get alot of money; the problem is it also cost alot to put on a concert. the teacher went though the numbers - I can't remember it all, but if someone can rent the oakland A's stadium (lots of seats)and sell all of the seats for 50 bucks a pop, and hires as much people (dancers etc.) as they actually have, they ended up breaking even. now selling CDs that is what allows them to eat.

Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!

[bitingduck]

just to add some anecdotal support:

I used to do a lot of live recording, and we had a college radio show where we would play live recordings we had made of bands that came through.

They signed a very simple release that said they owned it, we wouldn't copy it for anything but archival preservation, and would present all copies to them or destroy them on demand. It also allowed us to trade tapes with a few other stations (and the artists could also restrict that if they wanted, by checking a few boxes). We took it very seriously, and I don't think there were ever any problems with it. As a result we had a pretty amazing archive.

One time we were recording at a festival, and asked an old blues guy (I can't remember who) to let us record. He very much refused-- he said he played ~100-150 days a year, at $1000/day, and he wasn't going to risk it with recordings. A lot of blues guys who have sold tons of recordings, and gotten tons of airplay have died penniless due to the record companies. He was a good businessman, and knew what paid the bills.

Some friends from way back were playing in town last night-- they're on a minor label, and come through maybe once a year. They probably made more on merchandise (including CDs and vinyl, but also t-shirts and refrigerator magnets) than on the door. Bands will always be able to sell CDs on the road (hell-- vinyl has made a resurgence with indy bands) and people who hand their $10 to the band are probably less likely to distribute broadly, but more likely to distribute directly to people who will buy more.

The people I know who have lasted the longest in music (and often been independent the entire time) have all spent a lot of time playing live.

RIAA and the long-tail

[G4from128k]

I'd bet that the economics of P2P depend on the "popularity" of the artist. P2P file copying probably helps obscure artists because it helps listeners overcome the cost and risk barier of buying an unknown artist. But file copying probably hurts more popular artists when people download must-have (but don't neccessarily want ot pay-for) manufactured hits by a known artist. P2P fragments the listening population by connecting them with more artists. In theory, the total outcome can be better as P2P file copying expands people's interests and helps them find music they consider worth paying for.

On the other hand, RIAA, I'll wager, is more concerned with preserving blockbuster artists than in promoting obscure ones. It's easier (and more ego-boosting) to ride the back of a Britney Spears than it is to promote a thousand no-name bands. Moreover, its more cost-efficient for music distributors to sell 10 million copies of one album than hassle with selling 15,000 copies of a 1000 artists. Even in a digital age, creating a distribution relationship with 1000 artists is harder (and less sexy) than having a single relationship with a megastar .

Fragmentation of people's musical interests is not in RIAA's best interests even if it expands the total music industry by more effectgively matching content creators to content consumers.

Re:RIAA and the long-tail

[Anonymous Coward]

Your attempts at elitism are painfully stupid.

Re:RIAA and the long-tail

[Ogerman]

There's a peculiar way that we could possibly exploit the long tail phenomenon to severely cripple the "blockbuster" business model: flood the P2P networks with fake copies of all the most popular pop songs. I'm not talking about making mp3s of white noise or fart sounds. I'm talking about legally sharing indie music renamed to look like the titles of the pop crap. (preferably only quality and similar style indie stuff..) So when average users download the latest "britany spears" or "dmb" song, they instead get exposed to something else. If it's good enough, many people will actually stop and listen to it. Then, at the end, add a brief DJ-style plug of the band and song they just heard.

Possible benefits:
- more exposure for independent artists
- less exposure for pop music rubbish
- anyone who gets sued based on the filenames can stand up to the RIAA in court knowing that there is no valid evidence against them
- it would make P2P less useful for swapping RIAA content, likely reducing the number of lawsuits and simultaneously restoring P2P to what it was originally intended to be: a channel for distribution of freely licensed content.

But it's just an idea.. not a suggestion. IANAL.

Re:RIAA and the long-tail

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easier to ride the back of a Britney Spears

Sure you don't have her confused with Paris Hilton?

what's wrong with this picture?

[Anonymous Coward]

it looks as though the US Government is trying to place more importance on intellectual property (ip), without regard for individual rights and rights of fair use. first, there is that insane law that's just been passed about getting 3 years for distributing a pre release video. it feels that it will only be a matter of time before the audio version of this come out, and/or all digital content being entirely painted with criminal penalties.

the problem here is that individuals have come up with new ways of distributing content using the internet that the big players do not know how to incorporate into their business models without (they think) losing money. why is that? do they really think that sueing everyone into submission will insure that their content will not be distributed? and even if the US succeeds in 100% preventing ANY file sharing or content ripping, what about the rest of the world? will they extradite all of their 'criminals' so that the US can put them all in jail?

the content creators need to find that fast, easy distribution method that consumers will pay for. the government needs to stop giving away your rights, and finally, the people need to stop giving the politicians the ability to do this. how has this happened?

Re:what's wrong with this picture?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly is providing hundreds to thousands of MP3s of music that you do not own the rights to covered under Fair Use?

Also, Fair Use was an addendum to Copyright. By default, with Copyright, you have no rights to the material. Intellectual Property is a Constitutionally guaranteed right (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) and it is a power of Congress to define said mechanisms. Your rights ended where their rights began. Even though you might consider the RIAA to be a big meanie, they still have rights.

Put your money where your mouth is

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters are constantly complaining about the lawsuits, DMCA and other bad laws, etc. from the entertainment industry. Yet in the next article they are hyping the latest Star Wars, LOTR, or whatever other products from the SAME COMPANIES. You make these laws and lawsuits possible, every time you buy a CD or go to the movies. It will stop when you stop paying them to trample on your rights.

You're asking the wrong question

[geekee]

"It has now sued over 10,000 file sharers for copyright infringement, making it a good time to ask if the RIAA will ever throw in the towel."

Isn't the question to ask, when will people stop sharing copyrighted music online illegally? There's no reason why the RIAA does not have a right to sue these people. It doesn't matter how many arguements you put forward saying the p2p is good for the music industry, the copyright owners still have no obligation to do what you see is best for them.

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the question to ask, when will people stop sharing copyrighted music online illegally?

None of these people have been shown to have broken the law. A billion dollar industry knocked on their door and said "give us a few thousand dollars or will sue you into bankruptcy". A typical person would cave regardless of whether they have actually broken the law, because they can't afford to fight the RIAA in court, let alone take the risk that they might lose.

There's no reason why the RIAA does not have a right to sue these people.

Which people, exactly? They've gone after people who don't even know how to use a computer. They've gone after dead people. I'm sure they've gone after innocent people. Are you assuming that the people they go after are guilty just because the RIAA threatened to sue them? I'm glad the legal system doesn't see things your way.

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Hermen]

"Isn't the question to ask, when will people stop sharing copyrighted music online illegally?"

Isn't the question to ask, when will people get the support of their elected rep's to change the law.

A bad law today is a terrible law tomorrow

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the elected reps remark...it seems to me, if we have more criminals than honest people according to current legislation, the legislation should change.

We as a society determine law...there are more p2p sharers than sames sex couples and yet many nations are changing laws to conform to the perception that society accepts same sex relationships. So why not conform to the societally acceptable policy of p2p file sharing.

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Travelsonic]

Isn't the question to ask, when will people stop sharing copyrighted music online illegally?

Do you mean copyrighted works they don't have permission to share? Because there are copyrighted works people are given permission to share (independent artists, public domain works, ect.)

There's no reason why the RIAA does not have a right to sue these people.

I can think of one reason. When they are suing blindly, and making the mistakes that they have made in the past in targeting the wrong people. Plus I think there was a thing used in law called due process if I remember correctly.

the copyright owners still have no obligation to do what you see is best for them.

If it means making money, then there is a limited obligation if they want the customers.

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's still illegal. Downloading a CD or game off bittorrent is no different then me going in the store and stealing it and running out. The only difference is, we can hide behind the internet and claim what we're doing isn't illegal.

According to the majority of slashdotters, I can download $2000 pieces of software illegally, and its not illegal, brilliant!

Please stop lying to yourselves and admit what you're doing is illegal. I download mp3s and warez, do I need to make up excuses that it's legal and moral? No, because I know it isn't

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Emetophobe]

There are several reasons why the RIAA sues people.

1) To protect their copyrighted material
2) To collect large sums of money
3) To scare people away from downloading illegally
4) All of the above

Re:You're asking the wrong question

[Travelsonic]

3) To scare people away from downloading illegally

This I find easy to believe, but I am suspicious about this point. The only reason why is because I know that independent artists share music online on P2P/websitwes for free, and if the RIAA successfully pounds the message that basically "ALL YOUR LEGAL DOWNLOADS ARE BELONG TO US[or else they are illegal]" then websites where independent artists put music up are somewhat threatened because the music they put up for example is legal, but people will think it is illegal because of what the "Good 'Ol RIAA told 'em"

Other statistics I'm interested in.

[halcyon1234]

Okay, so the RIAA has sued 10,000 people. Fine, great. That's an interesting statstic. But I'm more interested in the RESULTS:

How many of the suits have gone to court, rather than being extorted... urr... "settled" out of court?

Of those that weren't settled out of court, how many are slated to go to trial?

Of those that have gone to trial, what are the results of the trail? How many traders were found guilty? What evidence has the RIAA presented thus far?

THAT is the information I'm more interested in. They can sue as many people as they want. I want to know what the results of those suits are.

Re:Other statistics I'm interested in.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more interested in how many people are actually infringing on copyright. I'm thinking that number is MUCH larger than 10,000.

File Sharing != Stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading music that you didn't pay for is not tantamount to breaking into a record store and stealing an album.

Re:File Sharing != Stealing

[mirqry]

And assualt != murder... doesn't mean its not also illegal. There is just a lesser charger. Your not going to be thrown in jail for downloading, just sued.

Re:File Sharing != Stealing

[rich_r]

Well, there's your issue.
If they are suing, then it isn't a criminal offence.
As we all know, theft has a very clear definition, whereas with downloading music, the actual crime, if any, has yet to be decided. And it won't be decided until the RIAA actually take someone to court!

Re:File Sharing != Stealing

[Stonehand]

*shrug*

In a really extreme case, it can become a criminal matter. There's the No Electronic Theft Act, which elevates things into that sphere if the value of the infringement material within a certain time period exceeds a (fairly large) threshold, IIRC. And there have been murmurings about criminalizing the leaking of of unreleased media, I believe.

Also, civil and criminal proceedings are not mutually exclusive. Ask OJ about the wrongful-death suit sometime.

Re:File Sharing != Stealing

[rich_r]

Fair comment, but I think it is important to continually push home the point that currently, under normal circumstances, file sharers aren't criminals.

I work for a Students' Union, and I had the pleasure of going on a residential for entertainment managers of these establishments, and what astonished me was the fact almost none of these people, not without influence as a group, had no concept that copyright violation was anything but theft.

With this mindset, it is only a matter of time before what, quite rightly, is a civil matter is completely under the perview of criminal law. And then wwe're up the creek without a paddle.

Strong crypto anybody?

Re:File Sharing != Stealing

[mirqry]

I'm not saying they did anything criminal. They are civilly liable for violating a copyright.

The orginal person said Sharing != Stealing. But what they are doing isn't "Sharing", they aren't passing a single copy around between friends. Someone hosting a file is making additional copies for anyone that wishes, of something that is copyrighted. For me it seems pretty clear.

Hitchhiker's Guide reference?

[crashnbur]

[The RIAA] has now sued over 10,000 file sharers for copyright infringement, making it a good time to ask if the RIAA will ever throw in the towel.

Was that a Hitchhiker's Guide reference?

Re:Hitchhiker's Guide reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it was! I think the quote is: "Old hitchhikers never die -- they just throw in the towel."

Re:Hitchhiker's Guide reference?

[Stonehand]

I think it's a boxing reference, actually; doesn't throwing in the towel signify yielding?

Re:Hitchhiker's Guide reference?

[cpt kangarooski]

No. It's a boxing reference. If a boxer is taking a beating and is obviously going to lose, it is not uncommon for his coach to give up the match. One way to signify this is to throw in the towel that had been used to clean up the boxer when he was in his corner between rounds.

Bright Side.

[NotoriousQ]

Look on the bright side. Firefox is 5000 times more successful than RIAA.

Re:Bright Side.

[interiot]

Or alternatively: Paying lawyers wages is 5000 times more expensive than downloading Firefox?

Re:Bright Side.

[Anonymous Coward]

5000 times zero is still zero.

Re:Bright Side.

[VoidWraith]

But bandwidth isn't free.

Has *anyone* fought a suit?

[pumpkinempanada]

I keep reading about all the settlements, but out of 10,000 cases, has no one taken it to court? I am curious as to whether these lawsuits ever lead to trials and convictions, or whether the RIAA can be beaten.

Re:Favorite site taken over by whiny lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop whining yourself then, you moron.

Go to your preferences and make sure you don't get stories from YRO (Your Rights Online).

Problem solved.

Now go away.

You don't have to stop buying CDs

[Sycraft-fu]

Just stop buying RIAA CDs. There are people outside the RIAA memebers that make music, good music. A good one is cdbaby.com, they are all indy, all the time. They deal directly with artists. They categorize and recommend music and there's lots that's quite good. Another place to check out is cdroots.com. They don't do the indy thing per se, but they are all about world music, and most of their stuff comes from outside the US and is rarely big label things. If you are looking for something different, it's a great place to go.

You don't need to stop listening to music, it's a wonderful thing to do, and many people find it helps them focus and be more productive. You just need to find it from sources not affiliateed with the RIAA cartel. While that's not as easy as walking to Best Buy, it's not very hard.

Bankrupt the RIAA

[Stonent1]

If every one of those people had fought back, the RIAA wouldn't have been able to keep up with the legal stuff. Better yet, get a class action suit against the RIAA for invasion of privacy.

Perhaps...

[zappepcs]

Perhaps I am repeating myself or someone else, but the point is not what is done with digital content, the point is what the laws are doing. Currently, they are reinforcing an outdated and unworkable distribution business model for the film and music industry.

The lure of being in those industries is the money that can be made... now there is a cultural revolution against that business model. The time is right for revolution...so to speak.

We keep talking about what is right and what is wrong, but we seem to skip over the facts. The facts simply stated, are that the law supports an outdated business model. The music and film industries cannot continue to force their ethics on the populace when the populace is revolting. Music and video content is simply not worth what is being charged. The current distribution and licensing practices DO NOT work in the information age. They used to work, but no longer. When anyone with a basement and some cheap electronic technology can duplicate what big industry is charging huge dollars for is common place as it is today, the old business models don't work.

Its time for the music and movie industry to get into the 20th century (yes, I said that right). Its time for them to get with reality. Sure, they deserve to be paid for their work, just like the rest of us, but like the airline industry, they do not deserve to be propped up by government so they can survive. If they cannot survive the changes on their own, so be it. Its time for a change, the old ways are not working.

Still, I have not seen or read any evidence that file sharing has damaged either industry, yet they seem to have the government's permission to harm anyone they feel like. This smacks of conspiracy and business based totalitarianism.

Sure, you can tell me that I'm wrong, that I have not respected the rights of these industries, but I have done something that you did not expect.... I have stated that its time for evolution or revolution. I don't particularly care if they go broke... there are literally millions of artists that want a cheap and easy way to get their art to the masses without having to deal with those big companies and their bias.

Anyone that thinks this is about the law is just kidding themselves... this is about evolution. It is time for thing to change. I'm tired of paying taxes just in case I decide to break a law, I'm tired of being thought to break the law before I actually do, I'm tired of people trying to enact law to prevent me from breaking other exisiting laws.

If business finds that the current laws are unenforcable, they need to look at what they are doing and how they are making their money. Small businesses have to weigh the value of persuing a patent infringement case against larger companies and individuals against what is good for the business. The music and video industries have SO MUCH MONEY that they don't have to worry about it... they just bring the litigation because the cost is a pittance against what they stand to gain. The patent and copyright laws have, in essence, broken the anti-trust laws, in order to protect the very rich and powerful, those that don't need protection.

They have successfully perverted the intent and design of the laws they use to protect their profits.

IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE... EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION

YMMV

Re:Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

There once were many people who made their living on producing horse drawn wagons. Then the automobile was invented and there was very little demand for horse drawn wagons. So, eventually, although some still continued to buy wagons, the wagon industry became obsolete. Essentially, the same thing is happening here. Only the RIAA has a lot more money, and is very afraid of becoming obsolete.

Profitable?

[zorander]

"making the RIAA's lawsuits much less profitable."

The RIAA is currently settling for $1/song + legal fees. The lawsuits aren't a revenue stream, and sharers are almost all paying under $5000. $1500 (average sued sharer shares 1500 songs, other costs are for legal fees) * 10,000 = $15 million. For a multibillion dollar industry, this is nothing.

The disparity between the offered settlement and the potential liability could easily constitute a coercement of the violators to choose the settlement, and I hope that this point comes to light (is there really a choice to take a lawsuit? If the RIAA wins, then the liability is too huge. Paying a few grand and getting out is almost always the better choice). The sued party is pretty much being denied the right to a trial because the liability is too high. The right judge could illuminate this point and really change the law for the better (said by someone who generally condemns judicial activism)

Re:Profitable?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a good point about the potentially huge liability depriving defendants of their right to jury trial. Still, this seems like something Congress needs to fix, not a court.

But perhaps if there were a right to pay smaller penalties, then there wouldn't be this huge liability out there pressuring people to settle. The increased attorney's costs alone from actually litigating these cases would make the RIAA's lawsuits "less profitable" than they are today. (Granted, that they are still a small part of the RIAA's overall revenue stream.)

Re:Profitable?

[Autobahn]

Forget even the potential liability - just the legal costs would be more than the settlement, it's a no-brainer to settle. A decent lawyer will cost you a few thousand dollars just to read the case and show up to a preliminary hearing, to actually argue the case would cost well over $10k in legal fees. Of course RIAA gets it cheaper because they're using staff lawyers.

And if you add it all up you really get off pretty cheaply even if you do get sued - you got to listen to 3k songs for a few years without paying, and when you do pay it's only at $2 a song or so including legal costs. It's really not nearly as bad a deal as it seems - given that you have only a small chance of getting sued, your expected cost from downloading is far less than the $1/song it costs to buy from iTunes.

Re:Profitable?

[AussieVamp2]

so are they only bothering to sue people that have done a lot of sharing and downloading, not someone that has had the dog eat their old Nana Moskouri album and wants to try and find a replacement?

Re:Profitable?

[zorander]

They don't seem to be going after people who do a small amount of sharing, and as far as we know, merely downloading doesn't get you caught. I'm not positive, but downloading something you have a license to is arguably legal enough that it's probably not worth them pursuing downloaders, in case it went to court. When someone downloads, you don't know whether they have the license or not. On the other hand, when someone shares, you know they're violating copyright cause they don't have redistribution rights.

The average person sued shares around 1500 files.

Re:Profitable?

[zorander]

In theory, I agree that congress should be fixing this, not a court. Realistically, though, congress is in the RIAA's pocket. At this point in time, a rogue judge has much more power to go against the grain and at least challenge the law than the congress who won't do anything and aren't representing their constituents as much as they do the RIAA.

I *hate* judicial activism and think that the judiciary's power should stop at countering a law (and perhaps as a check on this, a 2/3 vote of congress could override that). Right now the judiciary has too much unchecked power (note how abortion has never been brought into represented goverment at a federal level and the "laws" were made by the courts) The courts should be adjudicating cases, not legislating.

That said, I'd be ok with the supreme court saying that the law was unconstitutional and leaving the congress to either amend the constitution or make a new law. My point is that it would probably have to start in the judiciary.

Sure but there are plenty of others

[Sycraft-fu]

One defense is to say you didn't do it, and their proof iks too weak to meat even the burden in civil court. Basically they come in with a list of files that the company they hire to find them claims came off a computer with a certian IP address that your ISP said was yours.

Ok problems:

1) How do you know those files are what they say they are? There's plenty fo files with fake names on filesharing networks. Sometimes it's people being assholes, sometimes it's small bands trying to pimp their shit, sometimes it's people who mislabeled because they are dumb. Since they don't download and check there's no real way to know.

2) For that matter, how do you know that list came form the right computer? Some networks, like Kazaa, aren't all that good at returning the correct list of files. You ask them for a list of files on host X, you get a list from host Y. How do you know this list is actually from the correct computer?

3) For that matter, how do we know the company they pay isn't making it up? These people get money for finding this stuff, there's incentive to find bigger lists of files. How do you know they are adding to those list or in some other way pumping it up to get more cash?

4) How do you know the ISP gave you the right data for the IP? Espically with dynamic IPs, this can be hard to tell. Sure some geek says this is what it is but how do you know he's telling the truth? All you've got are some easily altered text logs. For that matter how do you know the logging software was working right?

5) How do you know it was a certian computer behind that IP? Given the prevelance of wireless APs, it's easy to see that someone might ahve been using a connection without the owner's knowledge or consent. Where's the proof that it was actually a computer owned by that person that did it?

Basically what they are saying is these guys we pay gave us a list that might or might not be truthful that might or might not have come from this IP that might or might not belong to this person that might or might not have been them using it. Ya, THAT'S a strong chain of evidence.

Another defence would be to try for jury nullification, or argue on appeal, that the law they are suing under is unconstutional. The statutory damage are absurdly high. Well the constution states in ammendment 8 that "nor excessive fines imposed,". Seems the law allowing for high statutory damages in in violation of this. Since all laws must conform to the constution, it should be thrown out (and thus the case dropped).

Along those lines, there's other legal case history (as cited in the /. story) that establish the illegitimacy of excessive statutory rewards in civil cases.

This is not at all an open and shut issue. We do not have some highly trained computer crimes police optaining incontrevertable proof of MP3s on the person's computer and then the justice system imposing a resonable penalty. We have a corperate instrest group, who's members have been multiple times convicted of illegal practices such as price fixing, presenting a very shaky chain of evidence and asking for outrageously excessive awards.

If it got fought in court, it is not at all certian the RIAA would win.

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[Anonymous Coward]

>If it got fought in court, it is not at all certian the RIAA would win.

So, basically, file sharers should lie to get out of trouble? I hope you weren't planning on claiming the moral high ground against the RIAA...

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I can't believe this tripe got modded up. Are you guys under some mistaken belief that the RIAA's goons are juvenile morons like yourselves?

1) The RIAA's goons can do the download in parallel and verify the contents. They're authorized to do so by the copyright holders, after all.

2) Depends on who they bring the suit against. They may not need the seed's IP, they just need the IP of the person downloading.

3) The defendant would have provide some pretty good reasons to convince the jury that the investigator is lying. Just saying "How do you know they didn't make that up? They could be doing it to line their pockets." isn't going to be very persuasive. (If it was, SCO's lawsuit would never have gotten off the ground. :) )

4) ISPs keep very accurate records of who logs in and what IP they get, and a bunch of session statistics. It's part of the RADIUS protocol, RFC 2865-2866, IIRC. (Don't ask me how I know this.)

5) Could work, but you'd better have bought that WAP well before the RIAA's goons start tracking you. Moreover, if you're a geek or IT professional, you'll have a hard time convincing the jury you're incompetent enough to have an unsecured WAP (e.g. if you administer them at work).

As for jury nullification, that only works if there's an issue in the case that the jury cares about. Some pimple-faced twat ripping off music, oh, excuse me, infringing copyright, isn't going to get much sympathy.

Short of a major flub on the RIAA's part (possible, but it's dangerous to assume that your enemy is stupid), anybody who tries to stand up to them will get their balls handed to them on a silver platter, with a side of fava beans.

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[Anonymous Coward]

) The RIAA's goons can do the download in parallel and verify the contents. They're authorized to do so by the copyright holders, after all.

And what happens if it's NOT the song they were lookign for, but SOMEONE ELSE'S file, that was misnamed? Now RIAA is guilty of illegally downloading it!!

4) ISPs keep very accurate records of who logs in and what IP they get, and a bunch of session statistics. It's part of the RADIUS protocol, RFC 2865-2866, IIRC. (Don't ask me how I know this.)

Is that why RIAA send letters to a dead grandmother who never owned a computer? Because the records are SO accurate.

5) Could work, but you'd better have bought that WAP well before the RIAA's goons start tracking you.

"Sure, I bought it a year ago. What? no, I didn't keep the receipt. Hmm? Oh, I paid cash."

Moreover, if you're a geek or IT professional, you'll have a hard time convincing the jury you're incompetent enough to have an unsecured WAP (e.g. if you administer them at work).


Some people leave their WAPs open. It's NOT a crime to do so.

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[Anonymous Coward]

>And what happens if it's NOT the song they were lookign for, but SOMEONE ELSE'S file, that was misnamed? Now RIAA is guilty of illegally downloading it!!

You're really reaching. Unless the song happens to from a band not signed up with the RIAA, they're obviously authorized to do so. Plus they nail the target for that song instead.

>Is that why RIAA send letters to a dead grandmother who never owned a computer? Because the records are SO accurate.

The records are deadly accurate in matching session data (including an IP) to a user's billing information. (ISPs like to get paid for their services.) What the RIAA's goons do with that afterwards is their business.

>"Sure, I bought it a year ago. What? no, I didn't keep the receipt. Hmm? Oh, I paid cash."

"Hey, wait a minute. The serial number on this thing shows that it was manufactured less than a month ago!"
"Oops, busted..."

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[bm_luethke]

Generally, judges do not like being yanked about. Do that at your own risk, even if you might have won a case, trying to "play the system" will most likely have you loose as punishment.

"1) How do you know those files are what they say they are? There's plenty fo files with fake names on filesharing networks. Sometimes it's people being assholes, sometimes it's small bands trying to pimp their shit, sometimes it's people who mislabeled because they are dumb. Since they don't download and check there's no real way to know."

On cross examination: "Mr Sycraft-fu, were they the files indicated in this lawsuit?" You better be able to tell a good lie, not only that but civil cases only need a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a shadow of doubt (and, chances are if you download "artist - name of song.mp3" then it is the song "name of song" by "artist" and not porn) so you better have enough evidence to counter thiers.

"2) For that matter, how do you know that list came form the right computer? Some networks, like Kazaa, aren't all that good at returning the correct list of files. You ask them for a list of files on host X, you get a list from host Y. How do you know this list is actually from the correct computer?"

This one, you may get, but then you better have been using Kazaa or a network that has those issue and better have more than your word that this is so. Also you better be able to lie well on cross-examination when asked (or I guess you can plead the fith?).

"3) For that matter, how do we know the company they pay isn't making it up? These people get money for finding this stuff, there's incentive to find bigger lists of files. How do you know they are adding to those list or in some other way pumping it up to get more cash?"

Do you really think this will work? If it did then it would be the defense for everything. They have evidence and you better have better than "Fakers!!!".

"4) How do you know the ISP gave you the right data for the IP? Espically with dynamic IPs, this can be hard to tell. Sure some geek says this is what it is but how do you know he's telling the truth? All you've got are some easily altered text logs. For that matter how do you know the logging software was working right?"

They bring the ISP administrator in an question him in court, he responds and is assumed thruthfull unless you can either show a lie or the judge/jury thinks that he us. This line will depend on his/her testimony.

"5) How do you know it was a certian computer behind that IP? Given the prevelance of wireless APs, it's easy to see that someone might ahve been using a connection without the owner's knowledge or consent. Where's the proof that it was actually a computer owned by that person that did it?"

Irrelevent - you take liability in this case anyway (again, preponderance of evidence, not beyond a shadow of doubt). After you loose based on this then you have the option to litigate against anyone you feel you can proove did it. There is a lawyer modded up somewhere in this thread that explains this better - but that is the way it goes. Again, this is a civil trial.

If it is a criminal case? You may get away with one or two of these points and not found guilty. None of them would hold up in civil court. In a civil suit you will be found guilty. If I (say, me being the RIAA) show that someone from an IP address directly linked to you (by expert testimony from your ISP) has downloaded multiple MP3's that either a) are all filenames that correlate to songs and nothing else, or even better (if I'm the RIAA) can show that they *were* those songs (easy enough - download the same binary, heck in most P2P systems that can get it directly from you) then you are violating copyright and you are guilty. The only hope you have is if you can convince the judge this law is wrong and he/she is a judge that goes for such things (well, unless you actually owned all the songs at the time of downloading and can show so).

Now, you may (or may not) fi

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[houghi]

If it got fought in court, it is not at all certian the RIAA would win.

How uncertain would it be? And how much would you have to pay if found guilty? 50.000$ and 50% chance. That means that on average you pay 25.000 per case if you go to court. Settle outside and you pay 5.000 on average.

Mmm. I know I would settle if they have at least the IP, time and list of songs correct and I even have not calculated what you need to pay for your defence.

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[mpe]

Man, I can't believe this tripe got modded up. Are you guys under some mistaken belief that the RIAA's goons are juvenile morons like yourselves?

Have you any evidence that they are not. Moaning about alleged losses whilst showing large profits is certainly sufficent to put them in the "moron", if not the "juvenile" catagory.

1) The RIAA's goons can do the download in parallel and verify the contents. They're authorized to do so by the copyright holders, after all.

Assuming the file is what they think it is.
They had better document this carefully. If for no other reason than being able to claim "honest mistake" as a defence something they are not authorised to. e.g. it would be perfectly possible for someone to put up a "honeypot" files which the RIAA is forbidden from accessing.

2) Depends on who they bring the suit against. They may not need the seed's IP, they just need the IP of the person downloading.

Just how exactly would they have these IPs? If they uploaded the file there would have been no copyright violation on the part of the downloader. If the had hacked into machines there's the little problem of breaking criminal law as part of a "fishing trip" to try and find violations of civil law.

4) ISPs keep very accurate records of who logs in and what IP they get, and a bunch of session statistics. It's part of the RADIUS protocol, RFC 2865-2866, IIRC.

There's also the GIGO principle. e.g. the RIAA failing to realise that their time data must be accurate and in UTC.

Short of a major flub on the RIAA's part

e.g. accusing someone who dosn't have a computer, accusing someone who is dead, accusing someone of running a program incompatable with their computer's OS, etc.
They really should be expected to do a lot of explaining why any of their accusations are valid. They've had their "three strikes".

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[Anonymous Coward]

You better beleive there is 15 lawyers and 25 techy working for them ready to asnwer questions in court.

First the entire "this was not my IP" is moot at best. The only way out is using the wireless, you better have a receipt prooving you had it at the time of the download. Furthermore if you are recognize tech savy, you could be found partially responsible for leaving it open to any neigbor.

As for "This 'artist.mp3' was actually a song I recorded myself" is completly flawed.

Most P2P software uses MD5 signatures to match files, thus they only need to download the song once, then any matching MD5 they found is certain to be the same file.

FYI: MD5 is as reliable as matching DNA. To obtain a matching MD5 you need to rip the song on the same PC usingthe same CD reader and with the same options. Changing CD-Reader on the same PC and using the same options will result in a different MD5. So the RIAA only need to check the MD5 signature and the first few bytes for good measure and they KNOW it is the same file.

The RIAA did not download hundresds of songs for each of the 10.000 settlements. Just create a P2P-Bot to check the MD5 and the first few bytes. All parties KNOWS the songs where shared at the time indicated, making scare tactics a lot easier.

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[Anonymous Coward]

>Have you any evidence that they are not. Moaning about alleged losses whilst showing large profits is certainly sufficent to put them in the "moron", if not the "juvenile" catagory.

If they're such morons, how are they getting the large profits in the first place? That ain't easy no matter how locked in the artists are.

>Assuming the file is what they think it is.
They had better document this carefully...

How convenient: lawyers happen to be very meticulous about documentation.

>...If for no other reason than being able to claim "honest mistake" as a defence something they are not authorised to. e.g. it would be perfectly possible for someone to put up a "honeypot" files which the RIAA is forbidden from accessing.

Juvenile fantasies for juvenile morons. The honeypot owner(s) would have to have deep enough pockets to pay a lawyer enough to make the suit stick. (That is, assuming they could find a lawyer willing to assoicate themselves with what is essentially obstruction of justice.) Then they'd have to do it again and again. Fat chance.

>Just how exactly would they have these IPs?

Trivial. Hack the client to upload bad data only and connect to the network. Whoever shows up as having your target data gets a nasty surprise in the mail.

>There's also the GIGO principle. e.g. the RIAA failing to realise that their time data must be accurate and in UTC.

I'm sorry, did you actually have a point to make?

>They really should be expected to do a lot of explaining why any of their accusations are valid. They've had their "three strikes".

3 out of 10,000. I'd say they're doing pretty good if that's all the mistakes they made. They could flub 100 and that would still only be a 1% error rate.

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[mpe]

>Assuming the file is what they think it is. They had better document this carefully... How convenient: lawyers happen to be very meticulous about documentation.
How convenient: lawyers happen to be very meticulous about documentation.

If the case is actually likely to come to court. Even then, since the job of a lawyer is to represent their client, they are likely to add plenty of "spin" and be as selective as possible. I take it you have never actually employed one...
The thing is that the RIAA isn't intending to actually take cases to court. So much as play "chicken"...

>...If for no other reason than being able to claim "honest mistake" as a defence something they are not authorised to. e.g. it would be perfectly possible for someone to put up a "honeypot" files which the RIAA is forbidden from accessing. Juvenile fantasies for juvenile morons. The honeypot owner(s) would have to have deep enough pockets to pay a lawyer enough to make the suit stick. (That is, assuming they could find a lawyer willing to assoicate themselves with what is essentially obstruction of justice.) Then they'd have to do it again and again. Fat chance.

Even in the US, AFAIK, you don't actually need a lawyer to sue someone. Effectivly the honeypot owner would simply turn the RIAA's technique against them. They have a simple choice a) accept a settlement which includes keeping quiet about the whole thing or b) spend lots of money fighting an "open and shut" case of copyright infringement against a LIP.

>Just how exactly would they have these IPs?
Trivial. Hack the client to upload bad data only and connect to the network. Whoever shows up as having your target data gets a nasty surprise in the mail.

In other words a "honeypot". Previously described as "Juvenile fantasies for juvenile morons". Thus meaning that you accept that the RIAA are composed of "juvenile morons", QED.

Re:Sure but there are plenty of others

[Anonymous Coward]

>The thing is that the RIAA isn't intending to actually take cases to court. So much as play "chicken"...

Why not? So far, you've failed to demonstrate that the cases would be anything other than open and shut.

>Even in the US, AFAIK, you don't actually need a lawyer to sue someone.

Yeah, in theory. Good luck getting it to stick though. I hope said honeypot owners know the proper terminology, formats, and other legal impedimentia to actually succeed in getting money out of the RIAA. (a. k. a. fat chance)

>They have a simple choice a) accept a settlement which includes keeping quiet about the whole thing or b) spend lots of money fighting an "open and shut" case of copyright infringement against a LIP.

Part of the award calculation is the damage done to the plaintiff. Neither a judge nor jury is likely to be particularly sympathetic once the RIAA goons point out that the honeypot owner is just being a troublemaker. Hope they like their $1 in awarded damages.

>In other words a "honeypot". Previously described as "Juvenile fantasies for juvenile morons". Thus meaning that you accept that the RIAA are composed of "juvenile morons", QED.

I'm sorry, was that intended to be a rebuttal in some fashion? Apparently, you don't know what a honeypot actually is. I suggest you look it up. Being client-based, the tactic described is closer to a trojan horse than a honeypot.

Anyhow, if you think it's so simple and the RIAA is so stupid, why don't you do it? Easy money, right? Tell us how it all turns out, kid.

Re:Favorite site taken over by whiny lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up.

What do they have to benefit

[MHobbit]

What do the RIAA *really* have to benefit from all of this, aside from a huge profit? Intimidation. They obviously know that half of their cases wouldn't stand up in court anyway (oh wait a minute, I forgot they had huge pockets and huge teams of lawyers), so they take the horrible way out (for us) and demand huge settlements.

From what I've seen the RIAA will never throw in the towel unless legislation is brought up to impede on their "progress." As long as they can make a huge profit, they'll continue.

This is why I'm writing to both of my state's senators on why they should impose legislation to prevent the RIAA from taking all of this action. There's a better way to prevent piracy instead of suing dead 83 year-old people.

Jail time

[nurb432]

Right, there have been no time served ( or an actual case decided on ) yet, but the goal is to buy the laws to move this to criminal court. This will relieve the *AA of having to go after people themselves, as they can just make the government do it and foot the bill.

The MPAA has succeeded on their first attempt, with that 'screener bill'.

In time the RIAA will get similar laws passed.

Project Mayhem

[Primotech]

Anyone up for dragging Cary Sherman into a bathroom and putting duct tape over his mouth? "Hi there...you're going to call off your rigourous litigation otherwise...these fellows are going to take your balls off..." Do not fuck with us.

Re:Project Mayhem

[LokieLizzy]

That wouldn't work. He'd accuse you of coercing him into a settlement, at the risk of personal ruin.

On second thought, why does that sound eerily familiar...

Re:Project Mayhem

[lordofthechia]

First you must prove that Cary Sherman owns a pair of balls. I'm not convinced yet...

Re:Project Mayhem

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it! The first rule of project mayhem is....

Two questions:

[suitepotato]

1. Would people have still bought the CDs in the same number they've downloaded individual MP3s had the CDs been unrippable? No. They foist on us a pre-packaged collection of tracks, only a couple of which are the popular most likely to be downloaded songs which they pushed relentlessly. Also, a couple of songs which might be liked but aren't being pushed for radio exposure.

We're about as likely to want to spend $20 on a CD to get just two songs as we would be to spend what we currently do on gas on the pumps and thanks to MP3s we have a choice.

I would say that they don't get it that we are willing to pay per song for only the songs we want and not for the bundle of two goods songs plus crap at an arbitrary rate, but they do get it. Thye just don't want to change because they are greedily addicted to their top-down command model of "you will pay for and get what we say".

2. Does anyone note that the artists are even more of a bunch of sheep than the listening public? These are the people who make almost no money off the CDs by comparison to the record companies. Whenever I think of Metallica's foray into becoming the butt boys for the RIAA, I harken back to a skit on The Ben Stiller Show and something about a drum stool.

Secure distributed file sharing is coming on fast and soon enough just about everything shared on the net will be spread across the network like a coherent concept across a neural net and their lawsuit onslaught will be stymied by inability to catch any one person with a complete incriminating file. We're progressing to the day when information in raw form will float across a network sea like Ghost in the Shell and if they don't get with it soon, we'll forget about ever paying for anything of theirs at all.

Re:Two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

One word...iTunes. You can download whatever songs you want, legally. I don't buy from major artists, but smaller ones like Kenna, and I can't be arrested. Everyone is happy.

A practical CD boycott

[nurb432]

A better move would be to continue to only support *NON* RIAA artists.. Those artists should be supported.

In the movie realm, I dont know if that is possible, but its more then possible in the music world.

Not listening to the radio doesnt do anything to help or hurt since they will never know.. Unless you admit to it when asked by the PR research firms.

Re:Favorite site taken over by whiny lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a lawyer?

Home Recording Act

[wilgaa]

Does This mean that the Home Recording Act of 1975 is DOOMED???

I mean, in all seriousness, is the RIAA ignoring the act altogether? If so, wouldn't it be a violation of the HRA?

This is getting ridiculous. Really, really fast.

Re:Home Recording Act

[fallendove]

I'm serving over 700GB of mp3's at 67.45.13.2. Why did I just admit to that? The RIAA has no interest in how slashdotters feel. It doesn't care how many anti-RIAA shirts are sold at thinkgeek - it's laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:Home Recording Act

[/dev/trash]

It is called Recording NOT sharing. if all those 10,000 people can prove they 1) were idiots for allowing a file to be shared, 2) Recorded all their music, they're scott free.

Re:Home Recording Act

[ChozCunningham]

And so you could use the slashdotting as a defense?

"Your honor, there was no way I could share anything; at that adress was only a smoking ruin of what was an email server."

Re:Home Recording Act

[Anonymous Coward]

you have every single port open...

Re:Home Recording Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, well I'm currently serving 800 GB of porn at 127.0.0.1 and I've got every port open too!!

Re:You (USED TO) fund this by buying CDs

[nick_davison]

*gt;> You fund these lawsuits every time you buy a CD. Then they sue you, you settle and they sue even more people. Solution: stop buying CDs.

I have no clue what the situtation is like here in Canada, but it is not as bad as the states.

Actually, it's worse in Canada. In Canada you fund them every time you buy a hard drive, a blank CD-ROM or any one of a number of objects that don't directly infringe on their rights but could conceivably be used to. Don't feel bad though, the Netherlands followed Canada's stunning lead this week - so at least you're not alone.

Now there's the ridiculous situation that, should everyone decide to protest the music industry and stop buying CDs, the music industry would, ironically, be even better off (they'd continue to collect royalties on every drive sold and have absolutely zero production cost). Sure, the staff would get laid off, no bands would get signed, but the share holders would continue to collect their royalties from drive sales in exchange for no expenditure whatsoever.

Worse, it gets better and better for them as time goes by. That the Netherlands where they charge X euros per gig of storage. A 60gb iPod will be taxed by about $250. That's painful right now. Now consider good old Moore's law (arguments about disc storage vs processors etc. aside). In another dozen years, we'll have ~2^8 times the capacity for the same price. Unless the ridiculous laws get reassessed, 256 * $250 implies a $64,000 tax on that 15 terrabyte drive that the nicer models come with. Now I know inflation's bad but I don't think it's quite bad enough to have $60,000+ iPods within a decade or so. Sounds like some politicians have no concept of how computing advances and they've signed in to being a law that'll be farcical within ten years.

Assume for a moment that CD prices have remained largely constant ($10-15 new) ever since they came out. If that remains the case, simply buying an iPod within a decade (or similar drive for your PC) will give the music industry the equivalent of your buying 4,000 albums. By that point, do you really think they'll care about a CD boycot?

Disclaimer: Yes, I know those numbers are unsustainable. That's kind of the point - illustrating how staggeringly short sighted most of the music industry protecting laws are. The one redeeming thing is that those taxes will get so stupid that the idiots who signed them in will be forced to reconsider them well within the decade.

In a small European country...

[Anonymous Coward]

Coincidentally, just today I attended a conference, where in a lecture, the Head of the Computer Crimes Departement said this kind of thing won't begin in this country in the near future. BSA just recently made a public threat to start going after P2P file-sharers, it also naggs this police department quite a bit with all kinds of requests and propositions, but the police keeps it real - if all file-sharers were prosecuted by criminal law, we'd have more criminals than law-abiding citizens. Almost everyone who uses a computer, has downloaded some copyright-infringing stuff from Internet, but should every computer-owning individual be prosecuted? I think not, and so did the police officer giving the lecture today. They'd like to keep going after real criminals, not teenagers who downloaded the Spider-Man movie. They won't come after home users in the near future, unless they'd have too much free time - which they won't.

Re:In a small European country...

[AussieVamp2]

hmm, so people downloading illegally like mad should hope drugs etc. stay illegal so the police stay busy? interesting

Re:In a small European country...

[Catnapster]

They won't come after home users in the near future, unless they'd have too much free time - which they won't.

Your phrasing makes it sound as though you have plans to ensure the police remain busy.

Re:In a small European country...

[hackstraw]

"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal"

-- Adolf Hitler

Re:In a small European country...

[sploxx]

Which small european country?

Re:In a small European country...

[Anonymous Coward]

Estonia?

Re:You (USED TO) fund this by buying CDs

[TERdON]

Similar laws are being used in Sweden, and as far as I know in Germany too (don't know the german laws that well - but Apple Store Germany is claiming part of the price goes to the RIAA-equivalent).

In Sweden, the law has traditionally been on tape cassetes, video tapes etc that are specifically used for recording audio/video. A new copyright law, probably due this summer, will make the fees eligible for all media, and also raise them. The fees really are meant to be used as a compensation for fair use copying (for close friends, ipod and car cd player).

In the same law they make it illegal to crack copy protection schemes (however poor they are) for making a copy. Basically all DVD's are copy protected. Many CD's are too. Bought downloaded songs too. Basically, they take the fair use rights away, but still get the chance to charge for it...

dub it

[Anonymous Coward]

"People don't buy shit anymore, they just dub it. That's why I'm still broke and had the number one club hit." --Eminem

Re:dub it

[eluusive]

Because we all know eminem is broke....

re: your sig?

[Anonymous Coward]

Beauty? No. Mental illness? YES!!!

Legal costs and court time

[DaveCBio]

How much court time are all these suits taking up? Also, who is footing the bill for these lawsuits? Is the RIAA spending royalty money from artists, that they complain get no money as it is, to fund this?

read one of the papers

[Anonymous Coward]

it cites ~1000 downloads as an average with 750$ for each copyright violation.

so

10,000*1,000*750=

7,500,000,000

7.5 billion dollars(American)

cue mr evil up, we have a winner

Exactly!

[Xebikr]

How about stop uploading copyright music illegally online for a solution? That would stop the lawsuits

How right you are! I have been advocating borrowing mp3 collections from friends borrowing cd's from the library and ripping them yourself. Much more reliable and the risk of a lawsuit is almost nil.

RIAA Insurance Co. Business Model ;)

[rlamoni]

10000 suits * $3000.00 dollars settled/suit = 30 million dollars paid to the RIAA over 20 months or 1.5million/month.

1. Get the millions of people pirating music to each pay $5 a month for RIAA Insurance.
2. Use that pot of money to pay the $3000.00 out-of-court settlement for each of your members that gets caught.
3. Get rich.
4. Sell your company to the RIAA to eliminate the middle man.
5. Your members pay $5 a month to the RIAA directly and they make a killing. ;) ;) ;)

Re:RIAA Insurance Co. Business Model ;)

[mrscorpio]

Good try, except that illegal activity is by definition (by law) uninsurable.

I know this was a funny post, but I just thought I would point that out in case anyone took it seriously ;)

Re:RIAA Insurance Co. Business Model ;)

[klang]

10000 suits * $3000.00 dollars settled/suit = 30 million dollars paid to the RIAA over 20 months or 1.5million/month.

The sweet part of this calculation is, that the RIAA doesn't have to share any of the money with the artists on whos behaf they are suing. I don't even think they have to share the money with the record companies they represent in the suits.

Now how do you like them apples?

By the way, this group has a PayPal account where you can make a donation. When fileshares are sued, they will help them with legal advice AND cover some bills, if the filesharer elects to fight in court. The catch is, that the Danish version of RIAA can't sue anybody for "more money than the industry as a whole earned before taxes last year", as it seems to be possible in the United States. In other words punitive damages does not exist.

Are they a *class* of people yet?

[Danuvius]

Who could start a *class* action lawsuit perhaps? ;-)

Not even giving Mickey D's a run for the money

[Anonymous Coward]

"Over 10,000 served".

Hah.

That's what, at least five orders of magnitude behind McDonald's Carl-Saganesque "Billions and billions served"!

outrage

[DSLAMngu]

I'm outraged not only by the RIAA, but mostly by Slashdot at this point.

Firstly, 10k sued? I'm not sure if settling out of court counts as a lawsuit. You'd actually have to go to court.

This sensational language and the outright, blatant lies common in recent /. headlines are forcing me to call /. an overblown Internet tabloid, infested with a veritable hive of juveniles and self-absorbed laymen. But that's beside the point.

How about this: stop the rhetoric. Then join the EFF. Convert your BS to something much less so.

Hard to believe

[Travelsonic]

Apparently, the RIAA is settling the cases for roughly the purchase price of the music at iTunes.

I find it hard to believe that 3,000 songs (for example) would cost roughly 250,000 dollars/song.

Re:Hard to believe

[Breakfast Pants]

Show me ONE settlement went for 250,000 a song. Most of the RIAA settlements have been $20,000. And most of them have been over many thousand songs. Statutorily they can get around $750 per song minimum I believe but no one has actually tested this in court for someone with thousands of songs, it probably wouldn't pass due process (which normally doesn't apply to civil law, but for punitive damages, and especially in extreme cases, it can apply).

Re:Hard to believe

[Travelsonic]

$250,000 is what they demand, $20,000 is what has been settled at/around, but either way it is still too much if you were basing it off of Itunes pricing/song, unless of course you had 20,000 songs.

Re:Hard to believe

[Breakfast Pants]

Most of the settlement offers by the RIAA are around $6-8000. How you are getting "$250,000 is what they demand" per song I don't understand. These settlements aren't offered by the RIAA and then negotiated lower in most cases. So no, $250,000 per song is not what they are demanding.

Re:Hard to believe

[Travelsonic]

"$250,000 is what they demand" per song I don't understand.

The students were charged with direct copyright infringement for illegally downloading music files from the Internet, a crime punishable by fines of $250,000 and up to three years in prison, according to the RIAA Web site. They might also be held liable for statutory damages and lost profits.

http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/show_news.php?artic le=N1&date=042605

Re:Hard to believe

[Breakfast Pants]

Now you are talking about criminal law aspects of copyright infringement. In which case the RIAA demands oh say 0% of that $250,000 because it is a criminal matter. They get none of it. Also from everything you mentioned that doesn't sound like it is on a per-song basis.

Dvorak recommends it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dvorak just recommended RIAA lawsuits...

Lawsuits are a Revenue Stream, not a Loss for RIAA

[Cryofan]

You misunderstand something: these lawsuits are not costing them anyway. On the contrary, these lawsuits are optimized so as to MAKE them money. These lawsuits are a revenue stream for them, NOT something that costs them money at all. This is just another business for them. Why on earth would they stop doing this?

They are doing EXACTLY what the American system and the American Constitution were DESIGNED to enable--specifically, cornering and putting at a disadvantage a set of Americans and then and exploiting them. This is what America has been about from the very beginning. Remember that whole African slavery, indentured servitude, white slavery thing? THat was the launching pad of America, and we are right on path here with large amounts of organized capital exploiting human beings. So what are you bitching about? Move to France if you don't like it! Oh, wait, the French are too smart and too much in control of their control to let in too many immigrants. Never mind....

So you want to work every day...

[shmlco]

Then really you're no better than the burger-flipper down at McDonalds, who's not making any money unless he's working.

One of the advantages to having a album for sale and music on iTunes and so forth is the multiplier effect.

Assuming people like your music (major assumption here) they can obtain it from multiple stores, and pay for it at multiple places, even when you're not personally working. One of the FEW jobs where it's possible to get paid for work done months or even years ago.

To renounce that income is, to me, well, idiotic. Unless you like not having "paid" vacations, like having to work even when you're sick, and so on...

lame

[Anonymous Coward]

You are in denial.

Please enjoy your time there. I'm sure you will/are.

-Anonymous Industry Person

People need to take these guys to court.

[zymano]

Quit settling. They don't have proof that you have a copy of the music.

Just delete the files and then tell the court that you recieved the file because it was corrupted .

Re:People need to take these guys to court.

[1ucius]

IIRC, they are targeting large uploaders. . . preaty easy to show that they had a copy.

Re:People need to take these guys to court.

[zymano]

Yeah. My mistake. I meant downloading.

Thanks.

Question, once and for all!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This may seem thick but please take a second to answer. If I was to share legal files, inde music, shareware etc. in order to get my ratio up so I can get into the better hubs to download....Can I take what ever I want with no fear, I'm talking music, in theatre movies, full versions of software etc???? Can you be sued for this at all??? can anyone site an article or case??? this is all hypothetical, of course...

A Stupid Question???

[Anonymous Coward]

This may seem thick but please take a second to answer. If I was to share legal files, inde music, shareware etc. in order to get my ratio up so I can get into the better hubs to download....Can I take what ever I want with no fear, I'm talking music, in theatre movies, full versions of software etc???? Can you be sued for this at all??? can anyone site an article or case???

this is all hypothetical, of course....

The REAL deal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about losing money, it's about companies losing control of the consumers. These companies thrive on people buying cds, dvds and junk. All they need is information, they want to control you and sell you what u want. It's all about control.

Go away, you're not 21

[tepples]

then more people would PAY to get into venues where my band is playing.

It's too bad that most bands shut out a lot of potential ticket buyers by playing in bars.

Each year who do you think the wealthiest musicians are? THE ONES WHO ARE TOURING! I've never seen someone make that list just off of CD sales

What does that say about musicians in genres not as conducive to live performance?

an honest opinion from an anonymous coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one quit sharing files P2P after all the lawsuits starting gaining ground. I also quit being interested in aquiring any more music CD's as well. I would say that the RIAA has killed my desire for new music almost entirely. I listen to NPR during noon lunch sometimes, but I never listen to music in my car. I only listen to music on my computer. I very rarely hear any new music now because all of the law suits. I hope musicians take notice and get rid of the useless bastards.

Always a catch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla Foundation is going to sue the crap out of the people who uses Firefox? Darn... I knew there was a catch when they said it was "Free"... :(

Upload what music instead of illegal music?

[tepples]

How about stop uploading copyright music illegally online for a solution?

Is that even possible? Even if you write and perform your own songs, that can still be illegal.

You may find this hard to believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

You may find this hard to believe, but a lot of us don't have much sympathy for people who feel they are entitled to get paid without working. Many of us don't actually believe that music stars are "better than the burger-flipper down at McDonalds". Sure, the music star is richer, but that shouldn't make us have nothing but contempt for the guy working for a living.

Re:You may find this hard to believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your opinion on scientists then?

Re:You may find this hard to believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

So scientists don't work for a living? That's news to me.

I've got a BA in Physics. How much per year do you think that's worth for sitting on my ass? :)

Subconscious copying

[tepples]

1) Start a band (Alternatively: illegally download some techno making software)
2) Release some songs on p2p networks

3) Get your @$$ sued by the incumbent major music publishers for subconscious copying. Each major record label (Sony, Warner, Universal, EMI) owns a music publisher.

Re:Subconscious copying

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you being payed by someone to do this?

Re:Subconscious copying

[tepples]

Are you being [paid] by someone to do this?

Do you have a better solution to make sure that your band isn't breaking the law?

Re:Subconscious copying

[Anonymous Coward]

Better solution? Better solution than what? You didn't present a solution yourself. You only claim that it's impossible to write original music. I claim that it is not. Atleast not under a sensible legal system. Ie: The swedish.

Photoshop image editor for 99 USD

[tepples]

If you're the average home user is there ever a chance of you actually buying a copy of Photoshop?

Given that a copy of Photoshop costs no more than a copy of Paint Shop Pro (each sells for 99 USD), yes. Every user who pirates Photoshop Elements is a user who doesn't buy Photoshop Elements. But then so is every user who uses GIMP instead of Photoshop Elements (such as myself).

Re:Lawsuits are a Revenue Stream, not a Loss for R

[ICECommander]

Thank you for that endless rant that serves to accomplish nothing, you offer no evidence for your "DESIGNED" claims. Perhaps you would be taken more seriously if you reevaluated your opinions and didn't host your home page on Geocities.

The big problem

[dtfinch]

Information markets as they exist today are an extremely inefficient means of distributing information while ensuring that copyright holders get paid. They're so innefficient that even open source methods are proving to be very competitive in many cases. Duplication costs are next to nothing, and can be taken on by consumers. We would be much better off if everyone had unrestricted access to all copyrighted information, if we could somehow figure out way to ensure fair compensation to authors.

Why should I pay $15 for a CD if I just want to listen to it once? Or pay the same to rent a movie whether I see it one time alone or 3 times with 10 of my best frients? Or what if I want to use a software product, but for the task I intend to use it for it's not worth the price? What happens is I just don't buy, and everyone loses.

I don't know of a solution to this problem, except that it's a very important problem to try to solve because current methods are failing miserably. An ideal solution would ensure that I could have unlimited use of whatever information I want, for such a fair price that I'd spend more than I do today.

Re:The big problem

[Emetophobe]

Why should I pay $15 for a CD if I just want to listen to it once?

Don't buy it then, no one is holding a gun to your head. That doesn't give you the right to download it illegally because you find the price too steep. Gas is ridiculously expensive, that doesn't give me the right to go and steal it because I feel the price is unjust. A Music CD is a luxury, you do not need it to survive.

Or what if I want to use a software product, but for the task I intend to use it for it's not worth the price?

Again, don't buy it. You don't need software to survive, it is a luxury. Computers are a luxury. Alot of stuff is expensive, too expensive for most people, so they don't buy it. That doesn't mean they should steal it instead.

Alot of people would steal/download stuff off the internet, but they would never dare steal a car for example in real life. The internet allows people to hide behind their computer and they believe they have the god given right to do whatever they want.

I admit I download mp3s and "0day" movies and games (warez). I know it is illegal and immoral. I don't need to make up excuses for my behaviour and claim it is the RIAA's fault. People have been downloading copyrighted material for so many years now, that they now believe it is ok. After all, everyone else is doing it. I am sick of all the people on slashdot blaiming the RIAA for their activities. Grow up and be responsible for your own actions! Now I will suffer being modded to hell for speaking my opinion.

Re:The big problem

[stealth.c]

Alot(sic) of people would steal/download stuff off the internet, but they would never dare steal a car for example in real life.

Barring the fact that it isn't theft, but rather copyright infringement with draconian penalties, I feel the need to point something out here. You're berating the filesharers for behaving illegally and immorally. You make the valid point that these things are luxuries and whatever idiotic, expensive structure governs them, you still have to follow the rules. But then you say this:

I admit I download mp3s and "0day" movies and games. I know it is illegal and immoral...

Which, by all practical definitions, makes you a hypocrite. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and move on.

I am sick of all the people on slashdot blaiming(sic) the RIAA for their activities. Grow up and be responsible for your own actions!

Not to be rude, but the RIAA companies *are* the ones responsible for the situation we're in. The RIAA does not believe in a free market. Monopolies never do. They have an extremely lucrative distribution/advertising system which is now threatened by the technologies of the Internet. Competition. Instead of competing, doing what the market obviously wants (a cheap, flexible, controllable distribution channel), they persist to keep their old model on life support because that's where their monopoly is. Napster, iTunes and other online music stores are successful because they, despite the gougings of the RIAA, are offering something the cabal of record labels refuses to. They are offering something the market wants--or at least something a touch more palatable.

Downloading music you don't own is not a good idea. I do believe a person should pay an appropriate price for the luxury of good music. But the consumer also deserves a free market that will offer him what he wants at a price he is willing to pay, instead of charging him an arm and a leg for music he doesn't want.

Remember how stable and relatively inflation- and debt-free the gold/silver-based US economy was before the Federal Reserve corporation(s) got monopoly control of our money supply? Remember what the phone industry was like until AT&T lost its monopoly? Remember what the computer industry was like until Microsoft leveled the (hardware) playing field? Remember how awful the US Postal Service was until FedEx challenged them? The same principle applies to the monopolies on media that the **AAs enjoy. Once they're broken, people will wonder why anyone tolerated them to begin with.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Re:The big problem

[dtfinch]

Don't buy it then...

Again, don't buy it...

I think you missed the part where I said, "What happens is I just don't buy, and everyone loses."

All Use CD-R

[tepples]

Instead, you'd want consumer grade DAT, Minidisc, or Audio CDR (as distinguished from regular, cheaper, CDR).

Real estate is expensive. To simplify product lines and reduce the cost of keeping inventory in warehouses and on store shelves, some manufacturers have stopped making data-only CD-R media, instead labeling "music CD-R" media, on which the AHRA royalty has been paid, as "all use CD-R media".

Re:All Use CD-R

[cpt kangarooski]

That's funny if true. Still, if it's the only thing standing between you and an infringement suit, it might pay to be cautious.

try this....

[Anonymous Coward]

Collective Ownership ;)

Sue p2p makers o_O?

[Man in Spandex]

This may be a bit off topic but isn't the RIAA a bit too greedy?

By looking at what the MPAA has done. They mostly went after the torrent trackers (lokitorrent) and listings (suprnova) and AFAIK, the ISP's like Comcast send emails to some of their customers saying that they should stop downloading illegal content and delete whatever they have or they'll have their account suspended (Don't remember too well what the email says but I've read it on many forums from members who got one).

Here, we got the greedy RIAA going after the bees instead of the hive. Just another way of showing their business plan that many slashdotters are aware of

Re:Sue p2p makers o_O?

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be a bit off topic but isn't the RIAA a bit too greedy?

Yes, in much the same way that Jason Vorhees is a bit too murderous.

so...

[imess]

who's gonna swim now?

the Future of File trading is:

[Ralph Spoilsport]

LAN parties.

I've been to several. It works and it rocks.

You go to someone's house. you turn on your file sharing and plug into a router. Everyone sees each other's drive and you share files.

I now have 112 gigs of music.

I used to have 123 gigs, but as I go through what I've "brorrowed" i find that so and so SUCKS ASS. (I still cringe when I think of how "a friend" told me that Coldplay was good. "copy this folder man- it fuckin' rocks!" Urf! no accounting for taste - but: the same friend had some early Kraftwerk that I had never heard, and within a fwe days I was on GEMM.COM and had it sent to Chez Spoilsport ultrapronto!

AND: years ago as a teenager I had spent ridiculous sums of cash on Led Zeppelin records (1 - houses of the holy) only to have them all wear out. In the 90s when I did most of my CD collecting, I neglected LZ, so now I have it all on mp3, and I don't have to bother sampling the scratchy old LPs. I paid my money

(I actually paid RETAIL at Sam Goodys. Sorry - I was young... except for LZ4 which was given to me when I turned 16... which was typical for New Jersey in the mid 1970s....)

and I deserve my onw personal mp3 versions. If digital had existed in 197x I would have done the same then (as it was I did record everything to cassette. but that was NOT a sideways move...)

I say FUCK RIAA.

Rat fucking bastards.

I also say FUCK people who don't buy the records. Sure: I have a BUTTLOAD of mp3s but guess what? I also have a VAST collect of CDs and LPs. And thanks to MP3s I trade at LAN parties, my coolectio nof CDs and LPs continues to grow...

I trust (some of) my friend's taste in music. I DON'T rtust the crap I hear on the radio. Rap is especially laughable anymore.... "Keepin' it real"... As IF you hypocritical motherfuckers.

bitterly,

RS

Re:the Future of File trading is:

[Anonymous Coward]

LAN sucks when you want specific stuff. In fact, most stuff i want is too specific for even normal p2p. That is, sample cd isos and virtual instruments.

News?

[jdog1016]

You know, if you're going to call yourselves a news site, at least try to report things in an unbiased manner... Here's my thoughts: THANK GOD. I personally hope they sue the fuck out of every single person who has stolen from them, and I honestly don't care. Seriously, stop whining. If you're going to break the law, accept the consequences. The only rights who are being trampled upon here are the artists and the labels who have broadcast them to the world.

Re:News?

[lachlan76]

Yep...it's a good thing that they have extorted money out of lots of people who may have been downloading music.

It's also so good that they don't have to go through the trouble of trying to prove it in court, and that they can simply tell people that if they don't get $3000 then they will get bankrupted from their legal fees alone!

The American legal system is soooo efficient! Who would want anything else?

Re:News?

[klang]

Since when has a news site had the obligation to be unbiased?

Re:News?

[rfunches]

The only rights who are being trampled upon here are the artists and the labels who have broadcast them to the world.

Except I've yet to hear or see of any artists -- the folks who are using their talent, their creativity, or a combination of the two, excluding computer-adjusted vocal talent -- seeing the bulk of that money, compared to the labels, who are doing nothing more than providing artists with a distribution model that is no longer necessary to succeed in this day and age.

Re:News?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, if you're going to call yourselves a news site, at least try to report things in an unbiased manner...

You must be new here. Welcome.

I'm curious

[AliasMoze]

It's fitting that the RIAA, the same bastards who settled for price gouging us for hundreds of millions of dollars, are now the ones sueing us for creating another means of getting our music. It's the circle of life.

God, why is this illegal cartel still functioning?

Re:I'm curious

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people continue to download music illegally. Alot of people here seem to tell themselves its not illegal, but it is. Downloading mp3s is no different then downloading pirated copies of windows or the latest movie off bittorrent.

You tell yourselves so many times that it isn't illegal, that you actually start to believe it. I admit I download mp3s and movies and "warez". I have for many years, I don't need to make up excuses and put the blame on someone else for my criminal activities.

I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but that doesn't give me the right to claim that my activities aren't illegal. Why do you think RIAA is WINNING all these lawsuits?

Diversify

[MMaestro]

Like you said its easier, more profitable and quicker to simply promote on superstar over thousands of different no-name, garage bands. But in the long term, you're simply asking for trouble.

Think about it, theres always going to be people who don't like your superstar actor/actress for whatever reasons so common sense dictates you want a second superstar in hopes of catching those who don't like your first. Obviously you can repeat the same logic an infinite amount of times but you come to a point where you say enough is enough. Now the problem with the RIAA is they don't even begin to think about multiple superstars. Sure there are a few other big names but for the most part those people are on their own with their pitiful amount of publicity and advertisment compared to say Britney Spears.

The end result is simple and obvious. The 'masses' 'supposedly' follow the RIAA and their dictation of whos hot and whos not. The 'pirates' go 'underground' leaving them largely 'out of the loop.' And the courts and government are left trying to sort out the BS from both sides as to what to do. Give power to the RIAA and you risk infringing on constitutional rights. Give power to the 'pirates' and you risk pissing off a multibillion dollar industry with more money than most third world countries, not to mention possible social damage.

WHOOOOO HOOOOOO

[Anonymous Coward]

354th Post

Or...

[Kythe]

...how about someone challenge the law as unconstitutional? The clear intent of the constitution in authorizing Congress to limit the free exchange of information in certain cases was to encourage artistic and scientific endeavor, not to enable maximum profits for certain individuals.

The simple fact is that it's quite likely many of these people wouldn't have bought the material in the first place. It is thus unconstitutional to criminalize their conduct. QED.

Perfect plan

[runner91786]

So we have figured it out then. Simply find an unsuspecting neighbor with a wide open wireless network, and pirate to your hearts content, because THEY will get the letter in the mail, not you. And when they can't prove anything then no one is hurt.

The solution everyone missed.

[Lennavan]

This is the obvious solution everyone seems to have missed. If you're sued you take it to a jury trial. If you're on the jury you vote against the RIAA. The people supposedly govern themselves after all. Well they did until Republicans took over :-O!!!

Re:Lawsuits are a Revenue Stream, not a Loss for R

[Cryofan]

I am creating a video documentary that encapsulates many of my viewpoints. Look for it this summer....shitferbrains....

thx

[PsiPsiStar]

Thanks for all your posts, dude.
I just had to do a training module for eDiscovery at work. It's interesting to hear a real lawyer go over the finer points.

Though if he does have multiple secondary hard drives, it seems like it would be possible to be evasive. Not sure how they'd look for that. But then, I'm not a hardware geek. And I don't know how adept the techs for the RIAA would be, or how hard they'd try on an individual case.

wow and on the same day

[tin foil hat dude]

my mp3 file topped 10,000

Re:Lawsuits are a Revenue Stream, not a Loss for R

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because no other country ever engaged in slavery or forced labor except America.

Re:You (USED TO) fund this by buying CDs

[blackdropbear]

New business model - selling mail order hard drives to client in the Netherlands - Royalty free.

As a musician...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a hobby musician i just have to say:
FUCK RIAA!

Honeypot anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems a lot of people are talking about how the RIAA would lose if the victims ever actually stood up and demanded a court hearing.

So how about we take the battle to them?

I'm thinking we set up a honeypot PC, sharing on all the networks that are known to be watched, but sharing fakes - with the exact filesize and name of recently released albums/songs. Sure, the fakes will annoy a few people, but we can take a few casualties.

Then we sit and wait for the lawsuit to arrive. Fight the RIAA every step, lead them on, and win, because we didn't actually infringe any copyright. The press will have a field day. People will know the RIAA can be beaten, and might try standing up for themselves. The RIAA might realise they can't just keep slapping people down without coming under attack themselves. Either way, we're better off.

Another way might be slashdotting them in protest. Find the CEO's email address (or equivalent, I don't know how they're organised) and get every Slashdotter to send 5-10 emails, perfectly legit, requesting information of some sort. Alternatively use snail mail. It'd ahve to be organised, but imagine the scene when 30,000 letters all arrive within the space of a few days, or the Chairman can't send any messages because his mail client's continually downloading mail!

Just a few ideas, I'm sure there are more, but the important thing is to take the fight to them. Civil protest - moaning on Slashdot won't help, we need to hurt them, though in a way that's nice and legal, Gandhi-style.

The Whole "Reading Comprehension" Thing....

[Cryofan]

....is really plaguing you, aint it?

America was DESIGNED for this sort of slavery and neoslavery by the Founding Fathers, and in particular, James Madison, The Father of the Constitution, who was an elitist and a drunkard and opium addict whose life was devoted to enslaving other human beings (both white AND black) so that he and his upper crust society (like his friend Thomas Jefferson) could live lives of opulence and drunken and drugged ease, while his slaves were whipped while working in Madison's fields from dawn till dusk. THe Consitution was the product of this design. The American Constitution is the machine that allows concentrated capital to enslave and exploit. Other western countries cannot come close to what the elite can accomplish here. They do not have our Constitution and the system it engenders. Many other countries have tried to reach our level of exploitation, but no other western countries can top us. At least with the current configuration....

Proof? Read Madison' own writings.....

10.000 people sued

[klang]

..and no musician has been paid any damages.

A great day for the music industry.

When I grow up, I want to be a music industry lawyer!

Re:You (USED TO) fund this by buying CDs

[legojenn]

Holland is very small. Why can't someone just bicycle over to Prance, Belgium or Germany to get their royalty-free hard drives?

Sue: New source of income for their business model

[-Harlequin-]

Surely these lawsuits are uber-profitable - not one in a thousand contests, so they all settle, which means they pay the RIAA a four-figure sum, when all the RIAA did was have a guy mail a nasty-gram.

The sue-people wing of the RIAA has got to me turning a profit, and if that's the case, they presumably won't stop suing any time soon.

What about TOR?

[night22]

How would networks like TOR affect the lawsuits? Wouldn't they kinda defeat the whole "your IP shared this and that file"?

Re:You (USED TO) fund this by buying CDs

[mpe]

Holland is very small. Why can't someone just bicycle over to Prance, Belgium or Germany to get their royalty-free hard drives?

No doubt they already do. With the advantage of not having to change their money...

Emigrating to Sweden to escape Bright Tunes?

[tepples]

Better solution? Better solution than what? You didn't present a solution yourself.

I thought I implied that the alternative is to just quit.

You only claim that it's impossible to write original music. I claim that it is not. Atleast not under a sensible legal system. Ie: The swedish.

OK, is there a better solution than either 1. not making music at all, or 2. what you seem to imply, namely going through the presumably time-consuming and expensive process of emigrating from the United States (where an appellate court has upheld that subconscious copying is no defense to copyright infringement) to Sweden (where you claim that the situation is otherwise)?

How to stop the lawsuits cold

[programmeratarms]

What is needed is an "RIAA insurance" company. It would not pay settlement costs under any circumstances, but would finance any subscriber who decides to fight it out in an actual trial. 10,000 trials would likely strain the budget of RIAA & co. if not bankrupt it outright. It is also worth noting that the cases would not all be certain wins for the RIAA, due to questionable evidence.

...loses copyright case...

[equivocal]

Around 20 March 2005 I read a news article on the web about someone losing a copyright case involving scripts for made-for-tv and theatrical movies. The judge ruled that rights to sue for copyright violation cannot be sold or transferred--only the copyright holder can sue. I thought I'd be hearing alot about this because on the surface it completely declaws the RIAA's threats since the RIAA is not the copyright holder. When nothing appeared I searched for the story again and never found it. Thus, I conclude it was all a very detailed hallicination.

Lawsuits by the RIAA

[tmartindub]

The RIAA will never snuff out file sharing. There are millions of private ftp servers all over the world to which they have no access. There are millions of private groups that trade privately by the mail or other means. There are means to hide the IP addresses to keep things really private. So what is the ultimate aim of the RIAA? Surely they don't think they will win this war. Perhaps a few battles, but not the war.

Drives?

[phorm]

So if I keep a spare drive of the same type as my main storage media that has plenty clean/authorized content... write a little extra to it to make "recent content" then swap it with the drive that had all my mp3's... how exactly would you know? This assumes also of course that swap/etc are also stored on said drive and not the root drive?

Of course, unless you are really doing something you know is wrong and/or are really paranoid - why bother? I'm sure as heck not going to invest in a spare 160GB drive to spare in mild event that the MPAA/RIAA or anyone else come a'knockin. I'd rather spend my money other places

Perjury...

[phorm]

And I have no moral problem lying under oath to those bastards.

To further the parent. You aren't lying to the RIAA, you are lying to a judge. That's a crime in itself... so even if you get off the hook for fileswapping you can be nailed for perjury. What differentiates a situation where I am UNABLE to comply from a situation where I AM able, but FAIL to comply?? Now I do believe you aren't required to incriminate yourself anyhow, they have to prove you committed the crime... let your lawyer do the talking in this case. Once you start talking though, you aren't allowed to be so selective. You might tell the truth but be omissive in some ways and still get off... but if you get caught in a lie you're quite screwed.

doing something you love everyday = bad?

[killawatt5k]

you're no better than the burger-flipper down at McDonalds
I never claimed to be better than anyone! Do you believe in the divine right of kings? people working at McDonalds bust ass everyday, its hard work. I don't know where you got the impression I was anti-CD sales. I'm not. I'm anti-suit, anti-corporate, anti-riaa. Do you have any idea how much of a cut the record labels make off of a $10 CD its atleast 70%.
(major assumption here)
don't assume anything click on my URL and listen for free, while eating your McDonalds