RIAA Sues File Sharers

[Kooperman]

RIAA sues 261 file swappers


By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
September 8, 2003, 10:57 AM PT


update The Recording Industry Association of America said it has filed 261 lawsuits against alleged file swappers Monday, charging the computer users with "egregious" copyright infringement potentially worth millions of dollars.
The long-awaited barrage of lawsuits marks a turning point in the industry's three-year fight against online song-trading services like Kazaa and the now-defunct Napster, and one of the most controversial moments in the recording industry's digital history.

After long years avoiding direct conflict with file swappers who might also be record buyers, industry executives said they have lost patience. Monday's lawsuits are just the first wave of what the group said ultimately could be "thousands more" lawsuits filed over the next few months.



"Our goal is not to be vindictive or punitive," said RIAA President Cary Sherman. "It is simply to get peer-to-peer users to stop offering music that does not belong to them."

The lawsuits mark the first time that copyright laws have been used on a mass scale against individual Internet users. Legal actions have been taken on a sporadic basis against operators of pirate servers or sites, but ordinary computer users have never before been at serious risk of liability for widespread behavior.

The RIAA said that's the point it's underlining with the unprecedented legal action. From the rise of Napster until today, tens of millions of people have started trading songs, movies and software online through services such as Kazaa with little thought for the legality of their actions. Even as the threat of Monday's lawsuits loomed, more than 2.8 million copies of the Kazaa software were downloaded last week, according to Download.com, a software aggregation site operated by CNET News.com publisher CNET Networks.

Indeed, a recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 67 percent of people downloading music said they did not care whether the music was copyrighted or not.

The slew of suits will put a serious price tag on those actions for the first time. Under copyright law, violators can be held liable for up to $150,000 per violation--a measure that could result in stunningly high damage figures for some of the defendants in this round of suits. According to the RIAA, most of the people sued Monday were sharing 1,000 songs or more on the file-swapping networks.

Few of the suits are likely to go to trial, however. In the RIAA's previous round of copyright suits, filed against four university students in April, each defendant quickly settled, agreeing to pay damages of between $12,000 and $17,000. Many of today's defendants are also likely to settle.

Sherman said "a handful" of defendants had already agreed to preliminary settlement agreements, averaging payments of about $3,000 apiece.

Later settlements will likely have a higher price tag, since they will be coming after the lawsuits have been filed, Sherman said. However, each suit is being filed with information advising defendants whom to contact if they want a settlement.

Attorneys not involved in the dispute say the defendants will be hard-pressed to make a convincing case if the RIAA's evidence holds up in court. The industry trade group has collected long lists of files being shared by each defendant, traced those files to a specific network address and used subpoenas to link that address to a specific Internet account.

Copyright law forbids distributing unauthorized copies of protected works, as well as actually making unauthorized copies. People who have shared considerable amounts of copyrighted files on file-swapping networks are likely to be seen as distributors, many attorneys say.

"This will be an uphill battle for anyone to defend," said Evan Cox, an intellectual property attorney with Covington and Burling in San Francisco. "When people put that many files in a shared folder and allow that to be exposed to the Internet, it's a pretty sure thing that they're distributing those copies."

Critics of the RIAA actions, including most notably the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said that the RIAA might have made mistakes in some cases, including those where an Internet subscriber's account is held by several people, where parents were unaware of their children's behavior or where the Net account is connected to a wireless network being made available to the public.

"You have to assume that the recording industry actually got the right person," EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann said. "It's Mom and Dad's name on the ISP account, for example, but that doesn't mean it's Mom and Dad using Kazaa. There are going to be a lot of complications."

The suits were filed across the United States, and included users of Kazaa, Blubster, Grokster and several other file-swapping software programs.

Several related lawsuits remain open as these go to court. A handful of Internet service providers, including Pacific Bell Internet Services, a division of SBC Communications, in California, have challenged the validity of the subpoenas used by the RIAA to collect file swappers' identities. One individual, who as yet remains anonymous, has also challenged the subpoena process, saying it violates her right to privacy.

Alongside the lawsuits, the RIAA also released details of an online amnesty campaign, offering worried file swappers a provisional shield against being sued if they turn themselves in before a suit is filed.

Under the "Clean Slate" program, file swappers must destroy any copies of copyrighted works they have downloaded from services such as Kazaa, and sign a notarized affidavit pledging never to trade copyrighted works online again.

Anybody who signs and returns the document will not be targeted by the RIAA based on past infringement, Sherman said. However, if their names come up in future file-swapping sweeps, any amnesty seekers could be liable for potentially higher damages based on "willful infringement."

The group said it would not use the information gathered for marketing purposes or share it with any other group of copyright holders. Critics such as the EFF's von Lohmann dismissed the assurances, saying that the RIAA's privacy policy allowed the information to be shared if "required by law," a clause which could allow groups such as music publishers or Hollywood studios to subpoena the information from the RIAA to use in their own lawsuits.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-5072564.html?tag=fd_top

[Kooperman]

We knew this was coming.....I'll be curious to see just how many they actually file after this.

[aqlo]

Sherman said "a handful" of defendants had already agreed to preliminary settlement agreements, averaging payments of about $3,000 apiece.

Later settlements will likely have a higher price tag, since they will be coming after the lawsuits have been filed, Sherman said. However, each suit is being filed with information advising defendants whom to contact if they want a settlement.


Send lawyers guns and money ...

[rainbowdemon]

Originally posted by Kooperman
We knew this was coming.....I'll be curious to see just how many they actually file after this. Hang on everybody, the ride is going to get rough!!

[aqlo]

It seems to me that the record industry has equated file-sharing with actual property damage, p2p is now "morally equivalent" to going down to their offices or stores and doing at least $3000 worth of mayhem.

(Not a suggestion)

[Kooperman]

Originally posted by aqlo
It seems to me that the record industry has equated file-sharing with actual property damage, p2p is now "morally equivalent" to going down to their offices or stores and doing at least $3000 worth of mayhem.

(Not a suggestion)
I believe property loss is what they perceive it as.......the same as shoplifting a copy of a particular CD from Best Buy or Wal Mart. Creators equate it as taking food off their table or money out of their pocket. Few stop to consider extra sales they gain from sampling of songs.

[Pebbles100]

"RIAA President Cary Sherman in a teleconference today characterized the people who were sued as 'major offenders' who distributed about 1,000 copyrighted music files on average."

Well, now we all know roughly how many files it takes to be an RIAA lawsuit target....

[Kooperman]

Originally posted by Pebbles100
"RIAA President Cary Sherman in a teleconference today characterized the people who were sued as 'major offenders' who distributed about 1,000 copyrighted music files on average."

Well, now we all know roughly how many files it takes to be an RIAA lawsuit target....

.....at least on the first round of lawsuits.....

[Pebbles100]

true...

[REDO]

well.... If it takes only 1000 songs. Lets hope they never hear about this board lol. 1000 songs my arse. I can bet over 90% of the members hear have way over that.

I am quoting something somebody said that interested me on /.



...they're not a government. They have no legal standing which would permit them to prosecute or pardon anyone for crimes.

Promising not to prefer civil charges is awfully, awfully magnanimous of our RIAA overlords, but it's not amnesty. And incidentally (pardon my native cynicism), but why do I doubt that the RIAA is willing to enter into a binding contract not to sue? Especially after you've been so kind as to provide them with your identity?

[Pebbles100]

In my opinion, I think they are using this 'amnesty' crap to their advantage. For one, it might make the the public somewhat 'sympathize' with them. When they do file the rest of the lawsuits, it indirectly protects them from an even greater backlash. They could easily say to the public, "Well, we warned them - we even gave them a chance to confess". But who really knows what their real motives are.

[FarhadManjoo]

Hi everyone. I'm a reporter at Salon.com, and I'm looking for people to talk about whether or not they'd sign such an amnesty program.

If you have time and would like to have your thoughts on this appear in Salon, can you briefly e-mail me: Would you sign this? Why or why not? Is it a good idea? You can remain anonymous.

We'll publish it along with other people's thoughts ...

Let me know. Thanks. (Also, can you recommend other people I could ask...?)

--Farhad Manjoo
Reporter, Salon.com
[email protected]
415-645-9217

[aqlo]

a) It makes your identity known where it might otherwise not have been, or might have been insignificant until you spoke up
b) Having done so it fails to protect you from any criminal action (RIAA actions are civil, they have no control over real prosecutors)
c) It also fails to protect you from civil actions by any other body (such as the MPAA)
d) It greatly hurts the cases of any current defendants, if a multitude of people sign this document they each serve as witnesses for the idea that sharing is a crime, something that has not yet been adjudicated
e) It encourages further harassment along these lines at a time when many questions are up in the air
f) It does not apply to anyone who has already been subpoenaed
g) It constitutes a waiver of many rights to which you might otherwise be entitled

Under no circumstances whatsoever would I sign such an onerous document, there is no advantage in doing so which can outweigh the overwhelming disadvantages.

This post © Copyright 2003 by [email protected] for Project: Table-Tipping™
A limited license is hereby granted exclusively for the purpose of supporting and maintaining the proposition that users of legal telecommunications networks should not and must not be held liable for "good faith" re-transmission of any and all data received by them; it is granted reluctantly in the interest of the common good, in the belief that if such re-transmissions are restricted in any way it will be catastrophic to the technological infrastructure and in the knowledge that all parties participating in such networks have already granted this right and waived any claims that might otherwise be entailed; any other usage of this work is strictly prohibited.

Warning: If there is any evidence to suggest that you or anyone in your network has taken any conflicting or incompatible legal position from the one described above then you must immediately delete this work and all associated content. This is not a waiver for or release of any rates, residuals or damages already accrued as a result of your illegal use of this work, but may constitute a mitigating circumstance during adjudication; and does constitute "fair warning" under judicial precedents already established.

[Aaron73153]

I can bet over 90% of the members hear have way over that.

Yes i have over that, but i don't share it all. I share about only 1/2 of what I've got because I mainly share the underground music I have to try to spread it.

[rainbowdemon]

Originally posted by FarhadManjoo
Hi everyone. I'm a reporter at Salon.com, and I'm looking for people to talk about whether or not they'd sign such an amnesty program.

If you have time and would like to have your thoughts on this appear in Salon, can you briefly e-mail me: Would you sign this? Why or why not? Is it a good idea? You can remain anonymous.

We'll publish it along with other people's thoughts ...

Let me know. Thanks. (Also, can you recommend other people I could ask...?)

--Farhad Manjoo
Reporter, Salon.com
[email protected]
415-645-9217 Another one of these?

[shawners]

I should find out the address to the amnesty program, and find a ugly picture of a women on a websight, send it in and with the words "Yo Mama".
I could take digital camera to the Bestbuy and take pictures of the people buying tons of Cd-r's.. and say. we aint quittin!
If you give away your address and break all your cd's.. It means you were not meant for filesharing.

[Kevin06906]

Hey, this is going to be interesting to see. I can't wait until what really happens with these lawsuits.

[rainbowdemon]

Originally posted by aqlo
It seems to me that the record industry has equated file-sharing with actual property damage, p2p is now "morally equivalent" to going down to their offices or stores and doing at least $3000 worth of mayhem.

(Not a suggestion) But it is a very interesting (not a suggestion).

[Kevin06906]

What is up with the search button? Even when i type the thread name into the keyword space, it still does not give me the actual thread.

Also when i put in "kazaa" it gives me like 2 threads. There are a lot of threads about kazaa. What's going on?

[tons of fun]

Please...retain a competent attorney!!

Be well,safe, and let us all fight the R.I.A.A. maggots!!!


:black

[CaptainMorgan]

aqlo,

Your list is brilliant! Did you send it to that Salon reporter?

I hope the 200+ can gather themselves together and mount a serious defence.

[IshareManyFilez]

Haha, my dads a lawyer, and im studying to be one. So who are they going to sue a lawyer who will give them a hard time, or a helpless college student. Think about it.

[rainbowdemon]

Originally posted by IshareManyFilez
Haha, my dads a lawyer, and im studying to be one. So who are they going to sue a lawyer who will give them a hard time, or a helpless college student. Think about it. And do you actually think this makes you immune?

[aqlo]

Haha, my dads a lawyer, and im studying to be one. So who are they going to sue a lawyer who will give them a hard time, or a helpless college student. Think about it. You're right, they're going to sue you, and not your dad.

[FutureIverson]

unless your dad is Jonnie Cocoran? Hang on

[tookind79]

Ok people this is how i look at all this b.s. ok we are in america? or the last i checked we were!! (well most of us) anyways, if we steal shit from other people or discriminate of other people it's against the law?? but if we share what we have so the jealousy and crap would go down and things alike, such as theft of another person that's against the law too..........what about low-life's like me making 20-30 thousand dollars if i was lucky a year.... compared to the rich sluts, and punks that make about what $1,000 just waking up out of bed....... or this "wonderful" j-lo who can spend over $2000 to send for her personnel (regardless of where she was at) or paying $200 a day for her stupid animals to stay in a animal hotel while j-lo's away.............hmm sounds really fair??
<-------not---------> typical america here going on the people with the big $$ count and not little people like me? why because of us they wouldn't be who they are and making that much $$ oh well it's descrimination that's really going on here and im not talking about race, color or religion. but with $$ sounds really fair don't it?? not to me......or im sure everyone else who can't afford 20-30 dollars to go buy their cd's and crap... maybe we all should just quit buying their stuff, and not share for awhile then we will see who will be begging, garuanteed it won't be us....................

[Kooperman]

uhhh......ok....

[CaptainMorgan]

I emailed the gentleman asking about the amnesty program the following letter. It summarizes my feelings right now.
----------------------

Dear Farhad Manjoo,

Please keep me anonymous.

This following was posted on zeropaid.com. I have copied it in its entirety, but I have removed its authorship attributions.

I am now a criminal. So are you.

You now have in your possession a pirated computer file with its copyright management information removed. If the original author searched your machine and found this file, he could easily receive subpoena for all of your personal information, and with that "de facto" evidence threaten you with a lawsuit. You could be threatened with; possession of a pirated work, intent to distribute pirated works, (you are indeed in the digital publishing industy) and tampering with the work's copyright management information.

If you wish to claim that you have a "fair-use" for having this document; you must first acknowledge that this file is indeed copyrighted. This means that normally your possession of the file would be illegal, but owing to your particular circumstances you should be excluded from prosecution. You must convince either the original author or a judge, perhaps you would win, perhaps not.

It is clear, however, that I cannot win a fair-use exclusion in this case. I knowingly copied the file, removed the CMI and distributed it.

This leaves you in a serious dilemma. You have knowledge of a crime. It is clear that you know what I have done is a crime. I have told you. You MUST report me to the proper authorities. However, you have promised in your invitation for discussion posted on ZeroPaid.com that I "can remain anonymous." You have a duty as a journalist to protect my anonymity. Are you willing to go to jail for me? Or, are you willing to risk your journalistic reputation?
-----
Or perhaps, just perhaps. This file is not copyrighted at all. But, come on now. That is just stupid.

There are two discussion threads on ZeroPaid.com which will attempt to convince you of just that point.

Music Sharing is indeed currently legal,
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&postid=163843

and

Digital copyright law itself is impossibly flawed.
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14277

They are worth a read. I'm convinced.

Anonymously yours,


*** Caution *** Pirated Material Follows.

Reasons not to consider the Amnesty offer

a) It makes your identity known where it might otherwise not have been, or might have been insignificant until you spoke up
b) Having done so it fails to protect you from any criminal action (RIAA actions are civil, they have no control over real prosecutors)
c) It also fails to protect you from civil actions by any other body (such as the MPAA)
d) It greatly hurts the cases of any current defendants, if a multitude of people sign this document they each serve as witnesses for the idea that sharing is a crime, something that has not yet been adjudicated
e) It encourages further harassment along these lines at a time when many questions are up in the air
f) It does not apply to anyone who has already been subpoenaed
g) It constitutes a waiver of many rights to which you might otherwise be entitled

Under no circumstances whatsoever would I sign such an onerous document, there is no advantage in doing so which can outweigh the overwhelming disadvantages.

[Pebbles100]

Originally posted by Kooperman
uhhh......ok....

lol -- Someone's angry at J-lo. :mellow

Anyhow, I'm going to throw this news article in here since you guys are talking about this
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112362,00.asp

[Kooperman]

Here's another story from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/technology/09MUSI.html?th


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 9, 2003
261 Lawsuits Filed on Internet Music Sharing
By AMY HARMON


he recording industry filed 261 lawsuits yesterday against people who share copyrighted music over the Internet, charging them with copyright infringement in the first broad legal action aimed at ordinary users of file-sharing networks.

The blizzard of lawsuits — which is expected to be followed by thousands more — is a turning point for the music industry, which has sought to avoid direct conflict with its potential consumers as it battles online piracy. But industry officials said they now believe that the only way to stem the widespread file-swapping is to make people realize they will be punished for participating — even in the context of an Internet culture where many forms of information are free.

"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America. "But when you're being victimized by illegal activity there comes a time when you have to step up and take appropriate action."

In an effort to soften the legal attack, the record industry group is also offering amnesty for file sharers who turn themselves in before legal action is taken against them. Under the "clean slate" program unveiled by the industry yesterday, people seeking amnesty must destroy files that they have downloaded illegally and sign a notarized form pledging never to trade copyrighted works again.

Since the rise of Napster, the first popular file-sharing network, millions of people have traded copyrighted music on the Internet without paying for it. The suits filed yesterday are intended to change the perception of many people that they could do so with impunity.

The record industry's trade group said it selected the defendants by employing simple search techniques that allow anyone using the major file-sharing services to see what files other users are making available to copy from their own computers.

The group chose to sue a sampling of people using KaZaA, iMesh, Blubster, Grokster and Gnutella, who each had placed more than 1,000 songs in a folder that allowed millions of strangers to copy them.

For now, the industry is pursuing people who actively "share" songs, rather than those who download. In making it more risky to share, the record labels hope to upset the ecology of file-sharing networks by choosing those who make it possible for the much larger population of users — sometimes known as "leeches" — to copy songs.

"They're hitting the networks in their Achilles' heel, which is that everybody can share but no one person has incentive to share," said Jonathan Zittrain, a co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.

"It's not as if people are excited about sharing, they're excited about taking."

The legal campaign is part of a broad strategy the record industry is using to try to bolster flagging sales, including making more music available to buy online, and in some cases lowering the price of CD's.

But some critics say that the industry risks stirring widespread resentment in cracking down on an activity embraced by an estimated 60 million Americans.

"Instead of treating customers like criminals, the industry should look at what they want and find a way to offer it to them," said Wendy Seltzer, a staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Instead of asking people to come to them with a signed admission of unlawful conduct they should be asking people to come to them with payment for a system for file-sharing services."

Elan Oren, chief executive of iMesh, a file-sharing network, said that rather than filing huge lawsuits, record labels should work with file-sharing services to devise a method of compensation in exchange for legally distributing their music over the peer-to-peer networks. But record companies say creating a compensation system for file sharing — for instance, imposing a tax that could be redistributed to copyright holders — would be extremely difficult.

"The major problem is that the industry is unwilling to make their content available on iMesh," Mr. Oren said. "So what choice do the users have?"

They could, of course, buy music online or in record stores. Record industry leaders note that there are now several legal online services selling music, like Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store.

But several of the defendants in the lawsuits said they had no idea that what they — or in some cases, their children — were doing was illegal.

"How are we supposed to know it's illegal?" said Vonnie Bassett, a bookkeeper in Redwood City, Calif., who said her 17-year-old son uses KaZaA. "Half the things on the Internet must be illegal then."

Ms. Bassett, who was informed of the lawsuit by a reporter, said she had assumed that because Napster, the company that unleashed a wave of file sharing in 2000, was shut down, the new services must be legal.

"Why don't they sue KaZaA?" Ms. Bassett added. "Why are they suing the people? That's the part I don't understand."

In fact, the record companies are suing KaZaA. But a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled last spring that two other file-sharing programs, Grokster and Morpheus, were significantly different from Napster and could not be held responsible for how some people might use them to violate copyright.

The record labels said the decision, which they have appealed, left them little choice but to pursue individual users of those programs.

The litigation strategy was further buoyed by surveys that showed how impervious people are to ethical entreaties.

A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 67 percent of people downloading music did not care whether or not it was copyrighted.

A separate survey by Forrester Research found that 68 percent of young file-traders would stop downloading when confronted with the threat of fines or jail time.

Traffic on file-sharing services dipped after the recording industry announced its plan to sue file sharers in June. The record labels are hoping that as college students — the largest group of file sharers — return to their campuses, news of the lawsuits will make them well aware of the potential legal penalties they face.

Under copyright law, violators can be held liable for $750 to $150,000 for each incident. For defendants who were making huge libraries of songs available to copy, that could amount to millions of dollars.

But record industry officials said that some people who contacted the record industry group after learning that they had been subpoenaed have already agreed to settlements averaging about $3,000. The settlements are expected to be slightly higher for those who are named in the lawsuits.

It was the industry's interest in settling that inspired the amnesty program, recording executives said. "It's our version of an olive branch," Mr. Sherman said.

But some public interest groups warned that if people identified themselves publicly as having violated copyright law they could be sued by other copyright holders, even if the record industry granted them immunity.

"We are concerned that the R.I.A.A.'s amnesty program is an imperfect option," Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit group that describes itself as an advocate for the digital rights of consumers, said in a statement.

Fighting the lawsuit, several lawyers said, would be an uphill battle. The law prohibits distributing copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder, and people who have made available large numbers of files for others to download will probably be viewed as distributors. But some legal experts questioned whether the record industry might lose a larger battle over the scope of digital copyrights, even if it wins its legal cases.

"It could backfire," said Jane C. Ginsburg, a law professor at Columbia University. "If you have really widespread copyright infringement, there is a great temptation to say if it's that widespread it can't be infringing anymore. The risk of suing individuals is that there will be more pressure in that direction."

Marvin Hooker, a 39-year-old resident of San Francisco who is being sued by the record industry, offers a point of view held by millions of file sharers.

Mr. Hooker, who works in a bank, said that when he heard music that appealed to him on KaZaA, he typically downloaded the song and kept it, perhaps burning it on a CD. He says he does not believe that such actions violate the law.

"To me, the way I see it, I am not taking anything from them," Mr. Hooker said. He compared the Internet music download to making a copy of music or a tape for friends.

"I don't see people getting sued because of that," he said.

[Kooperman]

Another from the Chicago Sun Times, with more local flavor:



Music group files suit against MP3 downloaders
September 9, 2003

BY ART GOLAB AND ANNIE SWEENEY Staff Reporters


They downloaded everything from Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" to Madonna's "Material Girl," and now the recording industry wants to make 261 people, including 36 northern Illinois residents, pay the piper.

They were accused in federal courts from coast to coast Monday by the Recording Industry Association of America of downloading and sharing copyrighted songs over the Internet.

Many of them were parents who didn't even know their kids were pirating music on the family computer. Take the suburban 60-year-old man accused of downloading tunes by boy bands WestLife and Backstreet Boys, as well as songs by Alanis Morissette.

"He had no clue," said his daughter via telephone. "Once he got the letter, he told me and I said I better cancel the whole thing."

The girl, who did not give her name, said all of her friends downloaded music, but none of their families was sued.

Indeed, most of those sued locally, according to public record searches, appear to be from 40 to 60 years old, not the prime age group for downloading music.

Nevertheless, the RIAA said it expects to file more lawsuits, and the total could eventually reach the thousands.

''Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation,'' RIAA president Cary Sherman said. ''But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action.''

The music industry says file-sharing is a violation of copyright laws and blames the practice for a 31 percent decline in compact disc music sales in the last three years. The individuals sued Monday were sharing, on average, more than 1,000 songs each, the group said.

Downloaders hit with lawsuits could face fines of $150,000 and up to 10 years in jail for each downloaded song. However, college students accused of trading copyrighted songs on the Web have settled for as little as $12,500.

But more important than the money, the RIAA is hoping to scare people away from file-sharing services like KaZaA, Morpheus and Limewire.

"They're looking at it as a deterrent," said James Speta, a Northwestern University Law School professor specializing in Internet law. "Many people, especially younger people, view the downloading of music as essentially harmless, and RIAA is trying to create a cultural shift whereby people think that this is illegal behavior, or at least behavior to be avoided."

That may already be happening. Since the RIAA announced its intention to file the suits in June, use of top file-swapping service KaZaA has fallen 22 percent, says analyst Phil Leigh of research firm Raymond James. But it's ''a hollow victory,'' he says, noting that summer CD sales have fallen more than 9 percent.

However, U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has called the music industry's tactics "excessive" and plans to hold congressional hearings on the subject later this month. "The industry seems to have adopted a 'shotgun' approach that could potentially cause injury and harm to innocent people who may simply have been victims of circumstance, or possessed a lack of knowledge of the rules related to digital sharing of files," Coleman wrote in a letter to the RIAA.

''You have to live in a cave not to know this is a huge issue today, particularly if you're the parent of a 13- or 17-year-old,'' Coleman said last month.

The identities of people targeted in the lawsuits were released by their Internet service providers after the RIAA subpoenaed them for the information.

The initial complaints filed today give little more than the name of the person holding the Internet account and titles of some of the songs shared. Before going to trial the RIAA will have to come up with more specific information for each case.

And for those not yet tangled in its legal web, RIAA is offering amnesty: If you admit to sharing online music illegally, promise to delete it and not do it again, they'll leave you alone.

But 60 million Americans have downloaded music, according to Cindy Cohn and Fred von Lohmann, lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

''Trying to throw 60 million Americans in jail is not a reasonable approach,'' von Lohmann said. ''That's more than voted for President Bush.''

Contributing: AP, Gannett and Bloomberg news services

[Theinfamousone]

I'm really curious what the RIAA is offering us when they give us "amnesty".

A) If you've already been caught sharing copyrighted songs, then there is no way out but through an extensive court battle and paying ludacris amounts of money. Deleting the files at this point is theoretically pointless because you've already been caught.

B) It's not like they are searching house to house and if they have your address on the list they will just skip over you figuring you still have nothing they want.

C) If they manage to catch you sharing a file at this point, which is just as likely as anyone else, you would be in even more trouble because you are breaching your notarized contract.

[CaptainMorgan]

Every article has some little bit of RIAA ground work in it.


originally CNET News.comFrom the rise of Napster until today, tens of millions of people have started trading songs, movies and software online through services such as Kazaa with little thought for the legality of their actions.

Ever thought that it is not illegal? Why is there a bias that way. Prejudice is bad.


originally NY Times
the only way to stem the widespread file-swapping is to make people realize they will be punished for participating — even in the context of an Internet culture where many forms of information are free.

"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America. "But when you're being victimized by illegal activity there comes a time when you have to step up and take appropriate action."

Because you don't like it, does not make it legal.


originally Chicago Sun Times
'Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation,'' RIAA president Cary Sherman said. ''But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action.''

The music industry says file-sharing is a violation of copyright laws and blames the practice for a 31 percent decline in compact disc music sales in the last three years. The individuals sued Monday were sharing, on average, more than 1,000 songs each, the group said.

Because, CD sales have dropped, does not imply that the cause was illegal. It also does not imply that "high" value they dropped from is the number of CDs the RIAA is "entitled" to sell. It is only the number of CDs that they "wanted" to sell. Price/Value fixing is a bad thing.

Sales of Enron, and WorldCom stock have dropped as well. Who is doing the Illegal activity in this case, the seller or the buyer?

Please keep making these arguments like this, logically, clearly and loudly to everyone you know in real. The Only way to make this "true" is for the average Joe on the street to "believe" it.

There are threads in the P2politics forum that will help you support this point.

CaptainMorgan - Spamming for a good reason. If it's GOOD, that makes it OK.

[tons of fun]

U R Scrood........

[rainbowdemon]

I posted that too. But I removed it when I saw this. Maybe I woory too much, but I didn't wnat to take any chances.

[tookind79]

lol not angry with her (j-lo) (i was just watching a documentry on j-lo that's why i used her name lol) it's just a prime example of "stars" etc...i mean come on just about every "star" spends the whole lot of $$ on stupid things.

what are they (RIAA/MPAA) going to do though. shut down radio stations too, i mean come on now i could just turn on the radio and record the songs that i like only. after all isn't the radio stations sharing the music with us, making it possible for us people to copy it? then how will music stars and the like get to be known??? hell there've been times where i'd get some songs from the radio station, and recopy them for some friends, course it's been years ago but still......

[Kooperman]

Another news story dealing with lawsuit victims:
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzmusi143454447sep14,0,6719018.story?coll=ny-business-headlines

[rainbowdemon]

Lured by the siren song of free tunes and now being forced to face the music, some of those accused of copyright infringement last week have begun lashing out at the providers of the freebies: the file-sharing companies themselves. This is just wrong. It's like being angry with the gun manufacturers if you get charged with murder.

[Evil_Dweller_01]

Just went to the movies yesterday and saw that gay anti-piracy commercial from the RIAA

The guy talking about losing his job...wow real sentimental and well thought out
I wonder how much he got for the commercial

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by Kooperman
Fighting the lawsuit, several lawyers said, would be an uphill battle. The law prohibits distributing copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder,

Exactly... so why not changing the law. Why the law is defending few rich assholes, instead of working for us and benefit development of culture, technology, and stuff like that...
if you're copying something you're not supposed to, it's your fault, not the machine's. Who decides what is right or wrong?
Millions of people that do it, or the few that profits from music?

[Wolfie]

Originally posted by anotherjustme
Exactly... so why not changing the law. Why the law is defending few rich assholes, instead of working for us and benefit development of culture, technology, and stuff like that...

Dude, its been the trend since beginning human history. The rich and powerful have always influenced the laws and thier enforcement and everyone else gets the shaft.

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by Wolfie
Dude, its been the trend since beginning human history. The rich and powerful have always influenced the laws and thier enforcement and everyone else gets the shaft.

Yes! It was called "dark ages", when people were ignorant, uninformed and terrified of the "tyrants wrath".
Don't you think that times have changed a bit?
Now we have democracy and people are a little more educated, so why not trying to unite and kick those assholes out?

[Wolfie]

Originally posted by anotherjustme
Don't you think that times have changed a bit?

On the outside they have very nice paint job going but on the inside rich are still in the driver seat. I'm generally a pessimist when comes to ppl and politics and see the worst in both. However, I don't mind being proven wrong once in a while.

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by Wolfie
On the outside they have very nice paint job going but on the inside rich are still in the driver seat. I'm generally a pessimist when comes to ppl and politics and see the worst in both. However, I don't mind being proven wrong once in a while.

Honestly... I may not be a pessimist. I'd say I have more realistic approach, which unfortunatelly, doesn't differ much from pessimism.
It's just... I want to believe that I'm wrong, that we can dissobey the the tyrants will...

Damn... I don't want to be right about us being doomed...

Isn't there anything we can do anymore?

[tookind79]

like i posted before if we all quit buying stuff from the "stars" we could all end up on top..........because the "stars" will then start begging for their industry to go back up..........yea surely the it'll lead to a boring life but in all actuality think about before t.v.'s and radio's etc. but only till they start begging for their $$ there's ways of us being on top of all this crap..........................not saying my way would work but if we all put our heads together we could make a difference..................

[Omyn]

No, I will not ever sign the amnesty form.

Why give them your information in the first place, as we all know the RIAA has motives behind the things that they do.

If I were to sign such a form, all it would take for them to do is to put me on "the list" and say that we caught you downloading such and such, which they would find on the form that I had already signed.

And then lie and say that they never recieved any such document from me.

The RIAA rips off artists and keeps profits for themselves, most artists never see a dime.

After seeing their maliciousness torwards 12 yr olds and senior citizens, NEVER again shall I ever buy a single record from them.

They wont get one cent from me.

[FutureIverson]

Originally posted by Omyn
No, I will not ever sign the amnesty form.

Why give them your information in the first place, as we all know the RIAA has motives behind the things that they do.

If I were to sign such a form, all it would take for them to do is to put me on "the list" and say that we caught you downloading such and such, which they would find on the form that I had already signed.

And then lie and say that they never recieved any such document from me.

The RIAA rips off artists and keeps profits for themselves, most artists never see a dime.

After seeing their maliciousness torwards 12 yr olds and senior citizens, NEVER again shall I ever buy a single record from them.

They wont get one cent from me.

Amen

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by Omyn
No, I will not ever sign the amnesty form.

Why give them your information in the first place, as we all know the RIAA has motives behind the things that they do.

In my opinion. What they are trying to do is sort of set a precedence. I'm affraid if it isn't too late already, because of the fact that many people sued, have taken the "lesser" punishement.
Now if one would decide to go to court and fight, they will bring up some of the previously "attacked" individuals. Now signing this "Amnesty", it's like saying..."YES, what I did was immoral and wrong". Which is not even your own belief.
They trying to trick us, anyway they can.
By sueing this 12y/o, I think they wanted to show us, that it doesn't matter what age and who you arembut they will still go after you. Exept, I think this act, will only kick'em in the ass. That was outragous, and I even saw this being discussed on tv...

[Malicious Intent]

The amnesty is really for us, its so the RIAA don't look so bad to non-filesharers. They may say "well I have no sympathy for them getting sued - they were offered a way out and decided to flaunt the rules anyway"
If only a few people say it, then it has served its purpose.

[tookind79]

US cableco seeks to quash RIAA subpoenas

Charter Communications, the US cableco, is challenging the RIAA's attempt to hand over the names of 150 customers who allegedly swapped music files illegally over the net.
The company filed suit on Friday in its home town of St Louis, Missouri seeking to block subpoenas obtained by the RIAA.
Tom Hearity, associate general counsel for Charter, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "We are the only major cable company that has not as yet provided the RIAA a single datum of information," AP reports.

interesting i thought anyway

[anotherjustme]

On the outside they have very nice paint job going but on the inside rich are still in the driver seat. I'm generally a pessimist when comes to ppl and politics and see the worst in both. However, I don't mind being proven wrong once in a while.

Hey, about what I said earlier...



Originally posted by Kooperman
Fighting the lawsuit, several lawyers said, would be an uphill battle. The law prohibits distributing copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder,

Exactly... so why not changing the law. Why the law is defending few rich assholes, instead of working for us and benefit development of culture, technology, and stuff like that...

if you're copying something you're not supposed to, it's your fault, not the machine's. Who decides what is right or wrong?
Millions of people that do it, or the few that profits from music?

So, changing the law... hmmm... I just made a post in the "Can we make our own Internet" thread, where I sort of drifed off for a sec. I was merely speculating about future posibilities, not for us, but rather for our kids, or grand kids, but now... It got me thinking...
It could be done even now... take a look at this post and tell me, what do you think. Read the part about "Poll system"


http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=181060#post181060

I just think, it's a legal way for us, to have our voices be heard...
I think, i'm gonna look a little closer into it, to see what kind of procedures are involved and to see what kind of other obstacles might get in the way, so I could modify original idea, into something that can function in a real world.

</me intrigued>

[tookind79]

we all should have voices, we the people are the ones who should be making the laws not some big wig MF with so much $$ in his/her pocket, but it all goes to the enemy within........sad but true.