Sue em all and let God sort them out
Related link: http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/062503.asp
Update 19 July
The RIAA's subpoenas are so prolific that the U.S. District Court in Washington, already suffering staff shortages, has been forced to reassign employees from elsewhere in the clerk's office to help process paperwork, said Angela Caesar-Mobley, the clerk's operations manager.
Hm. Hmmmmm. They're doing a DoS on the body whose help they need... Hm...
The RIAA expects to use the data it collects as the basis for filing what could ultimately be thousands of lawsuits charging individual peer-to-peer music distributors with copyright infringement.
After label heads went on record promising harsher and harsher measures, this is kind of a letdown. Thousands of lawsuits is a pathetic number -- if they want to be taken seriously, they'll need tens of thousands.
Let's see, there are a hundred million people on the filesharing networks over a reasonably long period of time, according to BigChampagne.com. If the RIAA sues ten thousand, the chance of being sued is one in a hundred thousand. Terrifying.
It's gratifying when they bring the fight to technical turf, anyway. Concealing the source of bytes is just another information processing problem, so we're about to have another round of whack-a-mole. Hackers, start your engines.
Categories
Web
Comments (24)
Read More Entries by Lucas Gonze.
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
OK so what about all the used discs I buy from the LMS? NONE of that money gets back to the artist and yet none gets back to the RIAA either. But that is legal. The point here is that once that intial purchase (original CD) is completed by whoever, the RIAA and the artist are done as far as entitlement. So by your thinking or not thinking as the case may be shouldn't they be suing the record stores for reselling their copyrighted material for a profit? They won't, because they believe they need the distribution chain. They don't understand the power of the P2P distribution chain.
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
Maybe we should ask some of the poor musicians to part with some of their big budget necessities, like platinum toilet seats, and many cars. Do the musicians realize that without the fans and consumers. They don't exsist!!!!
The end of music as we know it
This is sickening, greed is perhaps the worst of all human traits, and the RIAA is the definition of the word greed, they are also like a plague to the industry in general. What percentage of the profits from records sales do artists actually get? In the cases of Eminem, Ludikris, and Marylin Manson, they get a relatively small cut of the pie, small in the large scheme, but in the cases of such high-profile musicians enough to make them filthy rich; yes thats more rich than you or I will ever be, also known as in posession of more money than they could ever need or spend, not to be confused with the average consumer who may rake in a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of dollars a year to cover the cost of existing with a few luxuries (among mine are a computer with a cd burner and internet connection) who for years has been getting the shaft from the exploding prices on EVERYTHING just so a very few old rich white guys can have multiple houses and cars and bling bling swimming pools and mink coats and whatever else the rich bastards decide they "need" well I for one am sick of this nonsense, any artist who has respect for the idea of music, which is something that was in my humble opinion created to improve the quality of life of the listener, should understand that more listeners are better, I mean yeah everyone needs to get paid but when you are living the high life, please don't try to shove your morality down my throat when I trade music online, its like sacrelige, and the sad thing is artists who get on tv and whine about how rough times are because they aren't getting every dime for their music should realize that the RIAA and record companies are RAPING their wallets for no reason, because such entities are middle men in an industry where there doesn't need to be anyone in the middle anymore, with the internet, consumers can link up with artists directly, giving artists a higher profit ratio and giving consumers instant access to the quality music they deserve at, wait a second, thats right, a lower price than cds cost, why? because we can all cut out the middle men, bye bye RIAA, bye bye Record Labels, their recent actions indicate an act of desperation on the part of a dying cause, the average consumer needs to take a stand against the "machine" (sorry for the cliche, but it really is a machine as it has escalated to the point that the industry has lost sight of its purpose because it has green eyes) The fact that the RIAA is trying to purposefully ruin people's lives with these outrageous lawsuits because those average people just like you and me, decided to get their music online instead of in a store, leads me to the conclusion that our legal system is seriously flawed and it is going to be one hell of a battle trying to fix it so these greedy fools can't destroy people's lives for their own monetary gain. One more conclusion before I calm down and stop typing, I believe whole heartedly that if the word evil can apply to those other than terrorists, I think it accurately represents the RIAA, as they are pretty close to the bottom of the barrel in terms of integrity and human decency, and personally I think this will bring them bad karma and if we are all lucky, they will all drown in pools of their own blood, eh maybe thats a bit extreme, then again so is suing people...
-To hell with the RIAA, they look out for themselves, so should we
aNTI CHRIST
i WANT TO DECLAIR MYSELF THE ANTI CHRIST
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
This is still all a joke! The RIAA has us all fooled into believing that they are losing money and will sue each of us for what? For sharing a music file?
I haven't made a profit from any song downloaded nor have I ever planned on doing so. The shear quality of most downloaded music makes it just good enough for home use anyway. I fail to see the RIAA's claims of PIRACY in file sharing.
They claim to be representing the hard working musician? Now that's an oxymoron!!! The only thing that I ever see advertised about these so called "hard working musicians" is how hard they party? Check out their videos and then watch MTV's, "CRIB's" Show. The truth is in the pudding.
The Record Companies rob us blind by charging exoberant amounts for a CD. The stores have their mark ups as well and then we're all looking at the $10.00 to $20.00 range for something that costs next to nothing to produce. Not to mention the trash usually recorded along with that ONE song that the Record companies allowed on the radio to entice us into buying the whole CD is simply wrong!
You've got to ask yourself, Who's ripping off whom?
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
The AHRA was aimed at businesses who tried to prevent the selling of machines capable of making copies. It was never intended to give people the right to circumvent well-established copyright laws. It does NOT allow file sharing. It reinforces the also-well-established copyright exemptions of "Fair Use" which allows PERSONAL non-commercial (not ALL noncommercial) copying.
So, yes, the RIAA COULD successfully sue you, but WON'T simply because they don't have the resourcecs to go after every violator. There is no logic in AHRA to support someone getting something for free that was always intended to be bought.
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
Do you immediately erase all recordings after you have "previewed" them? Why did you need to make a copy of it to preview it? You can listen to radio to do virtually all the previewing you need.
If you record music downloaded or "borrowed" from a friend and keep it (instead of going out and buying it) you have STOLEN value from the copyright holder, and indirectly, from the person(s) who created the work, the musicians and the songwriters.
A "copyright" is literally and legally (and morally, if you give it half a thought) the Right to Copy.
And THAT is the end of the story. And you SHOULD be sued if you can't figure out a way to abide by Laws.
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
The AHRA does NOT permit music sharing. It allows people to make copies of music they bought, for their own use, not to give to friends so that they don'e have to buy it themselves. And it definitely does not allow for the downloading of copyrighted music from websites to avoid the purchase of music, that is the process whereby musicians earn their living.
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
You can't honestly believe that people would pay anything more than a nominal fee (i.e., not the amount that would really satisfy all the needs (including, yes, legitimate profit goals) of the content holders) to download music. They have been doing it because it is cheaper than going out and buying the CDs from their local stores. Free (or just for the often ridiculously-low price of blank CDs) is a whole lot better than the 12-20 bucks forthe real thing, and you don't have to take songs you don't want.
No business can offer a compelling alternative to the almost-free alternative they have now.
The end of music as we know it
In November of 1981, the music industry sponsored ads featuring the likes of 10cc, Elton John, and Gary Numan against the immorality of using tape recorders at home, a practice that was "wiping out music."
In September of 2002, the music industry sponsored ads featuring the likes of Eminem, Ludacris, and Marilyn Manson arguing that the downloading of songs is immoral.
Do you see a pattern here? The sky is falling!
In the '80s, the recording industry apologized for the high prices of CDs, saying that the technology was new and expensive, but promising that the prices would drop. At that time, vinyl records were $8 to $10 (US dollars), and CDs started at about $13 to $14.
Now you can go get a spindle pack of 50 80-minute blank CDs for $15 with a $10 or $15 rebate. Blank CDs are less than a dime each in small quantities. When you buy them a million or so at a time, the cost is negligible.
Musicians (on the whole) aren't making any more now than they were $20 years ago. The difference is the RIAA.
Did you know that part of the money you paid for every blank audiocassette you bought back in the '80s (in the US) went to the RIAA (and still does), to offset their losses caused by the industry-destroying recording of music by people at home?
Did you know that that's the only significant difference between the blank CDs needed for home audio systems and blank CDs used in computers? The home-audio CDs are no more expensive to manufacture, but they're as much as 20 or 30 times more expensive (last I checked -- it's been a while) to purchase. The reason for the price difference? The RIAA gets that money, to offset their losses caused by the industry-destroying recording of music by people at home. And if you don't have the specially coded, more expensive CDs, home-audio recorders can't use them. (Luckily, computer CD burners don't care.)
I have a hard time feeling sorry for an industry that has a long history of predicting the end of the world, only to watch their own profits climb. There have been several CDs that I never would have heard had they not been shared with me that I have then gone out and purchased. (Dido's "No Angel" comes to mind, as does Sting's "... All This Time," and Genesis' "Selling England by the Pound.") There are others in my collection (1964's "Beatles For Sale," for example) that I have only in MP3 form, for which I feel no guilt. (I doubt Sir Paul really needs the extra few percent my purchase of the CD would provide him.)
Without the buzz generated by file sharing, groups like Tatoo (Taty in Russian) would not be the sensations they are. I've had a CD burned from their songs in Russian on my desk for nearly a year now, and that pre-US-release buzz and publicity for what is, essentially, a pair of cute girls who sing pop songs mediocrely, but do so in their underwear, is a HUGE part of their success.
I'm bouncing all over the place here, but the long and short of it is that the RIAA harbors greed and is not working for the benefit of the musicians it claims to be protecting. I feel it's almost my patriotic duty to continue to share files, if for no other reason than to spite the slime-balls at the RIAA.
Save the industry. Swap music.
-- L.T.
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
I'll bet you either work for the RIAA, a media company or know someone who does.
The recording industry brought this on themselves and although I don't download, I have absolutely NO sympathy for the music industry.
It's tactics have always been heavy-handed. If they had enough vision to see the Internet as a great way to distribute music for minimal costs, they would have made billions by now!
Instead, the industry stuck to a business model that customers didn't want and when Napster and P2P came out, it filled a vaccuum that the industry created for itself.
When iTunes has a Windows version, I will probably use it to download. Though, I think Steve Jobs shot himself in the foot by not launching a Windows version at the same time.
Again, no sympathy here. Piracy would not be so rampant if the music industry had given the people what they wanted in the first place: Music that is affordable and that you aren't stuck with 18 bad songs on a CD just for 2 good ones.
Now look at the idiot mentality.... let's sue our customers. Where in blazes did these people in charge come from? That is NOT how you resolve this issue.
Oh, while I am at it... do you use a VCR or DVR to record your favorite show? Did you know the media industry also said that was illegal? Congress and the courts determined that recording a program on TV was fair use. So, if you are so gung-ho for the recording industry, maybe you should give up your VCR. That is freeloading and hurting all those actors and movie studios because you don't go out and buy the movie instead of recording it on HBO.
Cheers!
I guess I better hide...
If you feel that you're stealing, you shouldn't do it.
Obfuscate your MP3s 8-)
Ogg's cool, but it has a lot of the same technical hurdles to overcome that DRM does, i.e. that MP3 is the standard and standards are nearly impossible to beat once they get a foothold. We're going to have to do an all-out defense of MP3 when Microsoft gets 100% behind WMA, so I'm actually against Ogg.
Obfuscate your MP3s 8-)
I'm ripping my entire CD collection to Ogg-Vorbis (http://www.xiph.org). It sounds better (to me) at comparable or lower bit rates, producing slightly smaller files, it is unencumbered by any patent issues (unlike MP3), and it's free. Google for tckoggripper for a free multi-platform ripper.
Best of all, it creates .ogg files, not .mp3. The RIAA will never find 'em... 8-)
I guess I better hide...
Really, if the FBI cracks down on me and makes me pay $150,000 I'd consider it a bargain with the amount of stuff i'd steal anyway. If I get kicked off MSN that just means I have to use AOL. and i'm sure AOL would be glad I came.
Long before Napster
Long before Napster ever came along poeple traded music with each other through FTP sites and MIRC. They will never stop people from sharing music. Anyone with any computer knowledge knows that you don't need a p2p network to share music. Until the RIAA decides to get off people's ass about file sharing I won't purchase one single cd or cd single, and I purchase quite a bit. I hope the RIAA likes seeing music sales drop even further. That's exactly whats going to happen when they start coming after consumers.
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
Anthony, file sharing isn't illegal according to the Audio Home Recording Act. The AHRA states, and I quote:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings. In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers can’t be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Because most of us don't sell our downloaded/shared music, the RIAA can't sue us under the logic of the AHRA.
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
Anthony, file sharing isn't illegal according to the Audio Home Recording Act. The AHRA states, and I quote:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings. In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers can’t be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Because most of us don't sell our downloaded/shared music, the RIAA can't sue us under the logic of the AHRA.
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
It is _not_ wrong. Tell me how it is.
I have not stolen anything or deprived a person of a material good. I am previewing an idea, and if I like it, I will buy it. End of story. Sue me.
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
About high profile cases: well, that's the plan, and it's certainly enough to scare a few folks, but the odds are still so good that it won't ultimately matter. This is just a blocking action in hopes of giving pay services a little more relative action. Do the actuarial math and I'm pretty sure you'll see that users are on net profitable given 1/200K chance of being caught against a $15K loss if you do get caught.
About wrong and illegal: it's virtuous to share with your neighbor; it's not illegal until a case actually gets to court.
About reasonably priced services: I personally use the iTunes store, eMusic, and a variety of homebrewed filesharing tools. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. I agree that Job's calling up "karma" is brilliant, and I agree that there is a karmic cost, since you want to do things that help out the folks in the last-wave music industry, but the true virtue (or lack) of filesharing comes from how it affects everyone.
(Sorry for sloppy drafting -- a busy day at work.)
Is it really PIRACY?
You should try one of the all-you-can-eat subscription services. These leave a lot to be desired, but how well they solve the problem you're talking about will blow your mind.
A blog entry on eMusic is here.
Is it really PIRACY?
What is the difference between borrowing a buddies new CD and ultimately deciding that it sucks and glad that you didn't waste your hard earned money on it, and file sharing over the net? Generally, who has ever ran out to the store, paid $15.00 for a new CD and loved every song? In most cases, out of the 11 to 12 songs recorded on a CD, 2 maybe 3 are worth a darn? Who's responsibility is it to guarantee us, the consumers, that the product that we buy from them is every bit as good as advertised or the $10.00 to $20.00 that we paid for it? It starts with the Record Companies. They need to step up to the plate and tell these one hit wonders that they need to find other employment. They need to ensure that we, the consumers, are purchasing a good product! Is it happening? No! As long as we continue to buy crap the Record Companies will continue to sell it. Maybe, we should boycott music sales and force this issue upon them?
I find the RIAA detestable and thier methods very NAZI like. Threatening to collect data straight from your computer sounds like INVASION of PRIVACY to me! Does it to you? Unfortunately I'm caving in myself on this issue. I was always able to see their point, but knew that they didn't care about mine. There's a lot of good music and great musicians out there and as long as they continue to strive to better the last album they put out then I'll continue to buy, but the magic word here is STRIVE to be BETTER! If they want my money, and they DO, then they'll have to sell a better product first!
They dont't need to sue tens or hundreds of thousands
They only need a few high profile cases of ruining people's lives to put the scare into many, many more. How many people are going to answer yes to the question, "Is trading music illegally worth losing my house/car/job/etc.?" (even if the chance is very, very small).
Trading copyrighted music _is_ wrong, and it _is_ illegal, and I even think most people who do it would admit that. The reason they keep doing it is that their need for that kind of service (downloadable, sharable, easily-reproduceable and -mixable on multiple media/devices) is so strong and isn't being met well by the market at all.
Given a **reasonably priced** service with the same or better quality, I think most people would be happy to switch and "do the right thing". That's why I think Steve Jobs and Apple are brilliant. With their whole "good karma" schpiel, they actually "get it". They understand that the best way to stop people trading copyrighted music illegally isn't to sue them, it's to offer them a compelling and better alternative.
--Anthony R. Thompson
i spend about $100-$250 a year on CD's
I will not spend another dime on music. Do you think people who do not purchase music care about p2p? It's meaningless to them. But ask a p2p user how many cd's they buy and the RIAA is playing a dangerous game. Good luck shooting yourselves in the foot.