Subpoenas Sent to File-Sharers Prompt Anger and Remorse - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Glad-I-Ate-Her · 07-28-2003, 08:33 PM

Time is running out. What can be done or should be done?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New York Times
By AMY HARMON

A blizzard of subpoenas from the recording industry seeking the identities of people suspected of illegally swapping music is provoking fear, anger and professions of remorse as the targets of the antipiracy dragnet learn that they may soon be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

The Recording Industry Association of America has obtained close to 1,000 such subpoenas over the last four weeks to more than a dozen Internet service providers, including Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable, and several universities, including Boston College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, demanding the names of file swappers. Most Internet providers are notifying the unlucky subscribers by mail that they are legally required to turn over their contact information.

Those on alert include several college students, the parents of a 14-year-old boy in the Southwest, a 41-year-old Colorado health care worker and a Brooklyn woman who works in the fashion industry.

"They could have used some other way to inform people than scaring the bejiminy out of them," said a mother who received a copy of the subpoena last Wednesday, listing several songs that her 14-year-old son had made available for others to copy from his computer. "If someone had sent me a letter saying `this is wrong,' you can bet your sweet potatoes that would have gotten my attention. This just seems so drastic."

The ominous letters and a list of screen names culled from court filings that is circulating on the Web underscore the unusually personal nature of the industry's latest effort to stamp out online piracy, which it blames for a 25 percent drop in sales of CD's since 1999. Under copyright law, the group can be awarded damages of $750 to $150,000 for each copyrighted song that was distributed without authorization.

Some of the targeted Internet users expressed shock that they were singled out for an activity that tens of millions of Americans are believed to engage in. Others said they were unaware they were doing anything wrong. Most of those interviewed refused to be identified by name, citing privacy concerns and the potential impending legal action against them.

The mother of the 14-year-old boy said she had assumed that her son's file-swapping was all right because she knew that Napster, the company that drove the original wave of online music piracy, had been shut down after the record companies sued. Any other company whose software is used by so many of her son's friends, she reasoned, must have done something different to be allowed to continue operating.

After receiving a copy of the subpoena in the mail on Wednesday, the mother said she did some research and learned that though the software itself might be legal, the way her son was using it was almost certainly not. The 150 songs her son had on his computer have been deleted, along with his computer privileges for the rest of the summer.

"We've had extensive discussions about why it was wrong, and how it's kind of like plagiarism, taking someone else's words or someone else's music and not giving them credit for it," she said. She added that her son stayed in his room all day, while her older daughter worried that her parents would not be able to pay for college next year.

The notion of paying up to $150,000 for each of the eight songs that the recording industry listed on the subpoena — not to mention lawyer fees of $200 an hour should the family decide to fight a lawsuit — still boggles her mind. "Hopefully when they find out he's just a kid, they'll drop it," she said.

But not necessarily. Frustrated with the failure of warnings and educational campaigns to stem the flood of online music trading, the major music companies said on June 25 that they intended to sue hundreds of individuals as a form of deterrence.

"I guess people didn't take it seriously, but we really are very serious about this," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America. "We want the message to get across to parents that what their kids are doing is illegal. We are going to file lawsuits."

The popularity of file-sharing software, which allows users to copy music, movies and other files from one another's computers, has long benefited from a sense of impunity among users. By tearing away the Internet's veil of anonymity, the record industry hopes to scare people away from using the software and crack a cultural consensus that tends to regard file-sharing as a guilt-free activity.

Before pursuing individuals, the association sponsored antipiracy television and radio commercials; sent four million instant messages warning people using KaZaA, the most popular file-sharing software, that they were violating copyright law; and published an advertisement in The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly that began, "Next time you or your kids `share' music on the Internet, you may also want to download a list of attorneys."

The music industry also tried suing the makers of the software that succeeded Napster. But in April, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that two peer-to-peer systems, Morpheus and Grokster, were legal even though people used them to make illegal copies of music and movies. Music executives said they were left with little choice but to pursue the users themselves.

As news of the subpoenas spread across the Internet in recent days, many file-swappers, who often rationalize their behavior by arguing that CD's are too expensive and the record industry does not deserve their money, responded with defiance.

A spoof cartoon was widely circulated, set to the tune of the 1980's hit "We Are the World" and with the lyrics, "Sue all the world/Sue all the children." On sites like Zeropaid .com, a hub of information for file-sharing, discussion board participants vowed to boycott major record labels and called on people outside the United States — and the restrictions of United States copyright law — to share more files.

But many file-swappers also expressed alarm. Jorge Gonzalez, the founder of Zeropaid, said some who posted discussion board messages planned to stop file-trading altogether. Many rushed to check a list, initially published on TechTV's Web site, of the KaZaA screen names cited in the subpoenas filed in the Federal District Court in Washington.

Several lawyers said the record industry probably had a good legal case. "It's pretty well settled that it is infringing copyright to share files without permission of the copyright holder," said Jonathan Zittrain, a director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.

Still, some legal experts argue that the tactic is risky, particularly if the industry appears to be concentrating on families with no resources to defend themselves.

"The practice of filing thousands of lawsuits is a game of chicken, and not a sustainable model for the industry or the courts," Mr. Zittrain said. "The overall puzzle for the industry is how to truly convince the public that this is in the public interest."

He said there was no obvious historical analogue to the scattershot subpoenaing of individuals in copyright law enforcement, which has traditionally been aimed at businesses or people who are profiting from illegally copied material. He likened it instead to raids during Prohibition, or red-light cameras that catch drivers disobeying traffic laws when they think they are unobserved. Both have given rise to social outcry, Mr. Zittrain said, even though they were used simply to enforce the law.

Citing the privacy and due process rights of its subscribers, Verizon Communications has appealed a federal court decision that compels Internet service providers to turn over subscriber information without first requiring copyright holders to file a lawsuit. The company said at least one of the subscribers it notified last week had hired a lawyer and was planning to challenge the recording industry's subpoena.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston College have declined to comply with subpoenas they received, citing procedural concerns and their responsibility to protect student privacy under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

Some lawyers who were contacted by people who received notices from their Internet providers say the cases raise many questions because of the way the software in question works.

Some versions of KaZaA automatically designate certain folders on a computer as "shared," so users may not have realized their personal music files, copied from legally purchased CD's, were available to others.

Daniel N. Ballard, a lawyer with McDonough, Holland & Allen in Sacramento, Calif., said he was representing a Brooklyn woman who believed she had prevented her files from being accessible to the KaZaA network. He said computer intruders may have rearranged the files on his client's hard drive without her knowledge.

Some say they were unaware that they were doing anything against the law.

"My daughter would never have used her name as her e-mail address if she thought she was doing anything wrong," said Gordon Pate of Dana Point, Calif., who said an Associated Press reporter found him through the telephone directory after his 23-year-old daughter's screen name, leahpate@kazaa, appeared in the court filings last week. (Most were more along the lines of "anon39023" and "RockOn182.")

But a Colorado man said he knew what he was doing was illegal; he had just not seriously considered the consequences.

"I used the program," said the man, 41, who used KaZaA to find songs that included the words "happy birthday" to play for his young daughter when she woke up on her birthday, among other times.

"It's cute, but look what happened," he said. "It's an expensive birthday, that's the reality."

Glad

Zello · 07-28-2003, 08:49 PM

This is going to be very interesting to see how this turns out. I never really expected the RIAA to go this far. I guess they really have no choice.

I don't download very many songs but I still don't think this is enough to make me quit. I'm curious of what impact this is going to have on people downloading movies and software. Which is what I do quite often.

crfpilot · 07-28-2003, 09:16 PM

Those money hungry fuckers are just hurting the artists. I know I would hear a song on KROQ from a band that I have never heard of before, download a few of thier songs and if I liked them I would go buy the cd. But now fuck that!! I ain't gonna buy any more cd's with the exception of old punk bands that existed long before these lawsuits. If most people are like me, cd sales will go down even more. I don't think that p2p programs are responsible for the loss of cd sales anyway, how bout cause they cost too fucking much!!! $20 for a cd?? c'mon how much of that $20 does the artist get anyway 1 or 2 dollars.

Fuck the RIAA!!!

rival · 07-28-2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

"I used the program," said the man, 41, who used KaZaA to find songs that included the words "happy birthday" to play for his young daughter when she woke up on her birthday, among other times.

When asked to comment about running a heartless and fucking evil monopoly President and Founder of the RIAA, Montgomery Burns, had this to say :

Excellent.

Phaenx · 07-28-2003, 10:00 PM

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboa...728091125.html

Buy one of these.

The_Dude · 07-28-2003, 10:09 PM

FUCK the RIAA indeed

greedy bastards

DelayedReaction · 07-28-2003, 10:16 PM

I'm glad I don't use KaZaa. My DC server limits itself to people within our school's network, making it extremely hard for outside sources to snoop around.

Semi-Normal · 07-28-2003, 10:36 PM

Same here crfpilot - if anything, file sharing has lead to me buying more CDs than I would have without it for the exact same reasons as you.

Does anyone know if it's possible for those of us not in America to get in legal trouble for sharing music at this point in time?

magnum155 · 07-28-2003, 11:06 PM

As strange as it may sound, directv is in court in canada right now over a website hosted and run in canada concerning piracy.
Sounds simple on the surface, but you have to remember that canada does not allow directv to transmit into canada...
there are no legal subscribers up there, but directv does subscribe over 40,000 grey market users...
How can a company that cant legally operate in a country sue someone in that country while breaking the law themselves......

Truth is stranger than fiction.
when big business is involved, there are no laws other than the ones they want to use at the time....

(can riaa go after someone in canada? probably...)

MSD · 07-28-2003, 11:45 PM

I own about a hundred CDs. Before file sharing, I bought 7. After, I got the rest. If record companies want to make money, they should put out music that's worth buying. Since the RIAA has started this bullshit, I have refused to buy CD's from any source other than the bands themselves. I refuse to buy another CD from a store or record company until the RIAA stops illegally holding CD prices above fair value, and stops attacking their customers for not being able to afford music.

Let them come sue me. I have less than a hundred dollars to my name, and I own no possessions that can be sold off. Everything is in my mother's name, and she can't afford much more than I can. If they want to clean us out, they can have the satisfaction of putting us on teh street for a few thousand dollars. When people see stuff like that happen, I hope they won't sit down and accept the dictatorship that unethical corporations use to pin us down, unimpeded by the Federal government. Fuck the RIAA, fuck the MPAA, fuck Microsoft, fuck everyone who thinks that money is the most important thing there is.

JStrider · 07-28-2003, 11:50 PM

well obviously the RIAA doesnt understand what a slump in the economy is... that when people are unemployed they dont have money.... i would point fingers at the rising unemployment and the sagging economy before the file sharers....

and cds just cost too damn much... it costs more to make a cassete tape then it does a cd... and yet cds generally cost $15 to $20 whereas cassetes only cost like what $8 maybe less...

tenchi069 · 07-29-2003, 01:02 AM

I think the RIAA just doesn't want Americans to hear what great music Europe puts out. They would rather us buy the crap they promote over here. That's not an anti-American statement. It just means Nightwish > Britney Spears.

I Brow · 07-29-2003, 01:45 AM

The RIAA is not making any money, and when a corporation isn't making money they start to panic. So what's the quickest way for them to make their money back? Sue the file-sharers. They're so money hungry that they're blind to something. The fact that consumers are smart now and they know the music industry is charging $17 for something that cost them less than $2 to make.

Even so, these files have copyrights, a law like any other law. And therefore the sharing of these files is illegal. But when I share files, I'm not making any money off of it, hence the share part of "file-sharing."

Almost all mp3 files have artist name and song title. And right there credit is given where credit is due. There are some files with missing or wrong information, and usually that's because someone's trying to avoid sharing something that really shouldn't be shared. (In the "It's illegal and you'll get fined lotsa money" sense.)

I play in a band and i would be thrilled if people wanted to download mp3's of our songs. When you play music to make lots of money, you're playing music for the wrong reasons.

Magpie0001 · 07-29-2003, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tenchi069
I think the RIAA just doesn't want Americans to hear what great music Europe puts out. They would rather us buy the crap they promote over here. That's not an anti-American statement. It just means Nightwish > Britney Spears.

Yaaaay, Wooo! Go Europe!

The music I listen to in general is not available in record stores. It cannot be bought online either because it simply isnt commercailly available. Because of the music industrys tactics the music I like isnt sold because there is no room beside JLo. I have no other way to get hold of this music other than filesharing.
Even still I dont feel guilty having thousands of tunes on my pooter. The music industry was poisoned a long time ago by businessmen only intrested in making money. It makes me sick Its about fucking time we did something. Communicate with the businessmen in the only way that they understand $$$.

maxero · 07-29-2003, 02:07 AM

id laugh if there was a sharp rise in cd's stolen physically from stores after this.

soapysonic · 07-29-2003, 02:26 AM

I thought file sharing program accounts were anon, how can they issue a subpoena to an email address?

Pennington · 07-29-2003, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Glad-I-Ate-Her
Time is running out. What can be done or should be done?

Everyone switch to the Freenet project for now and in six months switch to the Ramen project when its released. Both are psuedo-anonymous and impossible to shut down(even though that's not a problem anymore). Ramen is a kindof cross between openFT and Freenet. It will be considerably slower than Kazaa but the RIAA won't be able to prosecute anyone as all transfers are routed through a small random number of nodes. It may work, it may not but from what we've learned from freenet, it can be done.

Pennington · 07-29-2003, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by soapysonic
I thought file sharing program accounts were anon, how can they issue a subpoena to an email address?

Kazaa doesn't try to hide your ip address and with that, they can go to your isp and find out who you are.

HaloLauren · 07-29-2003, 05:35 AM

All of a sudden, everyone's an innocent victim.

Bunch of pilfering liars.

m0ntyblack · 07-29-2003, 05:45 AM

I am so completely disgusted and pissed off at the RIAA now that I may never buy another CD again. It makes me nauseous.

MB

gov135 · 07-29-2003, 06:00 AM

The RIAA has done what they feel they need to.

They have gone after people who are the most prolific abusers. They have eliminated the most popular excuse of file-swappers, the infamous, "I don't want to buy the whole CD." You can now download songs legally from anywhere between .75 cents and 1.25. They have put out quite an advertising campaign aimed at showing the public how many people work in the industry and contribute to a CD.

Anyone who says they can't see paying a dollar for a song they are after doesn't have an opinion worth considering. It is not your birthright to get free media on the internet. Alot of people depend on a healthy music industry for a paycheck, and they should be able to protect themselves against the fourteen year old in the article.

Macheath · 07-29-2003, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tenchi069
I think the RIAA just doesn't want Americans to hear what great music Europe puts out. They would rather us buy the crap they promote over here. That's not an anti-American statement. It just means Nightwish > Britney Spears.

Interesting you mention Europe. By the looks of things, file-sharers may not be the only ones the RIAA goes to war with.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/20...2003173448.asp

Quote:

EU: Copyright Loophole Exposes 'Golden Oldies' Of Pop Music

By Ron Synovitz

A potential trade dispute between the United States and the European Union is looming over the issue of copyright protections on music recordings. RFE/RL examines the legal background of an emerging controversy over who can profit during the next decade from the legacy of pop-culture icons like Elvis Presley, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones.

Prague, 9 January 2003 (RFE/RL) -- The European Union's 50-year copyright protection rule on musical recordings is allowing thousands of records from the early 1950s to enter the public domain in Europe -- even though U.S. law protects the rights of record producers until 95 years after a recording is first released. Industry experts say the difference between U.S. and EU copyright laws on musical recordings could lead to a trade dispute during the next decade.

That's because the earliest records by musicians that continue to have a mass-marketing appeal -- pop icons like Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones -- are all due to enter the public domain in Europe during the next 10 years. Yet those same recordings will remain under exclusive copyright control in the U.S. market for an additional 45 years.

On one side of the emerging dispute is a powerful lobby group that represents U.S. music corporations -- the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The RIAA helped successfully lobby the U.S. Congress in 1998 to extend existing U.S. copyright protections by 20 years. On the other hand is an EU copyright directive that took effect in 1996 after complex international trade negotiations.

Stefan Krawczyk is the Eastern European regional director of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). He told RFE/RL that the EU directive has, in fact, helped the record industry protect many of its interests by harmonizing laws across all EU countries. "We're very fortunate to have a whole range of harmonized laws on copyright in the European Union. It's about a half-dozen harmonization directives that clearly and exclusively deal with copyright issues and neighboring rights -- the rights of performers and phonogram [any recorded audio product, such as CDs, vinyl records, cassettes, etc.] producers, as well as songwriters."

Krawczyk said that the EU directive also has encouraged EU candidate states in Central and Eastern Europe to bring their own copyright laws in line with Brussels and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in order to meet the conditions of EU membership. "Most of these countries -- the [EU] accession countries -- have already implemented these harmonization directives [or] are really at the final stages of implementing them. And you can see that from the progress reports issued by the European Commission very recently about accession progress. The legislative part of their work is almost done."

The key difference between the U.S. and EU laws involves only the recordings of music. In both the United States and Europe, the publishing rights for those who write a musical composition are equal to the life of the composer plus 70 years. That means that the families of composers continue to collect royalties on performances of a song by other artists until 70 years after the composer has died.

Thus, those most affected by the differences between the U.S. and EU laws are the companies that produce a hit record and the original recording artist -- not the person who wrote the music.

Neil Turkewitz, the RIAA's executive vice president for international affairs, told "The New York Times" this week that he is concerned the EU law will allow cheap European CDs to undercut the U.S. domestic price for legendary music recordings. Turkewitz contends that the import into the United States of such recordings in the form of EU-produced public-domain CDs would constitute an act of piracy. As a result, the RIAA is attempting to convince U.S. authorities to erect a customs barrier to prevent such European products from entering the United States.

If the U.S. lobby group is successful in establishing those customs barriers, European interests can be expected to file suit with the WTO claiming that protectionist policies block their products from the U.S. market. Thus, the RIAA and its international counterpart, the IFPI, also are trying to convince EU countries to extend copyright protections for the producers of musical recordings.

But such a lobby effort appears unlikely to be successful. The EU law was formulated and agreed to by its member states only after laborious negotiations during the early 1990s at the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which included the U.S. trade representative. That means the EU law conforms to the rules of the World Trade Organization.

The IFPI's Krawczyk admitted as much when questioned by RFE/RL specifically about the EU law. "The WTO agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights -- the famous TRIPs agreement -- also provides for a term of protection for phonogram producers and performers that is [a minimum of] 50 years. [That is] exactly the same term as we have in the European Union directive."

Once a musical recording enters the public domain, the company that originally produced the record is no longer able to stop anyone from making and selling legal copies. The authors of a song are still entitled to royalties. But the record companies are not.

Essentially, CDs and cassette tapes once considered as illegal pirate counterfeits become legal in Europe after the original recordings turn 50 years old and enter the public domain. And it doesn't matter whether the original recordings were made and first released within the EU or in other countries.

RCA's 1946 recording of "That's Allright Mama" by American blues artist Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup is a primary example of the kind of public domain music that European consumers have been able to purchase cheaply since the EU's harmonized copyright code took effect in 1996.

Indeed, the most lucrative recordings to enter the public domain in Europe so far have been old 78 rpm records of blues, jazz, opera, and classical music. Companies in France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Germany now routinely produce legal audio compact discs compiling such 78 rpm records. Without the requirement of paying royalties to the original record producers, firms like the U.K.-based Charley Records, Holland's Disky Communications, and France's EPM Remastering are able to sell public-domain CDs for as little as $2 each. In America, where the producers of the same recordings still exercise copyright control, music collectors routinely pay $15 to $25 per CD for the music.

But the global demand for old blues, jazz, and classical recordings is not nearly as large as it is for the hits of the early rock and pop era -- recordings that are just now starting to enter the public domain in Europe. Elvis Presley's earliest records will be fair game for Europe's public-domain labels at the end of next year.

Multimillion-selling records by rock and country music pioneers like Carl Perkins, Roy Orbison, Johnny Cash, and Buddy Holly will follow soon after. The entire recording catalog of U.S. country music legend Hank Williams -- who died 50 years ago this month -- is already in Europe's public domain. The earliest Beatles and Rolling Stones records are due to become part of the public domain in Europe at the end of 2013. That leaves the door open for CD producers across Europe -- including well-known pirate CD firms in the accession countries -- to increasingly and legally reproduce "golden oldies" of rock and pop music during the decade ahead.

Glad-I-Ate-Her · 07-30-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magpie0001
Yaaaay, Wooo! Go Europe!

The music I listen to in general is not available in record stores.

Magpie, I'm in the same boat as you when it comes to music. I used to pull down songs that weren't readily available or are out of circulation. I only buy cd's from only a few artists. My previous downloading has not hurt anyone directly. I've never download movies or software. Now its all going out the window.

I'm sure there will be a backlash from all of this.

Glad

bussman · 07-30-2003, 08:50 PM

One thing is for sure, it will be interesting to see what happens with all the people getting subpoenas what the courts are going to do.

kobalt_blue · 07-31-2003, 07:48 PM

I understand that sharing (uploading) copyrighted material is illegal. I have heard reports that the RIAA is also going to file lawsuits against people that have downloaded files.

Can someone tell me the difference between:

1. downloading music and video off the internet with publicly available software (illegal)

and

2. downloading music and video off the radio or satellite and recording it to a cassette or vhs tape, cd or dvd with publicly available hardware? (legal)

Both signals come into my house. With the later, I can search satellite listings and find the program I want, and record it.

I can only imagine that the RIAA did the same type of thing when the cassette tape was introduced.

Thanks

rival · 07-31-2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

I have heard reports that the RIAA is also going to file lawsuits against people that have downloaded files.

Wouldn't that be kind of tough? Say I download an entire album by a certain band. The RIAA takes me to court to sue me for downloading copyrighted music. I show up in court with a purchased copy and say I only downloaded the songs so I could have a legal backup. Shouldn't that pretty much kill the lawsuit. All I did was download something I already "own" the rights to.

TwistedFate · 07-31-2003, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kobalt_blue
2. downloading music and video off the radio or satellite and recording it to a cassette or vhs tape, cd or dvd with publicly available hardware? (legal)

Most P2P users download AND share, how often have you shared on a global level the latest Justin Timberlake video that you recorded on VHS? You don't remove a problem by targeting the least of the offenders. You go for the heavy hitters and P2P is a far larger problem then MTV recordings.

Quote:

Originally posted by rival
Wouldn't that be kind of tough? Say I download an entire album by a certain band. The RIAA takes me to court to sue me for downloading copyrighted music. I show up in court with a purchased copy and say I only downloaded the songs so I could have a legal backup. Shouldn't that pretty much kill the lawsuit. All I did was download something I already "own" the rights to.

Only if you can prove you bought the CD before you downloaded the songs. Before = stealing, after = backup. Although if you DL then buy I'm not sure what the lawyers would say.

guthmund · 07-31-2003, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gov135
Anyone who says they can't see paying a dollar for a song they are after doesn't have an opinion worth considering.

Underwear riding up, eh???

It seems to me, and this is blatant opinion, that the focus of the RIAA should be on the assholes with 10,000 songs in their jukebox. All I seem to hear about are the subpeonas to the little old ladies and the teenagers.

And to be fair, the largest of the music buying sites, buymusic.com, only has about 300,000 songs in it. I went there and was unimpressed with their selection, which consists mostly of Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, L'il Kim, Sean Paul, Kelly Clarkson....the list goes on and on.....

If I could find the stuff I'm looking for, I'd download it in a minute. But I can't, so I won't.

And to be perfectly honest, with the current wave PR problems that the RIAA has had with the "commoners," I get a little kick out of "sticking it to the man."

a2k · 08-01-2003, 10:00 AM

Downloading copyrighted material is stealing. Then again, jacking up prices because you own all of the distribution channels for music is not any better.

Record labels are fighting for their existence. Their problem is that their entire business model is about controlling the supply chain and promotion outlet of music so that artists and music customers have to go through them to access each other.

The record labels have grown fat off of high margins on CD sales and are cranky because we don't need CDs any more (or any physical thing you can put a label on). They saw it coming years ago, but because they're so fat they couldn't (or wouldn't) move in time to save thier a$$es.

Filing law suits against their best potential customers is not going to do them much good.

GSRIDER · 08-01-2003, 10:39 AM

kick me for my ignorance. But does the RIAA represent just the music manufacturers? Or both the Artist and the label?

Peryn · 08-01-2003, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gov135
The RIAA has done what they feel they need to.

They have gone after people who are the most prolific abusers.

No....they haven't. They have ignored the major users an gone after the minor ones.

Quote:

The 150 songs her son had on his computer have been deleted

150 songs? They are deliberately picking their victims. if they wanted to go after the people at the root of the problem, they would hit the thousands of people with 10k or more song on their computer. but they dont. i can garauntee you, with only 1000 subpeanuz (sp.), a kid with 150 songs is not in the list of top 1k abusers. at 150, he may be in the bottom 1,000 abusers.

asdf4321 · 08-01-2003, 12:05 PM

1) I concur, FUCK THE RIAA.

2) I find KazaaLite useful (http://www.kazaalite.tk/) in that it allows anonymous usage (somewhat) and this:

Quote:

Are you afraid of the entertainment industry? Does your country have stupid copyright laws? You don't share because you are afraid you get caught for doing so? The newest versions of Kazaa Lite (2.10 build 3 and newer) have the solution for you!
It is now possible to prevent other people from listing your shared files (find more from same user). Go to Options -> More Options. There you can enable the option to prevent people from listing your shared files.
There is just one little downside to this, because it may let people think that you are not sharing any files. But for some people privacy is what counts. Enabling the option doesn't mean that you don't share files anymore! People just can't list your shared files anymore. In fact more people should be able to start sharing because of this.

Which helps, I think. I don't wish to talk about ethics here, I'm just providing some sort of protection from getting sued, which is always a good thing, I would think. Though my first statement seems to disagree..

3) Hmm I suppose I am talking ethics. Try used CD stores if you don't like the prices... $7-10 dollars is quite affordable and the variety of random cool stuff is quite appealing to me. I personally prefer the songs besides the popular single that resides on most cds.. Good ones, that is, so it works out for me.

a2k · 08-01-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GSRIDER
kick me for my ignorance. But does the RIAA represent just the music manufacturers? Or both the Artist and the label?

I'm sure that if you asked the RIAA, they say they represent the label AND artist (and us), because they claim that without the label to pay a very select few artists $$$, all musicians would pack up shop and never play another note.

Of course, that's not true. Check here to see if your favorite artist is on an RIAA backing label.

Everyone's probably seen this, but if you have't it's worth reading. Steve Albini wrote an article breaking down where the money goes when you buy a CD. Check it out.

Pragma · 08-01-2003, 04:48 PM

Personally, the only RIAA-artists that I listen to are mostly one-hit-wonders and whoever has the latest "hit single" out. As such, I'll go onto $FILE_SHARING_PROGRAM, swipe the single, and listen to it. I'm not going to waste gas to go drive to a music store, then plop down 20$ for a pile of arse that has a song or two I like.

For example: Last weekend, I went down to the local store, saw a trance album I really liked, and bought it. It had 3 CDs (30 songs) and cost me 18$. I turned around and looked at the aisle there and saw some brand new rock album going for 22$.

What the fuck is wrong with the RIAA?

Contami22 · 08-01-2003, 07:24 PM

Yeh i have so much music that they can sue me and take the money that doesnt exist.

H12 · 08-01-2003, 08:28 PM

RIAA...you need people like me; always keeping an eye out for CD's that interest me. It's not gonna be your usual radio-pop hits, either (except Eminem)...no, I'm talking more like Talib Kweli and others. Now you want me finding no others easily? Fine, it's your loss.

greathornytoad · 08-02-2003, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
I own about a hundred CDs. Before file sharing, I bought 7. After, I got the rest. If record companies want to make money, they should put out music that's worth buying. Since the RIAA has started this bullshit, I have refused to buy CD's from any source other than the bands themselves. I refuse to buy another CD from a store or record company until the RIAA stops illegally holding CD prices above fair value, and stops attacking their customers for not being able to afford music.

if everyone stop bitching and did what you did, they would have RIAA by their balls and not the other way around

macmanmike6100 · 08-02-2003, 06:24 PM

Everyone who shares music should block the RIAA IPs, since it's not easy to get whole IP segements. These IPs can be found at http://techfocus.org/files/htaccess.zip

Also, everyone should block the RIAA from using the Internet at all: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/7221

Pragma · 08-02-2003, 06:34 PM

That's the RIAA corporate IP segments, yes.

However, what's to stop one of the RIAA employees from walking home, logging online through "E-Z-Dial-Up", getting a random DHCP address, just like you and me, and then going hunting for file sharers then?

Answer: Nothing. You can't keep safe through blocking a few IPs.

RoadRage · 08-08-2003, 08:13 AM

Rockwood

Let the RIAA sue me. I'll force them into court, and within minutes of any judgment against me, I'll file for bankruptcy. My Federally-guaranteed mortgage and my Federally-guaranteed student loans get full funding off the top, the living allowance, then money left … oh wait, there won't be any money left for the other creditors (the RIAA judgment would be considered an unsecured loan). They'll be out $10-15K coming after me, just to collect nothing. Pyrrhic victory indeed!

07-28-2003, 08:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
Glad-I-Ate-Her Junkie Location: 1 mile from Ground Zero	Subpoenas Sent to File-Sharers Prompt Anger and Remorse Time is running out. What can be done or should be done? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ New York Times By AMY HARMON A blizzard of subpoenas from the recording industry seeking the identities of people suspected of illegally swapping music is provoking fear, anger and professions of remorse as the targets of the antipiracy dragnet learn that they may soon be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. The Recording Industry Association of America has obtained close to 1,000 such subpoenas over the last four weeks to more than a dozen Internet service providers, including Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable, and several universities, including Boston College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, demanding the names of file swappers. Most Internet providers are notifying the unlucky subscribers by mail that they are legally required to turn over their contact information. Those on alert include several college students, the parents of a 14-year-old boy in the Southwest, a 41-year-old Colorado health care worker and a Brooklyn woman who works in the fashion industry. "They could have used some other way to inform people than scaring the bejiminy out of them," said a mother who received a copy of the subpoena last Wednesday, listing several songs that her 14-year-old son had made available for others to copy from his computer. "If someone had sent me a letter saying `this is wrong,' you can bet your sweet potatoes that would have gotten my attention. This just seems so drastic." The ominous letters and a list of screen names culled from court filings that is circulating on the Web underscore the unusually personal nature of the industry's latest effort to stamp out online piracy, which it blames for a 25 percent drop in sales of CD's since 1999. Under copyright law, the group can be awarded damages of $750 to $150,000 for each copyrighted song that was distributed without authorization. Some of the targeted Internet users expressed shock that they were singled out for an activity that tens of millions of Americans are believed to engage in. Others said they were unaware they were doing anything wrong. Most of those interviewed refused to be identified by name, citing privacy concerns and the potential impending legal action against them. The mother of the 14-year-old boy said she had assumed that her son's file-swapping was all right because she knew that Napster, the company that drove the original wave of online music piracy, had been shut down after the record companies sued. Any other company whose software is used by so many of her son's friends, she reasoned, must have done something different to be allowed to continue operating. After receiving a copy of the subpoena in the mail on Wednesday, the mother said she did some research and learned that though the software itself might be legal, the way her son was using it was almost certainly not. The 150 songs her son had on his computer have been deleted, along with his computer privileges for the rest of the summer. "We've had extensive discussions about why it was wrong, and how it's kind of like plagiarism, taking someone else's words or someone else's music and not giving them credit for it," she said. She added that her son stayed in his room all day, while her older daughter worried that her parents would not be able to pay for college next year. The notion of paying up to $150,000 for each of the eight songs that the recording industry listed on the subpoena — not to mention lawyer fees of $200 an hour should the family decide to fight a lawsuit — still boggles her mind. "Hopefully when they find out he's just a kid, they'll drop it," she said. But not necessarily. Frustrated with the failure of warnings and educational campaigns to stem the flood of online music trading, the major music companies said on June 25 that they intended to sue hundreds of individuals as a form of deterrence. "I guess people didn't take it seriously, but we really are very serious about this," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America. "We want the message to get across to parents that what their kids are doing is illegal. We are going to file lawsuits." The popularity of file-sharing software, which allows users to copy music, movies and other files from one another's computers, has long benefited from a sense of impunity among users. By tearing away the Internet's veil of anonymity, the record industry hopes to scare people away from using the software and crack a cultural consensus that tends to regard file-sharing as a guilt-free activity. Before pursuing individuals, the association sponsored antipiracy television and radio commercials; sent four million instant messages warning people using KaZaA, the most popular file-sharing software, that they were violating copyright law; and published an advertisement in The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly that began, "Next time you or your kids `share' music on the Internet, you may also want to download a list of attorneys." The music industry also tried suing the makers of the software that succeeded Napster. But in April, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that two peer-to-peer systems, Morpheus and Grokster, were legal even though people used them to make illegal copies of music and movies. Music executives said they were left with little choice but to pursue the users themselves. As news of the subpoenas spread across the Internet in recent days, many file-swappers, who often rationalize their behavior by arguing that CD's are too expensive and the record industry does not deserve their money, responded with defiance. A spoof cartoon was widely circulated, set to the tune of the 1980's hit "We Are the World" and with the lyrics, "Sue all the world/Sue all the children." On sites like Zeropaid .com, a hub of information for file-sharing, discussion board participants vowed to boycott major record labels and called on people outside the United States — and the restrictions of United States copyright law — to share more files. But many file-swappers also expressed alarm. Jorge Gonzalez, the founder of Zeropaid, said some who posted discussion board messages planned to stop file-trading altogether. Many rushed to check a list, initially published on TechTV's Web site, of the KaZaA screen names cited in the subpoenas filed in the Federal District Court in Washington. Several lawyers said the record industry probably had a good legal case. "It's pretty well settled that it is infringing copyright to share files without permission of the copyright holder," said Jonathan Zittrain, a director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Still, some legal experts argue that the tactic is risky, particularly if the industry appears to be concentrating on families with no resources to defend themselves. "The practice of filing thousands of lawsuits is a game of chicken, and not a sustainable model for the industry or the courts," Mr. Zittrain said. "The overall puzzle for the industry is how to truly convince the public that this is in the public interest." He said there was no obvious historical analogue to the scattershot subpoenaing of individuals in copyright law enforcement, which has traditionally been aimed at businesses or people who are profiting from illegally copied material. He likened it instead to raids during Prohibition, or red-light cameras that catch drivers disobeying traffic laws when they think they are unobserved. Both have given rise to social outcry, Mr. Zittrain said, even though they were used simply to enforce the law. Citing the privacy and due process rights of its subscribers, Verizon Communications has appealed a federal court decision that compels Internet service providers to turn over subscriber information without first requiring copyright holders to file a lawsuit. The company said at least one of the subscribers it notified last week had hired a lawyer and was planning to challenge the recording industry's subpoena. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston College have declined to comply with subpoenas they received, citing procedural concerns and their responsibility to protect student privacy under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Some lawyers who were contacted by people who received notices from their Internet providers say the cases raise many questions because of the way the software in question works. Some versions of KaZaA automatically designate certain folders on a computer as "shared," so users may not have realized their personal music files, copied from legally purchased CD's, were available to others. Daniel N. Ballard, a lawyer with McDonough, Holland & Allen in Sacramento, Calif., said he was representing a Brooklyn woman who believed she had prevented her files from being accessible to the KaZaA network. He said computer intruders may have rearranged the files on his client's hard drive without her knowledge. Some say they were unaware that they were doing anything against the law. "My daughter would never have used her name as her e-mail address if she thought she was doing anything wrong," said Gordon Pate of Dana Point, Calif., who said an Associated Press reporter found him through the telephone directory after his 23-year-old daughter's screen name, leahpate@kazaa, appeared in the court filings last week. (Most were more along the lines of "anon39023" and "RockOn182.") But a Colorado man said he knew what he was doing was illegal; he had just not seriously considered the consequences. "I used the program," said the man, 41, who used KaZaA to find songs that included the words "happy birthday" to play for his young daughter when she woke up on her birthday, among other times. "It's cute, but look what happened," he said. "It's an expensive birthday, that's the reality." Glad __________________ I'm "Glad I Ate Her" because the payback was worth it!!

07-28-2003, 08:49 PM	#2 (permalink)
Zello Crazy Location: Vincennes, IN	This is going to be very interesting to see how this turns out. I never really expected the RIAA to go this far. I guess they really have no choice. I don't download very many songs but I still don't think this is enough to make me quit. I'm curious of what impact this is going to have on people downloading movies and software. Which is what I do quite often. __________________ Sorry, you can not add yourself to your own list.

07-28-2003, 10:00 PM	#5 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboa...728091125.html Buy one of these. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

07-28-2003, 10:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	FUCK the RIAA indeed greedy bastards __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

07-28-2003, 10:16 PM	#7 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	I'm glad I don't use KaZaa. My DC server limits itself to people within our school's network, making it extremely hard for outside sources to snoop around. __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

07-28-2003, 09:16 PM	#3 (permalink)
crfpilot Punk In Drublic Location: So Cal	Those money hungry fuckers are just hurting the artists. I know I would hear a song on KROQ from a band that I have never heard of before, download a few of thier songs and if I liked them I would go buy the cd. But now fuck that!! I ain't gonna buy any more cd's with the exception of old punk bands that existed long before these lawsuits. If most people are like me, cd sales will go down even more. I don't think that p2p programs are responsible for the loss of cd sales anyway, how bout cause they cost too fucking much!!! $20 for a cd?? c'mon how much of that $20 does the artist get anyway 1 or 2 dollars. Fuck the RIAA!!!

07-28-2003, 10:36 PM	#8 (permalink)
Semi-Normal Insane Location: Christchurch, New Zealand	Same here crfpilot - if anything, file sharing has lead to me buying more CDs than I would have without it for the exact same reasons as you. Does anyone know if it's possible for those of us not in America to get in legal trouble for sharing music at this point in time? __________________ I'm not lazy, I'm "motivationally challenged."

07-28-2003, 11:06 PM	#9 (permalink)
magnum155 Upright	As strange as it may sound, directv is in court in canada right now over a website hosted and run in canada concerning piracy. Sounds simple on the surface, but you have to remember that canada does not allow directv to transmit into canada... there are no legal subscribers up there, but directv does subscribe over 40,000 grey market users... How can a company that cant legally operate in a country sue someone in that country while breaking the law themselves...... Truth is stranger than fiction. when big business is involved, there are no laws other than the ones they want to use at the time.... (can riaa go after someone in canada? probably...)

07-28-2003, 11:45 PM	#10 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I own about a hundred CDs. Before file sharing, I bought 7. After, I got the rest. If record companies want to make money, they should put out music that's worth buying. Since the RIAA has started this bullshit, I have refused to buy CD's from any source other than the bands themselves. I refuse to buy another CD from a store or record company until the RIAA stops illegally holding CD prices above fair value, and stops attacking their customers for not being able to afford music. Let them come sue me. I have less than a hundred dollars to my name, and I own no possessions that can be sold off. Everything is in my mother's name, and she can't afford much more than I can. If they want to clean us out, they can have the satisfaction of putting us on teh street for a few thousand dollars. When people see stuff like that happen, I hope they won't sit down and accept the dictatorship that unethical corporations use to pin us down, unimpeded by the Federal government. Fuck the RIAA, fuck the MPAA, fuck Microsoft, fuck everyone who thinks that money is the most important thing there is.

07-28-2003, 11:50 PM	#11 (permalink)
JStrider Poo-tee-weet? Location: The Woodlands, TX	well obviously the RIAA doesnt understand what a slump in the economy is... that when people are unemployed they dont have money.... i would point fingers at the rising unemployment and the sagging economy before the file sharers.... and cds just cost too damn much... it costs more to make a cassete tape then it does a cd... and yet cds generally cost $15 to $20 whereas cassetes only cost like what $8 maybe less... __________________ -=JStrider=- ~Clatto Verata Nicto

07-29-2003, 01:02 AM	#12 (permalink)
tenchi069 Lost Location: One step closer to the padded cell...	I think the RIAA just doesn't want Americans to hear what great music Europe puts out. They would rather us buy the crap they promote over here. That's not an anti-American statement. It just means Nightwish > Britney Spears.

07-29-2003, 01:45 AM	#13 (permalink)
I Brow Upright	My View The RIAA is not making any money, and when a corporation isn't making money they start to panic. So what's the quickest way for them to make their money back? Sue the file-sharers. They're so money hungry that they're blind to something. The fact that consumers are smart now and they know the music industry is charging $17 for something that cost them less than $2 to make. Even so, these files have copyrights, a law like any other law. And therefore the sharing of these files is illegal. But when I share files, I'm not making any money off of it, hence the share part of "file-sharing." Almost all mp3 files have artist name and song title. And right there credit is given where credit is due. There are some files with missing or wrong information, and usually that's because someone's trying to avoid sharing something that really shouldn't be shared. (In the "It's illegal and you'll get fined lotsa money" sense.) I play in a band and i would be thrilled if people wanted to download mp3's of our songs. When you play music to make lots of money, you're playing music for the wrong reasons.

07-29-2003, 02:07 AM	#15 (permalink)
maxero Crazy	id laugh if there was a sharp rise in cd's stolen physically from stores after this. __________________ cough

07-29-2003, 02:26 AM	#16 (permalink)
soapysonic Tilted	I thought file sharing program accounts were anon, how can they issue a subpoena to an email address?

07-29-2003, 05:35 AM	#19 (permalink)
HaloLauren Banned	All of a sudden, everyone's an innocent victim. Bunch of pilfering liars.

07-29-2003, 05:45 AM	#20 (permalink)
m0ntyblack Crazy	I am so completely disgusted and pissed off at the RIAA now that I may never buy another CD again. It makes me nauseous. MB

07-29-2003, 06:00 AM	#21 (permalink)
gov135 Junkie Location: Midwest	The RIAA has done what they feel they need to. They have gone after people who are the most prolific abusers. They have eliminated the most popular excuse of file-swappers, the infamous, "I don't want to buy the whole CD." You can now download songs legally from anywhere between .75 cents and 1.25. They have put out quite an advertising campaign aimed at showing the public how many people work in the industry and contribute to a CD. Anyone who says they can't see paying a dollar for a song they are after doesn't have an opinion worth considering. It is not your birthright to get free media on the internet. Alot of people depend on a healthy music industry for a paycheck, and they should be able to protect themselves against the fourteen year old in the article.

07-30-2003, 08:50 PM	#24 (permalink)
bussman Tilted Location: Mass	One thing is for sure, it will be interesting to see what happens with all the people getting subpoenas what the courts are going to do.

07-31-2003, 07:48 PM	#25 (permalink)
kobalt_blue Upright Location: in a tormented place	I understand that sharing (uploading) copyrighted material is illegal. I have heard reports that the RIAA is also going to file lawsuits against people that have downloaded files. Can someone tell me the difference between: 1. downloading music and video off the internet with publicly available software (illegal) and 2. downloading music and video off the radio or satellite and recording it to a cassette or vhs tape, cd or dvd with publicly available hardware? (legal) Both signals come into my house. With the later, I can search satellite listings and find the program I want, and record it. I can only imagine that the RIAA did the same type of thing when the cassette tape was introduced. Thanks

08-01-2003, 10:00 AM	#29 (permalink)
a2k Crazy Location: Seattle	Downloading copyrighted material is stealing. Then again, jacking up prices because you own all of the distribution channels for music is not any better. Record labels are fighting for their existence. Their problem is that their entire business model is about controlling the supply chain and promotion outlet of music so that artists and music customers have to go through them to access each other. The record labels have grown fat off of high margins on CD sales and are cranky because we don't need CDs any more (or any physical thing you can put a label on). They saw it coming years ago, but because they're so fat they couldn't (or wouldn't) move in time to save thier a$$es. Filing law suits against their best potential customers is not going to do them much good.

08-01-2003, 10:39 AM	#30 (permalink)
GSRIDER spurt king Location: Out of my mind	kick me for my ignorance. But does the RIAA represent just the music manufacturers? Or both the Artist and the label? __________________ No signature at this time.

08-01-2003, 04:48 PM	#34 (permalink)
Pragma I am Winter Born Location: Alexandria, VA	Personally, the only RIAA-artists that I listen to are mostly one-hit-wonders and whoever has the latest "hit single" out. As such, I'll go onto $FILE_SHARING_PROGRAM, swipe the single, and listen to it. I'm not going to waste gas to go drive to a music store, then plop down 20$ for a pile of arse that has a song or two I like. For example: Last weekend, I went down to the local store, saw a trance album I really liked, and bought it. It had 3 CDs (30 songs) and cost me 18$. I turned around and looked at the aisle there and saw some brand new rock album going for 22$. What the fuck is wrong with the RIAA? __________________ Eat antimatter, Posleen-boy!

08-01-2003, 07:24 PM	#35 (permalink)
Contami22 Banned	Yeh i have so much music that they can sue me and take the money that doesnt exist.

08-01-2003, 08:28 PM	#36 (permalink)
H12 I'm not about getting creamed, I'm about winning! Location: K-Town, TN	RIAA...you need people like me; always keeping an eye out for CD's that interest me. It's not gonna be your usual radio-pop hits, either (except Eminem)...no, I'm talking more like Talib Kweli and others. Now you want me finding no others easily? Fine, it's your loss. __________________ "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle

08-02-2003, 06:24 PM	#38 (permalink)
macmanmike6100 High Honorary Junkie Location: Tri-state.	Everyone who shares music should block the RIAA IPs, since it's not easy to get whole IP segements. These IPs can be found at http://techfocus.org/files/htaccess.zip Also, everyone should block the RIAA from using the Internet at all: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/7221

08-02-2003, 06:34 PM	#39 (permalink)
Pragma I am Winter Born Location: Alexandria, VA	That's the RIAA corporate IP segments, yes. However, what's to stop one of the RIAA employees from walking home, logging online through "E-Z-Dial-Up", getting a random DHCP address, just like you and me, and then going hunting for file sharers then? Answer: Nothing. You can't keep safe through blocking a few IPs. __________________ Eat antimatter, Posleen-boy!

08-08-2003, 08:13 AM	#40 (permalink)
RoadRage Stay off the sidewalk! Location: Oklahoma City, OK	Rockwood Let the RIAA sue me. I'll force them into court, and within minutes of any judgment against me, I'll file for bankruptcy. My Federally-guaranteed mortgage and my Federally-guaranteed student loans get full funding off the top, the living allowance, then money left … oh wait, there won't be any money left for the other creditors (the RIAA judgment would be considered an unsecured loan). They'll be out $10-15K coming after me, just to collect nothing. Pyrrhic victory indeed! __________________ Join TFP Team SETI 43K workunits complete, 34 members, more of each needed.