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 |
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. |
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!!! |
Quote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/simpsons/i...otes/burns.gif Excellent. |
|
FUCK the RIAA indeed
greedy bastards |
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.
|
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? |
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...) |
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. |
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... |
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
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 $$$. |
id laugh if there was a sharp rise in cd's stolen physically from stores after this.
|
I thought file sharing program accounts were anon, how can they issue a subpoena to an email address?
|
Re: Subpoenas Sent to File-Sharers Prompt Anger and Remorse
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All of a sudden, everyone's an innocent victim.
Bunch of pilfering liars. |
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 |
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. |
Quote:
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/20...2003173448.asp Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm sure there will be a backlash from all of this. Glad |
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.
|
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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." |
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. |
kick me for my ignorance. But does the RIAA represent just the music manufacturers? Or both the Artist and the label?
|
Quote:
No....they haven't. They have ignored the major users an gone after the minor ones. Quote:
|
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:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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? |
Yeh i have so much music that they can sue me and take the money that doesnt exist.
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
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 |
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. |
http://www.rockwoodcomic.com/toons/03-0801.GIF
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! |
Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the RIAA saying that you can own a CD without any problems but you can't put it in a file sharing program and allowing others to download it from you? I guess this means that they are not allowing you the right to have your CD backed up on any folders on your computer they deam unacceptable. This has to be against the law somehow.
I can just see the RIAA saying to the nice pawns, "You can back up your CD but don't be naughty and put it in a folder we don't want you to." Ludicrious!! Glad |
down with RIAA
|
I think Kazaa Lite has an option to prevent other users from being able to look at your shared files. You can still share them though.
|
Quote:
I think that they are specifically *not* going after only the largest infringers in order to generate as much fear as possible...I mean, it certainly seems a more frightening prospect to me that *anyone* could be sued regardless of how many files were being shared. It seems to me they are trying to build a "you are never safe" mindset in the population. |
Quote:
And that would accomplish what, exactly? Yes it would keep unauthorized users out of your harddrive, but it does nothing to prevent the RIAA from cataloging your shared files. Why not just disable file sharing and spare yourself a hardware upgrade? |
Quote:
|
Lawsuits cost a bunch of money and time, and you can't get money out of people that don't have it. This is a scare tactic plain and simple. They are hoping to shut it down just due to fear. There is absolutely no way they can justify this financially.
|
I'm in the Netherlands and using KaZaA Lite... to quote from some 80ies or 90ies song (MC Hammer? I don't remember, I just remember it sucked)
"Can't touch me!" :D |
when did it become about money and not the music? thats what really bothers me about this whole thing... bands that freak out about file-sharing because they're not getting all their damn money... chris carabba from dashboard confessional said "i don't care how people get my music.. because, its about the music. not the money... if my music can reach more people because of file-sharing then so be it."
that, my friends, is a true artist, someone concerned about the fans, and the music that he is making.. not the fucking money. |
There will be a definite backlash against the music industry. I think the RIAA mis-calculated the ire of the consumers. Time will tell.
Glad |
They can't financially afford to go through with this. Most of it is just a scare tactic. They realize if they go after someone, there will be a class action suit filed on behalf of the people they are going after and legal fees will eat them alive. I don't condone stealing, but when a corporation controls all channels of distribution (think albums and books) and they charge ridiculous amounts of money for their product, people are going to react. The RIAA needs to get a clue and figure out how to keep up with the times rather than trying to drag us back into the Stone Age.
|
My plan for stopping myself from Dl music is fairly simple:
Get my friends CD book, which he said I could borrow Delete all of the music on my computer (with a few exceptions) Back up all of his CDs on my hard drive I still violate the laws, but I cant get caught as easy. |
I don't know if this is possible, buy if you but a tape and it sucks, can't you sue the artist and the label for putting out an inferior product?
And this whole downloading thing is bullshit. Would somebody buy a car without test driving it? How about a house? Would somebody but a house without checking it out first? Most people check out Doctors, Dentists, Schools, Colleges, church etc. Before going or joining them. Should it be illegal to test drive a car? Or inspect a house? Do you have to buy them first before you can see if you want it? Downloading is the same, everybody want to make sure they don't throw away their hard earn money. I hope that made sense. |
Quote:
Glad |
I think the RIAA has a right to protect its properties but this is not the way to go about it. I'm looking forward to seeing this bite them in the tush :)
|
This HAS started to bite them in the ass. Universities and ISPs are fighting this in the courts. The court itself is starting to lash against the RIAA as well as more and more of the government representatives.
It seems the tide of subpoenas is slowing, so perhaps the RIAA has had a lucid moment. Ha! |
I'm wondering who a sobpeona is for in the office. We caught wind that someone is being served an sobpeona and a good friend of mine who is also a co-worker has a ton of mp3s, so he thought it might be him.
But, my impression of this is they are going after the people who have 120 gigs online with filesharing programs. My friend downloads it for himself and sometimes I go thru it and listen to some when at work. Just makes you wonder when you hear about sobpoenas all over the place and then find out someone is gonna be served one in your company that conisists of 15 people :) |
Quote:
Might sound childish, but they are getting to be too much like big brother. CDs/DVDs that expire after x amount of time once they hit oxygen? Heh, thats alot of thought into something that is simple, lower the prices and people won't steal it. |
I've spent waay too much money on cd's over the years. For example, I bought Led Zep's entire back catalogue during the 80's. Some cd's got scratched. You told me they were indestructable! I took care of them!
Then along comes a big box set. Remastered! All my favourite songs, but better! That's about $100 in your money. So I've got the set, then they release all the albums again, but...Remastered! Right, so all the money I spent the first time was wasted, 'Remasters' the box set is now redundant, as I can now hear the albums as they were meant to be heard in both order and sound...If I spend another -ooh- $250. I've been ripped off until I'm sick, and poor. The fact remains that I will always continue to buy the music I like on cd, because the sound is everything to me, and MP3's (and my reasonable PC setup) are nothing like as good. To sum up: fuck them. |
It will be interesting to see what will come out of all of this when the dust settles. I'm sure its not going to be pretty.
Glad |
Here's my tidbit. They say they are doing this cause people are ripping off the Artists.. So of all this money they are sueing for.. how much of it is going to go to the artists? I mean if none of it goes to the artists... aren't they being just as greedy as the ones they are sueing?
I love that twist ;) |
Quote:
|
The recording industry is alienating their own customers
|
With all the lawsuit and such, about people suing manufactures of guns because their weapons was used in a killing or such, why don't the RIAA go after the computer companies who computers are being used to download "illegal" music? My guess is because the computer companies has the money to fight. So they don't want to start a fight they can lose.
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project