Round 2: RIAA Launches New Legal Attack
 

Here we go again. The RIAA is getting vicious again. They had to change their tactics. But correct if I'm wrong, I remember reading somewhere that Sharman, the owners of the Kazaa network sued the RIAA for using their network in illegal way. Sharman stated that according to their licensing agreement, RIAA is using the Kazaa network in a way that Sharman does not allow.

Here is the link:
http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/s...597593,00.html

Adopting new legal strategy, recording industry files more than 500 suits against anonymous music swappers.
Watch today at 8 p.m. and tomorrow at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. Eastern.

By Steve Enders

Heads up "John Doe." The RIAA says you and 531 others are still illegally swapping too much music, and you're all getting sued.

Tonight on "Tech Live," get the very latest on this new round of lawsuits, reaction from all corners of the industry, and an analysis of the new legal tact taken by the Recording Industry Association of America.

The 532 suits filed in Washington, D.C., mark a new strategy by the RIAA, whose controversial subpoena process was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in RIAA v. Verizon. The court said the industry had no right to subpoena Internet service providers for information about their subscribers.

No more Mr. Nice Guy

The suits come amid two recent, conflicting reports that say use of file-swapping services is both down and up in recent months. Also, legitimate sites such as Apple's iTunes Music Store have announced great success in selling singles online. Some 30 million tracks have been downloaded from iTunes, according to Apple.

When the Verizon ruling was announced, the RIAA immediately went back on the offensive, saying the court's decision merely meant the recording industry would cease sending subpoenas and first file lawsuits.

That's exactly what the RIAA has now done in filing the 532 new suits Wednesday. In a statement released by the RIAA, the recording industry says it will subsequently issue subpoenas now that the suits have been filed.

Additionally, the RIAA says it will no longer offer settlements to alleged file swappers prior to suing them.

Get-tough campaign continues

In a statement, RIAA president Cary Sherman said, "Our campaign against illegal file sharers is not missing a beat. The message to illegal file sharers should be as clear as ever -- we can and will continue to bring lawsuits on a regular basis against those who illegally distribute copyrighted music."

Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and CEO, said file swappers can no longer plead ignorance in the wake of the RIAA's strong enforcement efforts and the recent launch of legal music download sites including iTunes, Napster, and BuyMusic.com.

"The debate isn't digital versus plastic. It isn't old versus new," Bainwol said in the RIAA's statement. "Here's what it is: Legitimate versus illegitimate. It's iTunes and the new Napster and others versus KaZaA, Imesh, and Grokster. It's whether or not digital music will be enjoyed in a fashion that supports the creative process or one that robs it of its future."

RIAA FAQ About New Lawsuits

In addition to the statement released by the RIAA announcing its legal actions, the recording industry released the following Frequently Asked Questions about the suits.

Where else/how often have John Doe suits been filed?
Many plaintiffs file John Doe lawsuits when they do not know the name of the person against whom they are taking legal action. For example, the jewelry industry made use of the John Doe procedure when Rolex filed hundreds of lawsuits against individuals passing off counterfeit Rolex watches as genuine, but the company did not know the name of the sellers. In the online context, this litigation tool is used with increasing frequency.

Do these suits allege anything different from those filed last year?
These lawsuits are similar to the suits we filed last year against individual infringers. The underlying copyright infringement has not changed, nor has the fact that it is clearly illegal to download and upload copyrighted works on a peer-to-peer network without authorization. As with our lawsuits last year, we are seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright infringement under the federal copyright laws -- specifically, Title 17 of the United States Code, which among other things provides penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings.

How are these suits different from the suits you filed last fall and winter?
The only difference between these "John Doe" lawsuits and the litigations we filed last year is the procedural process by which we file them. Instead of issuing a subpoena first to learn an infringer's identity, we file a lawsuit first and then issue the subpoena subsequently.

You said your first round of lawsuits last year were against the "worst cases." Is that the case with these suits?
These lawsuits will be similar to those we filed last year. We are targeting major offenders.

What kind of penalties does the law allow now and what are you seeking?
Nothing has changed. Under federal law, copyright holders can sue infringers for statutory damages ranging from $750 to $150,000 for each of their copyrighted works that have been illegally copied or distributed. We intend to leave it up to the court to decide what kind of damages should be paid. We continue to seek settlements wherever possible.

How can you offer illegal file sharers an opportunity for settlement given you have to sue first now?
Unfortunately, we are no longer able to send a pre-lawsuit notification letter in advance and offer a chance for settlement before filing a lawsuit. Nonetheless, we wanted to go the extra mile to develop a variation of the program that has so far been successful. After learning the identities of illegal file sharers through "John Doe" litigations, but before amending the complaint with the infringer's name and address, the RIAA would offer the opportunity to settle the case before proceeding any further with the litigation.

How does filing John Doe lawsuits change the manner in which you collect evidence for a lawsuit?
It doesn't. Our evidence collection process involves searching only for files that are readily available to every other member of the public.

Here's how it works: When you log on to a peer-to-peer network, your P2P software has a default setting that automatically informs the network of your user name and the names and sizes of the files on your hard drive that are available for copying.

Because all this information is publicly available to anyone on the network, it's relatively easy to look for -- and find -- users who are offering to "share" copyrighted music files. The networks could not work if this were not the case. We search the network for infringing files, similar to the way other users search the network.

When we come across a user who is distributing copyrighted music files, we download copyrighted music files (of our member companies) the user is offering, as well as document the date and time that we downloaded those files.

Additional information that is publicly available from these systems allows us to identify the user's Internet service provider (ISP). After manually reviewing the information to confirm that infringement has occurred, we can then decide whether it justifies filing a John Doe lawsuit using the individual's Internet protocol (IP) address as a placeholder for the person's name.

All that changes is the process by which we obtain the name of the individual engaged in the illegal activity in order to file a lawsuit against that individual.



Glad

Bastards.

Before they were suing the parent/owner of the computer, but now do they have to sue the actual user? Since it is John Doe, they will have to prove who used the computer wouldn't they? And does it have to be beyond reasonable doubt?

Re: Round 2: RIAA Launches New Legal Attack
 

So that little girl they were going to sue was one of the "worst cases?" :confused:

Idiots, still using lawsuits instead of furthering technology...

:mad:

I don't really like the RIAA. But it seems to me that now that we have things like Napster and iTunes which give users what they have been asking for all along (music you can download for a small fee). It just seems like people who are still sharing files illegally are getting what is coming to them.

Harshaw, I agree with what you said. File-swappers of owned content shouldn't be surprised when the RIAA comes after them - after all there isn't really a legal question here, just a procedural one.

If I take all the files I downloaded ,put them in a seprate file and delete Kazaa...Does the RIAA have anything on me?

no monre, I'm pretty sure you can say that you used your computer as a backup system for your legally purchased cd's. And that you lost the originals. :P

latest public release from the RIAA:

"back to the stone age with the lot of ya! We want to see your music encoded on granite slabs and if you let anyone that hasn't paid us to hear the music we'll be chaining the slabs to your leg and throwing them off a cliff" :)

From what i understand, If anyone gets sued just declare amnesty. Say you will never do it again, "delete" the files, and move on. Honestly, the RIAA is being so childish and if they would just stop inflating CD prices or get better music (which people would want to buy). Pirating would significantly decrease. Until then the RIAA can PISS OFF. I on the other hand decided to make good use of the subpoena. Today, I called my mom and said I got a letter from the RIAA and was being sued for $682,000. The screaming and cussing never ended, but it was totally worth it. Now if I could find some fake subpoena papers online, I'd make a fake lawsuit for my ex-roommate that he'd never forget.

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa-v-thepeople.php

Google is your friend.

You shouldn't do that though, it isn't nice.

Prince my dormhall thanks you a million times for the prank I am about to pull! :D

dude... punx1325 that would be such a great april fools.... i think i might have to do that to my parents...

I shall inflict much pain and suffering. The Pandora's Box has been opened.

Come and get me, international law is a floating joke, nah-nah, nah-nah nah :p

hahaha...fuck IRAA bitches...good thing 99.9% of my music is chinese/korean/japanese/vietnamese :D

(no anti-piracy law in china....(that i know of))

Wow, it's a good thing I don't steal music off the internet... dodged a bullet there... ;)
~Crack

Well, let the file swapping continue I say. You have safety in numbers. They've filed about a thousand lawsuits and there are how many millions of file swappers out there? Three, four, mabye over five million? Its like an exterminator going into a yard infested with ants and trying to take them out 1 at a time with a toothpick. The news coverage has blown it out of proportion, doing the RIAA's handywork by scaring people away from file swapping with what amounts to removing a drop from the bucket. And thats really all they hope to do with these lawsuits; scare enough gullible people into thinking they are the next RIAA target.

One of the points that people miss in this whole saga, is that the RIAA is trying to stop independant music distribution. The internet brings about a new and promising avenue for independant artists to get their music to a broad audience. The major labels, once being the only medium for an artist to have widespread music distribution, now have competition. They are becoming a useless thirdwheel in the artist/consumer relationship. They are simultaneously trying to kill internet radio, buy up or control all the legal online music services (Universal destroyed emusic.com, the ONLY decent music service that has ever existed IMHO), create laws to restrict technology without regard to what it will do to other industries or our freedom... all to make sure they have the stranglehold over music distribution in the digital world. Sorry, I'll give my money to the artists, not those assholes.

So keep on swapping and dont let the bully full of empty threats scare you. Theres still no end in sight to online swapping.

Just for the record, my primary source of mp3's used to be emusic.com; a legal online music service. That is until universal bought it and basicly turned it into a another crappy itunes copycat with a couple slight variations.

Does anyone know what information that might have been included in that block above Re: Notification of Copyright Infringement Claims on the Sample letter?

I am working up my template now and will be heading to Office Max tomorrow for letterhead.

As someone who has been on the recieving end of a cease and desist warning I know how it feels. Mine was to the ISP since they only had IP info and my ISP did not turnover any info. Since it was only an email I could not use it for my own mischief. This however is to good of prank not to pass on. I thank you a million for this great idea and the others do too I'm sure

60 million.
At the current rate, it will take over a millenium to sue everyone using the networks in the US alone...

It would be a lot more realistic to just increase the quality of product or drop the price of cd's... wtf are consumers supposed to do when all they get for a hard earned Jackson consists of mediocre artistry, poor interactive features, few HQ songs, and astronomical prices for all of the above?

bastards is right

About downloading--a friend of mine (who's somewhat familiar with the music business) recently told me that artists only get a very small percentage of album sales; they make most of their money from live shows, and the label gets most of the album sales money.

Any truth to that? I've always tried to dl songs I already own, or plan on buying, but if I'm supporting the label more than the artist...well...screw that...

Yes thats true in most cases. Most bands get a nice little initial signing bonus and then have to give it right back to the label to pay for their studio time. Then the label usually gets rights to the songs, gets most of the royalties for the songs, including cd sales, radio play etc. The bands get their money from touring... wich is why alot of them dont really have much money at all cept for the superstars. This is also why no one cares when the RIAA throws the "your hurting the artist" guilt trip on everyone, because they've been hurting the artist and the consumer for a long time.

So yes, when you buy a CD you're usually giving the label alot more money than the artist. Some bands will have better leverage in making deals with the labels depending on their success.

Eh i'm not worried a bit.....I do house calls fixing computers...and 99% of the computer I work on have the following:
1. Normal Kazaa Installed...spyware and alll
2. Over 200 songs in their shared folder and filesharing with other users enabled...
Kinda funny...since these are the people obviously getting caught...

As for how much bands make from album sales... close to nothing. Most get ~ $.09-$.13 per album sold. That's cents, not dollars... There are always some exceptions, like Sub-pop records, where Death Cab for Cutie and Hot Hot Heat originated. They made more money through more honest indie labels, but the lure of the big labels always reels in the musicians because of the draw of fame. To be honest, if they ever come after me, I'm moving to China, because I'll be damned if they'll ever be able to find me there...

I got one of those "It appears that you're illegally sharing music..." messages on my Kazaa the other day, does that mean a supeana is sure to follow, or do they send those messages to all Kazaa users, since obviously that's what the majority of them are there to do??

Are you using kazaa lite?

<-- 7,342 songs....

like 1100 or so that are shared (everything else is on a totally different physical drive)
I run my filesharing behind a proxy server in switzerland, and have various ports blocked on a firewall

I'm not worried at all :rolleyes:

I have never received a message like that. I use Kazaa Lite++. Just be careful. Good luck.
Glad

yeah, merker I'm using lite does that make a difference?

Whenever you DL a song, move the *.MP3 to a different folder... (out of "My Shared Folder")
Come on people, when shoplifting something, do you wear it out of the store?

I agree. Just lower the price of the CD and give me higher quality music. Either that, or increase the amount of money each artist makes on the sale of a cd, while decreasing the amount of money the label makes, and still lower the total CD cost.