DId RIAA give up on the lawsuits yet?

I guess that means they didn't give up yet.

Sadly, not at all true. Just ask Pete Townsend...or anyone on a terrorist watch list. Happens in most federal cases, actually. Spooky.

Copyright Infringement Lawsuits Brought Against 753 Additional Illegal File Sharers

WASHINGTON – The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), on behalf of the major record companies, today announced a new wave of copyright infringement lawsuits against illegal file sharers, including individual network users at 11 different colleges.

The “John Doe” suits cite the individuals for illegally distributing copyrighted music on the Internet via unauthorized peer-to-peer services such as KaZaa, eDonkey and Grokster.

While the record industry aggressively licenses its catalogues of music to a host of legitimate digital services and those businesses continue to attract new fans, Cary Sherman, the RIAA’s President, said that, “the vast potential of the legal marketplace is mostly unfilled. This is especially so when compared to the illegal file sharing networks where millions of songs are downloaded unlawfully each week.”

“Even while we work to hold accountable the businesses that encourage and profit from illegal file sharing, it’s critical to simultaneously send a strong message that the individual users of these pirate networks can be caught and face the consequences,” added Sherman. “The lawsuits are a critical deterrent. They have helped arrest the extraordinary growth of illicit p2p use.”

Among those sued today are users of computer networks at 11 universities and colleges, including: Hamilton College; Louisiana State University; Louisiana Tech. University; Loyola University Chicago; Ohio University; Old Dominion University; Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute; Texas A&M University; University of Southern California; Vanderbilt University; and Wright State University.

As a partial reflection of the positive trends in the online music marketplace, Sherman pointed to new independent research, including a February study (http://www.ipsos-insight.com/pressrelease.aspx?id=2550) from Ipsos-Insight. According to that study, “nearly half (47%) of American downloaders aged 12 and older had paid a fee to download music or MP3 files off of the Internet. This represents a leap in activity roughly double the 22% witnessed in December 2003, and over five times the activity in December 2002.”

-- John Justen (johnjuste...) (webmail), April 10th, 2005.

Or ask me. They sure do have the right to seize your computer. A lot of other things too. Don't expect to get much back either.

(Don't expect him to explain, he's been on about this stuff before but speaks in riddles.)

He's right. There have been no criminal investigations thus far solely for people sharing on p2p networks. The closest have been administrators of p2p networks, thus some of my past concern, or "riddles." A group of people who ran a DC++ server were raided. I don't believe they've been sentenced yet.

Other people who have been raided in slightly similar situations have been owners of webpages that offered copyright materials, such as one person who ran a fan page for a TV show, and he had full episodes available for download, and public IRC channels which offered varying content.

And no, I wasn't sharing warez and/or movies.

And I had it coming? Thanks.

Thus far, the RIAA has only brought civil cases on people. There is absolutely no reason, however, that any of the hundreds of people slapped with civil cases from the RIAA cannot be investigated by federal authorites. They are all (well, almost all) committing a federal crime. In the case that they are investigated, FBI agents will seize their computer.

Is this likely to happen? No, of course not. It can though. Oh no, riddles!

Hey, I understand the skepticism, but this just isn't true...unlikely, yes, but the below dates back to 2000.

http://news.com.com/Student's+PC+seized+after+record+industry+complaint/2100-1023_3-245770.html

The legality of hard drive seizure in cases of intellectual property violation has been firmly established. To maintain otherwise is simply ignorant. Whether it is common or not does not change the fact that it is certainly possible. We'll see what happens at Princeton, etc.

"The student added, "I was warned that I'm obligated by law to preserve all evidence, meaning I can't alter anything on my hard drive. The most irritating thing is I don't know what'll happen next.""

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14266055&BRD=1091&PAG=461&dept_id=425695&rfi=6

And don't expect future laws to make it harder for law enforcement to do...the RIAA is a powerful lobby.

"he was operating an FTP server site that allowed visitors to download MP3 music files and even several full-length movies".

So: not the usual p2p channels; not just music. Yes, theoretically they could bring a criminal case against people using Soulseek. It just looks like, so far, they don't really want to.

http://www.nineronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/04/28/408ecabb37098

There's the article my campus newspaper published about me. I don't see any harm in posting in that.

I'm surprised this hasn't generated more discussion here:

Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits

As Wired points out here, the first sentence is incorrect. And the last sentence seems to mourn paid individual song downloads.

Thoughts?

The RIAA is planning to replace its "subpoena, settle or sue" process that has been expensive for the music industry. It requires the RIAA to go through the courts in order to pressure those it suspects of sharing music without permission.

Instead, RIAA agents will seek out those sharing music without permission (usually by conducting its own P2P searches), and will e-mail the music sharer's ISP alerting them to that activity. The ISP will then either forward the RIAA's e-mail or send the subscriber a warning e-mail telling them that music sharing is not permitted.

If they continue to share, the subscriber will receive one or two additional warnings, after which the ISP will slow their connection. If the allegedly infringing activity persists, the subscriber may find their internet connection stops working altogether.

wow

do you remember when sam phillips went door to door in memphis, back in '55, taking the batteries out of everyone's radio? oh, no, it never happened: that would have been moronic.

Well what I'm thinking is, suppose someone has their internet cut off. What will they do? Find another ISP, right? So doesn't that mean that ISP's who aren't part of the agreement are going to get more business? It hands an advantage to them, economically. Furthermore, if one ISP cuts a person off, do they then become "branded" on some blacklist and would be unable to obtain service with another ISP? Eventually people are going to know which ISP's are part of this and which aren't. Word will get around.

A person cut off could use another ISP. But isn't it true that some areas are serviced by only one ISP? If that's the case, one may not have a choice.

"A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song."

Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

$80,000 per song! fucking nuts. So 80,000 people downloaded each song from here, and they would otherwise have gone out to buy the song? as if. I can't believe they're still getting away with the "copyright=theft" idea.

so ridiculous. i don't know how they can even pretend this is anything but a shakedown. fucking economic terrorism.

Perhaps this has been answered already, but somebody please enlighten me: How does the RIAA end up targeting this particular woman, who gave away 24 songs, when there are people running blogs — updated daily — that let you download hundreds of full albums? I know it went to trial only because she refused to settle, but how come we don't hear about more suits or actions being taken against blogs, many of which have attained a good deal of name recognition?
Not anti-music blog, just curious.

RIAA probably hasn't figured out what a 'blog' is yet, they're still talking about Kazaa!

I'm surprised this happened since they loudly trumpeted that they weren't going after individuals anymore just a few months ago.

what a disaster for Jammie

Only just seen this - numbers on revenue lost from downloading = totally and utterly bogus:
http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/

Well, maybe they shot themselves in the foot.
Analysis: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9134582&intsrc=news_ts_head.92M fine in music piracy case could hurt RIAA

oh wow, great article, now people are going to think the riaa is crazy and unreasonable instead of the beacons of civility and understanding they've proven themselves to be over the years!!!

THEY REALLY SCREWED THE POOCH ON THIS ONE!

That ruling makes me absolutely fucking disgusted. I mean, I'm not exactly on the side that thinks we are entitled to free music whenever we want it, but jesus does the punishment not fit the crime at all. I mean, using this logic, a person stealing a $2 loaf of bread from the corner store should be fined $160,000.

I swear, if the RIAA could prove how many songs I've "given away" over the past 30 years via mix tapes and CDs, I'd be sent to Leavenworth for life.
(Cue comeback: "Well, that shouldn't be too long.")

Only if said person was Jesus and could manage to give the entire loaf to thousands of other people and still have it for himself.

xp

she had a chance to settle, though

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

i realize that's a lot of money, but still. . .

The RIAA can't continue this pattern, however. The trial must have cost them plenty, and they're not gonna get the $1.92 million from this woman anyway.

agreed, they'll never get the $, but the article says they're not taking this approach anymore

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.

Ok, bad example above. I still think this is ridiculous. I mean, did they prove that 80,000 people downloaded each song somehow?

"[Her attorney] said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her."

Letting juries decide damages strikes me as being somewhat questionable.

xpost i don't think that's the way the law works--the jury could have awarded something like 150K per song, but they didn't

Letting juries decide damages strikes me as being somewhat questionable.

. . . that's the way our system works though

Perhaps this has been answered already, but somebody please enlighten me: How does the RIAA end up targeting this particular woman, who gave away 24 songs, when there are people running blogs — updated daily — that let you download hundreds of full albums?

well per steve knopper's book, the initial lawsuits were the product of a bunch of analysts sitting around an office in d.c. on kazaa, randomly picking people who seemed to have a lot of activity.

What happens in these kind of cases which such ludicrous amounts of money? Does she declare bankruptcy? Or do they sequester all her salary each month for the rest of her life or something?

she'll probably appeal it?

(if she can?)

I'm sure she can appeal, and that being the case she won't have to start paying anything for a while.

Maybe they'll ask her to settle again.

U can't get blood from a stone.

http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/keith-richards-barechest-at-60.jpg

MY EYES

a George A Romero snap

"Perhaps this has been answered already, but somebody please enlighten me: How does the RIAA end up targeting this particular woman, who gave away 24 songs, when there are people running blogs — updated daily — that let you download hundreds of full albums?"

Also she didn't give away 24 songs (she was sharing 1,700 or so.) The RIAA just chose to focus on 24 songs.

So they could have gotten her for $13,600,000,000 if they really wanted to; that's a bullet dodged!

Haha yeah she lucked out.

apparently these are the songs :

01 Mr.C - “Cha Cha Slide”
02 MC Hammer - “The Addams Family”
03 Los del Rio - “Macarena (Bayside Boys Mix)”
04 Del Shannon - “Runaround Sue”
05 New Kids on the Block - “The Right Stuff”
06 Phil Collins - “Sussudio”
07 Def Leppard - “Pour Some Sugar on Me”
08 Baha Men - “Who Let the Dogs Out”
09 Aerosmith - “I Don’t Wanna Miss a Thing”
10 Beach Boys - “Kokomo”
11 America - “Muskrat Love”
12 Rupert Holmes - “Escape (The Pina Colada 13 Song)”
14 Don McLean - “American Pie”
15 Eminem - “The Real Slim Shady”
16 Peter Frampton - “Baby I Love Your Way”
17 Phil Collins - “You Can’t Hurry Love”
18 The Knack - “My Sharona”
19 Tommy Tutone - “867-5309/Jenny”
20 America - “A Horse With No Name”
21 Terry Jecks - “Seasons in the Sun”
22 Lou Bega - “Mambo #5”
23 Bon Jovi - “Living on a Prayer”
24 Europe - “The Final Countdown”

holy shit, like the worst 24 songs ever

I'd be pissed about having to pay $19 million for "Mambo #5", too!

I for one am glad that the Baha Men will be $80,000 dollars richer as a result of this.

ps, poll

^^^

hey Runaround Sue is a great song

She should have been sued for aesthetic violations.

Seeing as these songs were specifically picked out of a big pile of music, I think she was!

I'm guessing the RIAA just handpicked 24 of the most popular songs she was sharing, out of the 1700 total.

I mean, this woman couldn't have picked a better Phil Collins song than "You Can't Hurry Love." Throw the book at her!

She did: "Sussudio"!

It's like the jury was trying to mete justice out on "American Psycho".

XD

MC Hammer - “The Addams Family”

FIRST OFF ITS CALLED "ADDAMS GROOVE"

^^ No wonder I couldn't find it on Kazaa. :(

It's like the jury was trying to mete justice out on "American Psycho".

<3 <3 <3

In law school I had a professor who said that any time a lawsuit goes to trial (because the parties don't settle it first), at least one party must be behaving irrationally. That $5,000 settlement offer she passed up should be looking pretty good to her in retrospect.

RIAA wants to promote deterrence, so headline-grabbing damages awards like this one should be good news for them - they want to give people a reason to think twice about how they download. But the brilliant part of their legal strategy was to target a pool of songs from which any potential juror would hate at least one. Way to make the defendant unsympathetic.

yeah anyone who didn't take the settlement is kind of an idiot, she had some bad legal advice.

She was represented by Kiwi Camara.

well he sounds like a level-headed peach

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

why's she listening to the del shannon version of runaround sue when everyone knows dion OWNS that song

no, the superb Leif Garrett does.

Here's the real (and less fun) list:

* Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
* Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
* Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
* Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
* Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
* Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"
* Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
* Aerosmith "Cryin’"
* Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
* Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
* Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
* Bryan Adams "Somebody"
* No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
* Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
* Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
* Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
* Green Day "Basket Case"

So wait - vain_bowers made that list up?? If so, that's hilarious!!!