|
RIAA up to no good again
|
View this Thread in Original format
| whitesmoke |
Friday, July 18, 2003
WASHINGTON — The music industry has won at least 871 federal subpoenas against computer users suspected of illegally sharing music files (search) on the Internet, with roughly 75 new subpoenas being approved each day, U.S. court officials said Friday.
The effort represents early steps in the music industry's contentious plan to file civil lawsuits aimed at crippling online piracy.
Subpoenas reviewed by The Associated Press show the industry compelling some of the largest Internet providers, such as Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Cable Communications Inc., and some universities to identify names and mailing addresses for users on their networks known online by nicknames such as "fox3j," "soccerdog33," "clover77" or "indepunk74."
The Recording Industry Association of America (search) has said it expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within the next eight weeks. U.S. copyright laws (search) allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but the RIAA has said it would be open to settlement proposals from defendants.
The campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to readily identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act permits music companies to force Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected music pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office, without a judge's signature required.
In some cases, subpoenas cite as few as five songs as "representative recordings" of music files available for downloading from these users. The trade group for the largest music labels, the Washington-based RIAA, previously indicated its lawyers would target Internet users who offer substantial collections of MP3 song files but declined to say how many songs might qualify for a lawsuit.
"We would have to look at historic trends, but that is a very high number," said Alan Davidson of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group that has argued against the subpoenas. "It doesn't sound like they're just going after a few big fish."
Music fans are fighting back with technology, using new software designed specifically to stymie monitoring of their online activities by the major record labels.
A new version of "Kazaa Lite," free software that provides access to the service operated by Sharman Networks Ltd., can prevent anyone from listing all music files on an individual's machine and purports to block scans from Internet addresses believed to be associated with the RIAA.
Many of the subpoenas reviewed by the AP identified songs from the same few artists, including Avril Lavigne, Snoop Dogg and Michael Jackson. It was impossible to determine whether industry lawyers were searching the Internet specifically for songs by these artists or whether they were commonly popular among the roughly 60 million users of file-sharing services.
The RIAA's subpoenas are so prolific that the U.S. District Court in Washington, already suffering staff shortages, has been forced to reassign employees from elsewhere in the clerk's office to help process paperwork, said Angela Caesar-Mobley, the clerk's operations manager.
The RIAA declined to comment on the numbers of subpoenas it issued.
"We are identifying substantial infringers and we're going to whatever entity is providing (Internet) service for that potential infringer," said Matt Oppenheim, the group's senior vice president of business and legal affairs. "From there we'll be in a position to begin bringing lawsuits."
A spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said the clerk's office here was "functioning more like a clearing house, issuing subpoenas for all over the country." Any civil lawsuits would likely be transferred to a different jurisdiction, spokeswoman Karen Redmond said.
Verizon, which has fought the RIAA over the subpoenas with continued legal appeals, said it received at least 150 subpoenas during the last two weeks. There were no subpoenas on file sent to AOL Time Warner Inc., the nation's largest Internet provider and also parent company of Warner Music Group. Earthlink Inc., another of the largest Internet providers, said it has received only three new subpoenas.
Depaul University in Chicago was among the few colleges that received such subpoenas; the RIAA asked Depaul on July 2 to track down a user known as "anon39023" who was allegedly offering at least eight songs.
There was some evidence the threat of an expensive lawsuit was discouraging online music sharing. Nielsen NetRatings, which monitors Internet usage, earlier this week reported a decline for traffic on the Kazaa network of one million users, with similarly large drops across other services. |
|
|
| b1_ |
| Internet freedom is no more me thinks. The liberty netters have enjoyed since it's beginnings looks like it will slowly be eroded from here on out; I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an internet government and police force being formed in the next 20 years or so. Big brother is watching ppl - I really hate the atmosphere of paranoia and fear the RIAA is creating on the net these days. This is not how it should be. |
|
|
| Cyberwoo |
| Money money money munnnehh.......muuuuunnnehhhhhhh! |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyberwoo
Money money money munnnehh.......muuuuunnnehhhhhhh! |
Exactly. Jeez, these ultra-patriots who claim the U.S. grants so many freedoms will be eating their own words after this is all through. |
|
|
| ASOT100 |
| I wonder how they came up with that $ amount |
|
|
| hadi burpee |
| i dont agree with how the riaa is going about their business, but dont you guys think artists deserve to get paid for what they are doing, rather than making because so many people download. i mean is everyone that cheap that they cant go out and buy a cd at least once a month. even some people who say their favorite artist is this person or that person, i bet most poeple havent even bought one of their works. im not saying you arent a true fan, but if you were, wouldnt you at least want to support them? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Maybe this will stop someone from downloading music but I don't think it will have any big effect, and if it got any effect some smartass will build a protocoll with very high encryption etc, imposssible for RIIA to do anything about.
Anyway this doesn't help the record industry much, they have some other big problems like focusing to much on those big played-all-the-time-on-the-radio artists. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
What artists do they represent anyways? Since I have that avril lavgine song they can sue me? What if you own the vinyl of it?:conf:
p.s. Here in the USA the corporate greed is an epidemic. I have the feeling it's mostly the big record labels that are behind this (more so than the artists).
Can they sue you if you live outside the USA? What about in the case of DC hubs outside the USA? If the servers are outside the USA, is that out of their jurisdiction?
This could kill the EDM scene....:( |
|
|
| b1_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by hadi ******
i dont agree with how the riaa is going about their business, but dont you guys think artists deserve to get paid for what they are doing, rather than making because so many people download. i mean is everyone that cheap that they cant go out and buy a cd at least once a month. even some people who say their favorite artist is this person or that person, i bet most poeple havent even bought one of their works. im not saying you arent a true fan, but if you were, wouldnt you at least want to support them? |
I don't think anybody disagrees with you. Most music fans, if not all, are for the artists but against the record companies. They question why record companies are needed at all when artists can distribute their music with just one click of a button. They ask why does a good proportion of their money need to fund distribution when it's not needed? They ask why do record companies own their favourite artists music and not the artists themselves? They want the convienience of downloading. They want to choose what they like not have it forced on them in albums that have two good songs and 10 bad rushed productions caused by record company pressure. They ask why can't I send my money directly to the artists through paypal or something, or at least a central copyright agency run by the government, so that all people involved in it's creation (eg original artist and remix artist) get the right amount.
Imagine a world where you could do that; where artists released a song and fans downloaded it for free. If they liked it they sent their money to the artists and perhaps then recieved a badge of some sought that indicated, whenever they posted on a forum, that they had payed and supported their artist. If you frequented fan sites and didn't have these badges you'd feel like a worthless leecher in no time. Yes, not everyone would pay but a lot would, songs would be cheaper, unbelievably easy to access, the truly talented would be the richest (not pumped up record company talentless idiots), and the artists would be getting 100% of the money, as it should be. (I'm sure there are many holes in this idea but the point is no-one is trying to implement new ideas because the power and the money resides with the old way of doing things).
It's just frustrating to see what appears to be control by the wealthy and powerful of art. The world wants music; it want's to soak it up and perhaps then be inspired to create. Can you imagine the explosion of music to come because of the unprecendented access we have to music these days; kids are rushing out to buy keyboards and Sequencers etc to produce their own music. Anyone, anywhere in the world can be exposed to any type of music as long as they have a computer; they don't have to be rich and live in a powerful country. They can listen and perhaps then be inspired to create hybrid techno and outer Mongolian folk music, I don't know.
Just that deep down what the RIAA is doing feels wrong to me. It's controlling, suppressive and negative; not productive, innovative and intelligent. |
|
|
| Abscond |
| quote: | Originally posted by whitesmoke
Depaul University in Chicago was among the few colleges that received such subpoenas; the RIAA asked Depaul on July 2 to track down a user known as "anon39023" who was allegedly offering at least eight songs.
|
OK, I can see the RIAA going after people sharing hundreds of songs but 8?!! FFS that's rediculous! :whip: |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by b1_
I don't think anybody disagrees with you. Most music fans, if not all, are for the artists but against the record companies. They question why record companies are needed at all when artists can distribute their music with just one click of a button. They ask why does a good proportion of their money need to fund distribution when it's not needed? They ask why do record companies own their favourite artists music and not the artists themselves? They want the convienience of downloading. They want to choose what they like not have it forced on them in albums that have two good songs and 10 bad rushed productions caused by record company pressure. They ask why can't I send my money directly to the artists through paypal or something, or at least a central copyright agency run by the government, so that all people involved in it's creation (eg original artist and remix artist) get the right amount.
Imagine a world where you could do that; where artists released a song and fans downloaded it for free. If they liked it they sent their money to the artists and perhaps then recieved a badge of some sought that indicated, whenever they posted on a forum, that they had payed and supported their artist. If you frequented fan sites and didn't have these badges you'd feel like a worthless leecher in no time. Yes, not everyone would pay but a lot would, songs would be cheaper, unbelievably easy to access, the truly talented would be the richest (not pumped up record company talentless idiots), and the artists would be getting 100% of the money, as it should be. (I'm sure there are many holes in this idea but the point is no-one is trying to impliment new ideas because the power and the money resides with the old way of doing things).
It's just frustrating to see what appears to be control by the wealthy and powerful of art. The world wants music; it want's to soak it up and perhaps then be inspired to create. Can you imagine the explosion of music to come because of the unprecendented access we have to music these days; kids are rushing out to buy keyboards and Sequencers etc to produce their own music. Anyone, anywhere in the world can be exposed to any type of music as long as they have a computer; they don't have to be rich and live in a powerful country. They can listen and perhaps then be inspired to create hybrid techno and outer Mongolian folk music, I don't know.
Just that deep down what the RIAA is doing feels wrong to me. It's controlling, suppressive and negative; not productive, innovative and intelligent. |
You are correct. Most record labels don't give two s about the artists.
Some good ideas you have. :)
I don't think people outside the USA should worry too much yet.
As for me...well I'm stuck in the land of corporate greed.
:( |
|
|
| PaRaNoIk0 |
$750 for a song :wtf:
can I join the RIAA? |
|
|
|
|
