The RIAA Are Going after the "Little Guys"

[tobedawg]

Yep the Gang of Thugs Known as the RIAA are going after the average file sharer now.. Rather than spend the time and money to try to improve their product OR lowering the list prices on CD's, *sigh*.. -- TD


RIAA goes after the little guys
Thu Jun 26, 8:20 AM ET Add Entertainment - USA TODAY to My Yahoo!


Jefferson Graham USA TODAY

When Karol Franks, a mother of two teens in Pasadena, Calif., heard Wednesday that the music industry was threatening to sue average folks who swap music online -- like her kids -- she posed a question that must have been on many minds: ''How can there be a lawsuit when there are tens of thousands of people who use file-sharing programs?''


Because the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites), flush with recent court wins in its fight against digital piracy, can now move from suing the companies that facilitate the free swapping of music files to targeting some of the 57 million computers users who regularly swap.


Going after home users is the industry's best chance to slow the growth of file-swapping services, which have boomed since Napster (news - web sites)'s demise in 2001.


And the record labels, suffering a drop of 20% in album sales since 2000 according to unreleased Nielsen SoundScan figures, feel they need to take action.


But for parents such as Franks, ''these are kids who I believe are the majority of the thieves,'' she says. ''To what extent would they be able to make financial amends if these minors can be held liable?''


In practical terms, not much. Four college students were sued in April, and settled shortly after for $12,000 to $17,500 each. But potential fines are a whopping $150,000 a song, which would make a person who shares as few as 10 songs online accountable for $1.5 million.


Attorney Whitney Broussard calls the copyright fines astronomical. ''The penalty far outweighs the actual harm,'' he says. ''When the reality of the size of these damages sinks in, when the parents of a 15-year-old downloader are sued for millions, people are going to be stunned.''


Few expect that even legal action against users will end online piracy. But the industry hopes to at least give breathing room to some of the legal services starting to gain traction.


''It's very difficult to compete with free,'' says Bob Ohlweiler of MusicMatch, which has the largest subscriber base of any legitimate subscription service -- 145,000 users for its listen-only MX Radio -- and hopes to start selling song downloads by summer's end. ''The injection of personal responsibility is a sensible approach. It's like a speeding ticket. Everybody doesn't get one, but a few people do, and a lot of people slow down.''


Others see the offensive against fans as another wrongheaded move by an industry that could have handled the situation with vision years ago.


''Can you imagine Wal-Mart spending time to collect evidence, file lawsuits against its customers together and clog up the courts?'' says Gale Daikoku, retail analyst with market research firm GartnerG2. She calls this kind of assault on a customer base ''unprecedented.'' Theft in the $2.7 trillion retail industry is 2% of sales, she says, but stores like Macy's and Nordstrom ''focus on making the customer experience better and having people return to the stores, not on chasing them away.''


Not everyone buys into piracy as the sole cause of the industry's slump. ''Digital copying, whether file sharing or CD burning, is definitely a factor, but it's not the only culprit,'' says Geoff Mayfield, Billboard's director of charts. ''Music is not necessarily a recession-proof product. . . . When you're not certain of your job status or how much money you have in the bank, it's easy to put off buying music, especially if you're not a kid.''


But Andrew Lack, CEO of Sony Music, home to such artists as the Dixie Chicks (news - web sites), Bruce Springsteen (news) and Bob Dylan (news), hails the move as just what the industry needs. ''I liken this to Chapter 1 of the new book being written about digital music,'' he says. ''The lawsuits are an additional mechanism to level the playing fields, and a measure of how much the game has changed.''


Lack believes consumers will be induced by this action to seriously consider legal alternatives such as Apple's Music Store, which has sold 5 million songs in its first two months. ''Legitimate music is readily available online and more services will be out there for consumers. That's the headline.''


The recent introduction of the Apple Store wowed critics and users with its ease of use -- all songs are 99 cents a track, with few of the restrictions found on other services. But the Apple Store is only available to Apple users, about 3% of the computer market.


''We're dancing as fast as we can,'' says Lack. ''By the end of the year, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and others will have services for Windows users as well.''


Try telling that to Jorge Gonzalez, who runs zeropaid.com, a Web site that serves as a forum for online music fans and includes links to file-sharing software such as Kazaa and Morpheus, as well as newcomers named Blubster and Earth Station 5. He says that average users might be intimidated, but knowledgeable computer users will always be several steps ahead of the industry.


''There will be a large migration from Kazaa to other networks, where people feel more secure,'' Gonzalez says. ''But will it stop file sharing? Hell no.'' He says several new services are being developed to hide users' identities: ''Technology will always evolve around such obstacles.''

Tom Rogers, 31, a frequent downloader from Brooklyn, says there's no way he's going to stop sharing online music. ''There are those who think that peer-to-peer is equivalent to bank robbery, but I disagree. Most of my activity involves uploading and getting a satisfying feeling that I am sharing something beautiful with friends and a community of music lovers.''

Should Rogers or others be targeted, ''the law is pretty clear; there's no defense,'' says Palo Alto, Calif., lawyer Mark Radcliffe. ''Most people won't have the resources to pay for attorney fees, and if they came to me, I'd say, 'Settle.' ''

The RIAA says that, to start, it's going after traders who share large numbers of files. RIAA president Cary Sherman says that about 90% of all online music piracy is committed by 10% of users. ''It demonstrates that if you can get to these 10%, you can have a dramatic impact on the peer-to-peer systems.''

But worried parents may not be buying it. ''Has a theater ever sued a kid for sneaking into a movie without paying?'' Karol Franks says. ''I think the music industry will spend a lot of money for little reward.''

[DogStarMan]

Sorry, but since I don't illeagally download music, I just can't bring myself to the point of caring about this in the least.

[GWB]

It's funny how the record companies are "losing money" when they charge $18.00 for a fucking CD. Then on top of that, the artists see very little of the profits made from CD sales, so where is all the money going? Free music downloading and file sharing is not the recording industry's problem, it's the recording industry itself.

[Duemellon]

downloading music is a crime accordng to our laws. Therefore, the RIAA going after wrongdoers is correct.

f'in ridiculous? yes... but justifiable yes.

I for one have a handful of CD's I bought that I really wish I spent that money on more important things like Silly Putty, or a 5th backup toothbrush. I mean, spending 1.00/song would've made more sense at the time, however, I couldn't listen to all of the songs to see if they were worth it or not.

I mean, RHCP's "What Hits" had two songs I even can RECALL. Whereas I was one of the poor souls who encouraged Oasis to get back together by buying their 2nd album.

ugh.. my apologies people. Those kids shouldn't get together to make more than 1 song every 3 years.

Better product, better accessibility, and stuff, that'd be a start.

Also the reduction of what is an intellectual property... that's another thing... (different threat 'tho)

[solomon]

downloading music is a crime accordng to our laws. Therefore, the RIAA going after wrongdoers is correct.

If having blue eyes was a crime according to our laws, would it be right to go after them?

[Duemellon]

yes, Sollie, it would be "right". Because it was made a law.

Ridiculous, yes. But still "right" by our laws.

[DogStarMan]

Originally posted by solomon
If having blue eyes was a crime according to our laws, would it be right to go after them?
That's one of the most retarded statements I've ever seen appear on these boards. There is no comparison, period.

I'm not Mr. Kazza Napster file swapper, but I don't really care if it exists out there. But when I hear people who do this stuff try to defend it by saying, "The music sucks, so it's justifiable" or, "CD prices are too high, so it's justifiable", I want to kick someone in the head. That's total bullshit and deep down, you know it. I'm not trying to condemn anyone for the practice, but at least have the intelligience to recognize it for what it is and own up to it instead of hiding behind some flawed logic you created to rationalize the practice of illeagally copying copyrighted material.

[Golden RV]

I'm just glancing through here but I do want to make one point. If anyone pays $18 for a CD, you are a F*CKING IDIOT!!!!! I like to buy my discs rather than download them but you wouldn't catch me paying those prices for it. Circuit City and even Best Buy have most any CD that you may want and the most I've ever paid is $13.99 but most are between $9.99 - $12.99. Where the hell are you getting your CD's at Camelot Music???????

[DogStarMan]

Originally posted by Golden RV
Where the hell are you getting your CD's at Camelot Music???????
Heh...Camelot...are they still around? I was thinking more like Columbia House.

I get all my CDs used from amazon.com. I just picked one up by a little known techno artist "I Cube" for $0.99, plus delivery, but it was still worth it at $3.00.

[Golden RV]

Yeah, that was just the first thing that popped out. I don't think there are any Camelot's left but I just remember walking in there a couple times in the mall and seeing those prices and laughing my ass off......Columbia House isn't any better.
Let's see....you have to buy 5 CD's or something and they cost $17.99 per disc (at least), then $5.00 for shipping on top of that??? Great deal!!!!!!!!
amazon does have some good deals too.....I've gotten a couple discs through them too.

[tobedawg]

Wow!! I never thought the day would come, but I actually find myself agreeing most with Solomon and GWB's posts on this thread:D

[solomon]

That's one of the most retarded statements I've ever seen appear on these boards. There is no comparison, period.

Ok chill chill chill homeboy. My post was just to see if Due believed law and morality were the same thing. It didn't have anything to do specifically with music downloading.

I'm not trying to condemn anyone for the practice, but at least have the intelligience to recognize it for what it is and own up to it instead of hiding behind some flawed logic you created to rationalize the practice of illeagally copying copyrighted material.

Don't call it flawed unless you know what you're talking about. It gets into the validity of copyright period, and intellectual property in general. A good argument CAN be made that it's not "stealing" at all, especially since the vast majority are just trading, not selling, the music.

Sol

[Duemellon]

My post was just to see if Due believed law and morality were the same thing. Next time you want to test me, break out the big cast-iron couldrons and a few gallons of boiling water so I can walk on the braided rope over the misty canyon using my Chi and anscetral connections to guide me.

Grasshopper.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by solomon
A good argument CAN be made that it's not "stealing" at all, especially since the vast majority are just trading, not selling, the music.
Ummm...that "especially" bit would have NOTHING to do with a good argument. If you take an item that is up for sale without paying for it and give it away to others, it's still stolen.

[dcXhc]

This is almost as fascist as when they outlawed shoplifting...

[solomon]

Ummm...that "especially" bit would have NOTHING to do with a good argument. If you take an item that is up for sale without paying for it and give it away to others, it's still stolen.

Good point. I phrased the sentence wrong. Thanks for the correction.

[DogStarMan]

Originally posted by solomon
Don't call it flawed unless you know what you're talking about.
You're a dumbass. :rolleyes:

[mike]

Interesting take from www.musicbiz.com
--

As predicted by MusicBiz weeks ago, major record labels are preparing to institute lawsuits against John Doe's who illegally download music on the Internet. The R.I.A.A. has gone on record to promise thousands of lawsuits against those guilty of "excessive" downloading. Of course, defining "excessive" should prove interesting. MusicBiz has learned that lawyers for the major labels and the R.I.A.A. are not really interested in filing "thousands" of lawsuits as the publicity has hinted. What they are doing currently is searching for the "right" lawsuits to file. What are the "right" suits? Sources tell MusicBiz those in jeopardy must meet three criteria: First, the amount of downloading must be viewed as excessive by a jury. (The person who downloads a few songs might be viewed with sympathy by a juror, while someone who downloads hundreds would not. Current criteria is being argued by the legal teams. About half those involved favor 100 downloads as the benchmarks, the other half dipping to 50.) Second, the person being singled out must live in a jurisdiction sympathetic with the prosecution of the suit. (Legal teams consulting the major labels and the R.I.A.A. have already identified the geographically desirable areas as well as the judges that would be sympathetic to the labels. The record industry couldn't afford an offender getting off with a warning or a slap on the wrist. The punishment must be punitive.) Third, the people singled out must be in the middle or upper economic range. (The record industry couldn't afford negative publicity resulting from suing a poor family. Into this third category also falls the "celebrity" angle. The record industry would love nothing better than to nab the son or daughter of a prominent member of Congress to press this case. It would garner huge headlines and give weight to a bigger threat: If the record industry would bring a suit against the family of a member of Congress, they would go after anyone.)

[mike]

also from www.musicbiz.com
--

Industry Will Take Negative Publicity

Monday's edition of the Los Angeles Times took issue with this "slash and burn" tactic promised by the R.I.A.A. saying the lawsuits could turn public opinion against record labels. Record executives who spoke with MusicBiz say they don't believe the public will turn against them and, if that happens, they don't care. Music executives' beliefs are quite simple: Downloading is illegal and it is ruining the record business. If it isn't stopped, the record industry will suffer and maybe even be destroyed. Record executives are ready to do whatever is necessary to stop it. Most admit that the record industry as a whole blew the opportunity to use the Internet. The smart ones even will say, off the record, that a generation of young people were pushed to Internet downloading by bad record company practices that included excessive pricing, terrible retail platforms and an attitude that was less than customer friendly. Be that as it may, desperate times call for desperate measures. Record executives first tried a massive public relations campaign directed at educating the public about the evils of illegal downloading. (It was difficult to convince a teenager that downloading an artist's music was damaging when the artist was busy spending millions on a home, yacht or entourage.) When that failed, record executives empowered the R.I.A.A. to move forward on a legal campaign that first featured suits against Internet providers (worked with Napster, failed with the successors), then moved to individuals. Record executives believe punitive lawsuits against individuals, particularly if those lawsuits reach upwards to involve resources of parents, will drastically reduce the illegal downloading. As the lawsuits increase, the major labels will be presenting Internet alternatives at lower, if still profitable, prices. Record executives believe this two-pronged approach will result in the beginning of a new business model that will return record labels to a state of profitability that was normal in the past.

[GWB]

Originally posted by mike
Interesting take from www.musicbiz.com
( Into this third category also falls the "celebrity" angle. The record industry would love nothing better than to nab the son or daughter of a prominent member of Congress to press this case. It would garner huge headlines and give weight to a bigger threat: If the record industry would bring a suit against the family of a member of Congress, they would go after anyone.)

If any R.I.A.A. lawyer went after any Congressman's family, 1) They would be disbarred by the A.B.A. and 2) they would be snuffed out like a stale cigar.

[matt]

Jesse Jordan, the 19-year-old Long Island native who was one of four college students sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement for running a search engine online, has received all $12,000 of the legal settlement he had to pay in just six weeks, after soliciting donations on his Web site, www.chewplastic.com. In fact, support for Jordan was so overwhelming that he had to post a message asking people to stop sending him money. Jordan’s father told the New York Post that more than 900 people sent donations ranging from 10 cents to $500 to aid the beleaguered student. Chewplastic is now instead soliciting donations to help Princeton student Daniel Peng raise his own $15,000 settlement. As of press time, almost half of that settlement had already been collected, as well.

[dcXhc]

House proposal targets file swappers

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
July 17, 2003, 8:11 AM PT

Peer-to-peer users who swap copyrighted files could be in danger of becoming federal felons, under a new proposal backed by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Their legislation, introduced Wednesday, would punish an Internet user who shares even a single file without permission from a copyright holder with prison terms of up to five years and fines of up to $250,000.

Written by Michigan's John Conyers, the senior Democrat on the House judiciary committee, the Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act (ACCOPS) represents Congress' boldest attempt yet to shutter peer-to-peer networks, which the major record labels and movie studios view as a serious threat.

Currently, under a little-known 1997 law called the No Electronic Theft Act, many P2P users are technically already violating criminal laws. But if the ACCOPS bill were to succeed, prosecutors would not have to prove that a copyrighted file was repeatedly downloaded. Conyers' proposal would require them to prove only that the file was publicly accessible.

Other sponsors of ACCOPS are Reps. Howard Berman of California, Adam Schiff of California, Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, Robert Wexler of Florida and Anthony Weiner of New York. No Republican has supported the proposal.

One legal scholar viewed the legislation as an over-the-top measure.

"The business of expanding the criminal law so that making unauthorized personal copies of copyrighted works becomes a criminal violation is overreacting six ways from Tuesday," said Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at Wayne State University. "It's exceptional. But that does seem to be what the bill is trying to do."

Litman said that, without ACCOPS, criminal copyright infringement currently is "hard to prove, because you (have) to prove that a copy was actually distributed."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group in San Francisco, also criticized the bill. "Jailing people for file sharing is not the answer," EFF lawyer Fred von Lohmann said. "Proponents of this bill are casting aside privacy, innovation and even our personal liberty as collateral damage in their war against file sharing."

ACCOPS would also do the following:

• Require that anyone distributing certain search software include a notice that "clearly and conspicuously" warns downloaders that the software may offer a security and privacy risk. The definition of search software is broad and includes any application that "enables third parties to store data" on a computer. Violators could face up to six months in prison.

• Punish anyone who knowingly provides false contact information, with intent to defraud, while registering a domain name. Penalties would include fines and up to five years in prison.

• Order the U.S. Department of Justice to share information with foreign governments to aid in tracking suspected copyright infringers. Information that can be shared includes "the technological means through which violations of the copyright law has occurred" and "the identity and location of the person who has committed such violation."

• Create a new copyright crime of recording a "motion picture as it is being performed or displayed in a motion picture theater."

[dcXhc]

RIAA threat may be slowing file swapping

By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
July 14, 2003, 5:02 PM PT

The record industry's plan to sue individuals who trade songs online has caused a precipitous drop in the use of file-swapping applications, according to one Internet ratings service.
Nielsen/Netratings, a company that monitors Web traffic and desktop application use, said that use of top file-trading applications such as Kazaa and Morpheus have fallen by about 15 percent since the end of June. On June 25, the Recording Industry Association of America announced it was planning to file what could be thousands of lawsuits against individuals who trade copyrighted music online.

"I would definitely say it's not a coincidence that the numbers fell that far," said Greg Bloom, senior analyst with Nielsen/Netratings. "A drop this significant probably has some kind of external cause."

Although Nielsen/Netratings' numbers are provisional, and falling Net traffic in the summer can be explained in part by vacationers going offline, the statistic is bound to be closely watched by those with a stake in the copyright debate.

A significant element of the RIAA's plan is to persuade large numbers of file traders that putting copyrighted material online is too risky. The number of lawsuits filed, while potentially huge, will still be miniscule compared with the hundreds of thousands or millions of people who use peer-to-peer networks every day.

File-trading companies question Nielsen/Netratings figures. StreamCast Networks CEO Michael Weiss, whose company distributes the Morpheus software, said his team hasn't seen a perceptible drop in the past several weeks.

"We're seeing something completely different," Weiss said, noting that their logs show about 250,000 unique visitors a day. Those visitors even appear to be staying online longer, based on the number of banner ads each user sees per session, he added.

Neilson/Netratings numbers found that Morpheus' figures had dropped 15 percent from 272,000 unique visitors in the week ending June 29, to 231,000 unique visitors in the week ending July 6.

The Kazaa software, the most popular file-trading application, also saw usage fall 15 percent, from 6.5 million to 5.5 million unique users that week, according to Neilson/Netratings.

Both measurements are extrapolated from a sample pool of about 50,000 home Internet users in the United States. By comparison, usage of the popular AOL Instant Messenger application dipped 9 percent over the same period, Bloom said.

Despite denials that the RIAA warnings are having much effect on traffic, most file-swapping companies are scrambling to put new privacy features into their software.

StreamCast Networks plans to release a new version of its Morpheus software on Tuesday that will let users upload and download files through proxy servers, a venerable if imperfect way for Internet users to mask their identities online.

RIAA officials have said they are already gathering information about people offering large numbers of copyrighted songs online, and plan to start filing copyright infringement lawsuits next month.

[IPrayForSound]

I'd donate to those kids' causes, but I've spent all my money purchasing music, movies, books and video games that I could've downloaded. Oh well.

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by mike
also from www.musicbiz.com
Downloading is illegal and it is ruining the record business. If it isn't stopped, the record industry will suffer and maybe even be destroyed

funny I somehow cannot see this as a bad thing...

frankly I think they are too late. let them sue whoever the hell they want....they will NOT stop downloading. it's here to stay like or not legal or not. doesnt matter.

sorry kiddies, you're just going to have to sell that second vacation home in the Alps. :(

[tobedawg]

Ay yi yi!!! A group of Democrat lawmakers are getting behind a fascist bill like this but yet claim that Homeland Security is an invasion of privacy..

Both are an invasion of privacy and someone needs to stand up to these. The RIAA is going to bust out with the guillotine next and start chopping heads of people who don't buy their price-fixed Cd's..

[Duemellon]

hmmm... I just did some thinkin...

maybe the record company will become the first casualty in the war against exaggerated prices and oligopolistic market control...

I mean, if we can get songs for the price of french fries legally, or chose to d/l them illegally, they will simply have to offer a better price for their product at a better quality.

Next, we move on to movies.

I mean, c'mon, $16 for a CD filled with the effort of:

1 front man practicing 3 mths
1 band composed of unassociated ppl pieced together by a talent agency and forced into coordination
1 producer who really does all the work in making it "pop-worthy"
100 advertising agents and marketing executives

If it was like $4, then we have to cut out a lot of that meaningless drivel that passes for "good contemporary music"

[GWB]

Originally posted by Duemellon
hmmm... I just did some thinkin...

maybe the record company will become the first casualty in the war against exaggerated prices and oligopolistic market control...

I mean, if we can get songs for the price of french fries legally, or chose to d/l them illegally, they will simply have to offer a better price for their product at a better quality.

Next, we move on to movies.

I mean, c'mon, $16 for a CD filled with the effort of:

1 front man practicing 3 mths
1 band composed of unassociated ppl pieced together by a talent agency and forced into coordination
1 producer who really does all the work in making it "pop-worthy"
100 advertising agents and marketing executives

If it was like $4, then we have to cut out a lot of that meaningless drivel that passes for "good contemporary music"

HOLY CRAP!!!! WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Wolverine]

Story linkage. (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/NEWS01/703090427/1056/COL02)

Music industry bills 50 students

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ATHENS, Ohio - The music industry is asking 50 Ohio University students to pay $3,000 each to avoid lawsuits accusing them of pirating songs off the Internet.

The Recording Industry Association of America asked the university to pass along letters to the students with Internet addresses accused of being involved with the illegal sharing of copyrighted music. The university notified the students on Monday.

"The downloading has occurred and we can't change that, but we can let them know what their options are," OU spokeswoman Sally Linder said.
ADVERTISEMENT

Patrick McGee, a local attorney the university arranged to meet with students, said $3,000 is the standard offer, though cases have settled for as much as $5,000. He has represented four Ohio University students in file-sharing lawsuits.

Jenni Engebretsen, spokeswoman for the trade group based in Washington, would not disclose or confirm what the standard settlement offer is. She did say no cases have gone to trial across the country.

The association has already sued about 18,000 computer users nationwide since September 2003.

A letter to one Ohio University student told her that she distributed 787 audio files, putting her total minimum potential liability at more than $590,000.

Many students cannot even afford the $3,000, McGee said.

[markalot]

Many students cannot even afford the $3,000, McGee said.

There has to be someone at the RIAA who realizes the flaw in their business model. You would think anyway.

[the happy prole]

I don't know. I mean, they seem to have that one person dead-to-rights having distributed 800 songs. $12,000 was ridiculous, but $3,000 doesn't seem that bad to me.

I mean, what's fair? $3 for every song distributed, so $2400?? I'm sorry some of these kids don't have $3k or whatever, but seriously, these are grown people. It's not like they were stealing to survive or they somehow didn't know what they were doing was wrong.

[classicgrrl]

There has to be someone at the RIAA who realizes the flaw in their business model. You would think anyway.

it's a scare tactic. trying to find examples to stop others from downloading. in their estimation, its the college kids who download the most so they are starting there.

The RIAA is also counting on all that prison space sitting there being unused for real criminals like rapists and murderers so if they can get even one frat college doofus in prison for a while it will be worth it. That and suing dead people is fun.

:rolleyes:

what they truthfully don't get is while they are busy trying to stop downloading, others are busy coming up with viable business models using the technology.

[uselesstomato]

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/u-of-nebraska-bills-the-riaa-for-wasted-time-246604.php

"The University of Nebraska isn't scared by the RIAA and their army of undead, soulless lawyers. No, they're refusing to hand over student data to the bullies, but what makes them even cooler is the fact that they're billing the RIAA for the time they've wasted. Hot damn, that takes balls.

Will the RIAA pay up? Doubtful, but this sends a clear message that the U of N isn't going to put up with their BS. First the ISPs, now the colleges. You just can't find an institution that'll bend over and take it, can you, RIAA?"

[tobedawg]

The Good Old RIAA.. Some things never change..

[sparkie]

this is so reminiscent of three years ago. some old dogs never learn

[juggles]

Story linkage. (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/NEWS01/703090427/1056/COL02)

Many students cannot even afford the $3,000, McGee said.

Kinda makes that $15 dollars for a CD seems like a bargain, eh?

Which I think is the whole point of this. Odds are you'll get away with trading/pirating music, but it'll hurt like hell if you get caught.

[sam10gle]

Yeah... Purdue is getting ready to forward the RIAA's letter to the several students that have been caught of illegal activity. Students are in an uproar (as one might expect), but I think it serves them right. There are much better means of getting music than thieving everything!

[eighty]

No, they're refusing to hand over student data to the bullies, but what makes them even cooler is the fact that they're billing the RIAA for the time they've wasted. Hot damn, that takes balls.
Hahahaha yessssss!!

[sparkie]

The only effect the RIAA is forcing more people to go back to talking to others who like the same type of music and swapping cd/mp3 disc or hard drives. Good Job RIAA, you missed the boat again!

[tobedawg]

Yeah... Purdue is getting ready to forward the RIAA's letter to the several students that have been caught of illegal activity. Students are in an uproar (as one might expect), but I think it serves them right. There are much better means of getting music than thieving everything!


The RIAA didn't think twice when it price gouged consumers between 1995 and 2000 by inflating the prices of CD's, and although the consumers won out in court, the clause for the refund required many to go to a website that many didn't know about and file to get a refund which was pretty minimal compared to how much price gouging went on during that time..


The RIAA definitely doesn't deserve sympathy, and it's hard to want to conusme a product from an entity that criminalizes it's potential customers..

[silentpaul]

eMusic is upping their rates because songs cost $80,000 a pop, apparently.

*****

Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading)

MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.

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.

Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.

The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.

Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.

Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.

"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.

Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.

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.

"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.

An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.

Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.

"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."

Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.

His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.

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.

In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.

Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.

Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.

He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.

Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.

Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.

He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.

"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.

Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.

The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.

The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.

[classicgrrl]

the implications of IP copyright go WAY WAY WAY further than just music. so happy birthday can no longer be sung because it's copyrighted. what about hybrid corn seeds that blow into a poor farmers land and sprout?

Nice Work If You Can Get It is a GREAT book with what is probably the BEST look at copyright I've ever read.
has a whole chapter on it and really made me thinlk...

[the happy prole]

You can sing Happy Birthday anytime you want to. You just can't sing Happy Birthday for profit.

[berzerker]

You can sing Happy Birthday anytime you want to. You just can't sing Happy Birthday for profit.

actually, it cannot be performed for an audience...

Is Singing Happy Birthday in Public Really Copyright Infringement?
Yes.

According to United States copyright law in United States Code, Title 17 §106, (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html) authors of works such as musical compositions have the exclusive right "to perform the copyrighted work publicly." In United States Code, Title 17 §101, (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html) the law defines publicly performing a work as "to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."

source (http://www.unhappybirthday.com/)
snopes (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp) (paragraph 6)

[the happy prole]

Yeah, you know what I meant.

[DaHood]

Let it be known. As it was in the beginning, so it is now. The RIAA are still cunts.

[lutz]

actually, it cannot be performed for an audience...

source (http://www.unhappybirthday.com/)
snopes (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp) (paragraph 6)But aren't the rights supposed to expire a century after the copyright-holder dies? How old is Happy Birthday?

[ThomasC]

But aren't the rights supposed to expire a century after the copyright-holder dies? How old is Happy Birthday?
This is what Snopes says about that:

The Chicago-based music publisher Clayton F. Summy Company, working with Jessica Hill, published and copyrighted "Happy Birthday" in 1935. Under the laws in effect at the time, the Hills' copyright would have expired after one 28-year term and a renewal of similar length, falling into public domain by 1991. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday" will remain intact until at least 2030.

[Duemellon]

But aren't the rights supposed to expire a century after the copyright-holder dies? How old is Happy Birthday?This is what Snopes says about that:From what I understand different things are protected for different periods of time. Protected medicines are shorter than literature.

However, big businesses (imagine that) lobby for the extension of those protections. After all, Mickey Mouse should've been free domain for some time now but he's just as protected as the day he was submitted for protection.

Whereas we will never be able to protect all intellectual & creative products to the point where no one can create anymore (because all new concepts would be too similar to existing ones) we are limiting creativity & financially incentivizing creations more. If I had done some creative piece that I thought could save the world, I could give it away, but I'd have to protect it 1st to even give it away to everyone. Plus, the rate at which the most random things are being protected is depressing. From copyrighting the smiley & frowny emoticon (as a joke, by Demotivations but was actually done & approved) or the sound Harley Davidson bikes sound,... there's a constant push to name things & own it.

[classicgrrl]

Happy B Day or none - the RIAA are still cunts. quoth DaHood.

[Kruschev]

What if downloaded music never exisited and the RIAA were never questioned? At least with non major (and some major) label artists, if you download an album and enjoy it chances are, if they come to your town you'll check out the show. I don't think file sharing is all that bad. Folks today are less wiling to shell out cash to buy an album, less likely to check out their show. If they download the album and like it, there's a good chance they'll check out the show, if they're in town. "So my album probably won't be bought, but if they like it, they might check out the show." Of course there's a bunch of assumptions and the whole indie fan thing.

[the happy prole]

At least with non major (and some major) label artists, if you download an album and enjoy it chances are, if they come to your town you'll check out the show.

Which is why LiveNation is signing everyone to 360 deals and screwing you on concert tix and surcharges.

[lutz]

From what I understand different things are protected for different periods of time. Protected medicines are shorter than literature.Medicines and suchlike are patented. Aren't patents different from intellectual property?

However, big businesses (imagine that) lobby for the extension of those protections. After all, Mickey Mouse should've been free domain for some time now but he's just as protected as the day he was submitted for protection.Registered trademark.

[Duemellon]

Medicines and suchlike are patented. Aren't patents different from intellectual property?I just covered it by calling it "protected". I know there's copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc. But in essence that's what they're doing is "protecting".Registered trademark.The movies he's in aren't trademarks. He could be a trademark in a movie, but there's no such thing as a "trademarked move" unless you're talking sports. Any other usage of the word trademark is an anology or allusion to the actual protected & unique concept of the static trademark. U'kno?

[lutz]

The movies he's in aren't trademarks. He could be a trademark in a movie, but there's no such thing as a "trademarked move" unless you're talking sports. Any other usage of the word trademark is an anology or allusion to the actual protected & unique concept of the static trademark. U'kno?Eh, you didn't specify movies. You just said Mickey Mouse. I can't even remember the last time Mickey Mouse was in a movie.