PDA

View Full Version : RIAA to begin suing individuals


Stelliform
Jun 25, 2003, 08:13 PM
The day that we all knew was coming is here. <Story Link> (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/25/download.suits.ap/index.html)

The embattled music industry disclosed aggressive plans Wednesday for an unprecedented escalation in its fight against Internet piracy, threatening to sue hundreds of individual computer users who illegally share music files online.

My problem with this is who is going to hold the RIAA accountable for the users who are falsely accused. (http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/fileshare/2003/0519p2p1.html) Since the RIAA has proven themselves to be as thorough as a Micro$oft Beta test. :D

<And this kinda scares me, I maintain around 20 servers that have web hosting capabilities. However keeping these up to date is beyond my resources. What if one was hacked and has been being used to share music? (I have already had one hacked before. It was weeks before I caught it.) Are they going to sue me?>

iJon
Jun 25, 2003, 08:42 PM
they are gonna have a lot of lawsuits.

iJon

MacAztec
Jun 26, 2003, 12:09 AM
They aint got nothin on me! :cool:

God, i love KDX 128 bit encryption :D

MrMacMan
Jun 26, 2003, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec
They aint got nothin on me! :cool:

God, i love KDX 128 bit encryption :D

Haha, they will find you, and somehow hack you like many many sites they have Denial Of Serviced.

Or they are gonna just ping you like crazy, my ISP did that for 3 days intill I told them to stop.

It was soo weird my Firewall keeps saying I'm being pinged, but where it tells me the address it looked like it was on my network, it was just the main server pining the crap out of me, god damn.

damax452
Jun 26, 2003, 09:27 AM
great, sue everybody in the world. And still charge $15 for one cd, that will solve all the worlds problems... idiots. How about a solution that will actually work? anyone?

G4scott
Jun 26, 2003, 06:02 PM
BOYCOTT THE RIAA!!!

http://www.theregister.com/content/35/31447.html

The RIAA should be the ones being sued, not the other way around. They have been stealing since the development of digital music distribution. By not pursuing the latest technologies, they have royally screwed over their artists, and are now only trying to play catch-up in the quotes (so, it was a good line...)

Many artists have been losing money because of the RIAA's incompetence. Lets show the RIAA that we're not going to tolerate their ************ anymore!

Come on Apple, bring on the indies with the iTunes Music Store. In fact, label the independent artists so we know not to buy from artists with the RIAA. Don't give another penny to the RIAA!!!

Do not buy CD's!!! Don't in any way do anything to support the RIAA! Only then will artists realize how badly they've been screwed, and demand change!!! Lets face it guys, the RIAA f*cked up back then, and there's no way they can fix it. We want them gone, or severely changed! Boycott the RIAA Download music!!! They can't catch us all! There are millions of people who have downloaded music, and there is no way the RIAA can get to us all. They can try to scare us by starting to sue the biggies, but I doubt they'll get away with it... Users can do a multiple-pass erase that is impossible to recover, and the RIAA will have nothing on them... This is apparently a new type of crime, and the RIAA has no way to fight it, or even really prove it, without actually committing a crime itself.

Show that you will not stand for oppression! No taxation without representation! The RIAA has ignored us, and everyone else, to stay on their pile of cash, and they have failed. We will not let them tax our music with stupid charges to fill their wallets and starve artists! Viva La Revolucción!!!

Captnroger
Jun 26, 2003, 07:36 PM
Suing your customers, now there's a novel idea. Even software companies that nail companies pirating their products go through a third party (SSPA).

MacFan25
Jun 26, 2003, 09:17 PM
I wonder how many of these lawsuits the RIAA will win. It will be interesting to see.

Also, I'm wondering if and when Kazaa will get shut down.

MrMacMan
Jun 26, 2003, 09:28 PM
I haven't bought a CD in a while, but that is just me, I'm gonna Write Old Fashion Letters To Congress and the RIAA themselves, greedy bastards that they are.

MrMacMan
Jun 26, 2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by MacFan25
I wonder how many of these lawsuits the RIAA will win. It will be interesting to see.

Also, I'm wondering if and when Kazaa will get shut down.

Impossible, Kazaa will not be shut down.

Even Napster Servers weren't shut down, Open Nap is still around.

Strange but true Open Nap servers still host music and are updated regularly.

G4scott
Jun 26, 2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
I haven't bought a CD in a while, but that is just me, I'm gonna Write Old Fashion Letters To Congress and the RIAA themselves, greedy bastards that they are.

Good idea...

It's funny, my local newspaper did an article on music downloading, but failed to mention any legal alternatives... I was compelled to write them a letter to the editor, but I got busy with some other things, and didn't get to...

I probably got blacklisted by the RIAA for my previous post in this thread...

Now, here's the question: If a member of the MacRumors community was accused of illegal music downloading, would we all support him/her?

I would. I would also rally to do an extreme boycott of the RIAA, and ask all hackers to deface the RIAA site, and put as many mp3's up for download on their own site as they can...

This means war... A dark cloud has engulfed the world of music, and it won't be going away any time soon...

Now, it's time for some ice cream :D

tazo
Jun 27, 2003, 12:49 AM
I don't think this will end until the RIAA pushes a bill into congress, proposing pirating be punishable by death. oh wait..

G4scott
Jun 27, 2003, 10:08 AM
Here's another link to stuff about this whole mess: http://www.theregister.com/content/6/31463.html

They make valid points here.

1.) The RIAA was found guilty in 2000 for overcharging for CD's (a.k.a. "stealing")

2.) When they shut down napster, the RIAA didn't realize that the demand for music online was still there. They could've come up with their own solution, but they didn't, and other file sharing networks began to emerge.

3.) When they threaten people enough to stop using limewire and other programs available today, new programs that keep users completely anonymous will emerge


So basically, It's alright for the RIAA to steal from us, and it's ok for them so sue us because of their crappy business model.


Apple needs to show the world how it's done on a larger scale. Hopefully these developments will encourage to get iTunes for windoze out sooner, so they can use these lawsuits as leverage.

I do agree, though, that the RIAA needs to change their business model, because they are not giving the artists enough money.

And that's really the whole point behind this whole mess.

The RIAA is greedy, and doesn't want to give artists more money. If we boycott the RIAA, then artists will get scared, and b*tch at the RIAA to change their business model so that people will buy music again.

I would like to see artists start to sue the RIAA for what they haven't done...

pseudobrit
Jun 27, 2003, 11:05 AM
There's no way they'll win any of these lawsuits if the poor college kids they choose to target mount any defence.

upon getting a subpoena

1) wipe any music you don't own from your hard drive or buy the CDs for those songs you want to keep. (now you don't hold any copyrighted material you can't prove you didn't pay for)

2) if someone else downloaded music they didn't own from your hard drive, RIAA must prove that that person doesn't own a recording or never purchased said recording before (even if I owned an 8 track that broke and got thrown away, I still paid for the songs)

If the court decides that the burden of proof will be twisted backwards for these cases (the defendant must prove he owned the songs) then we are heading into dark days indeed. I don't think the Supreme Court would allow such a precedent, but I hope someone is able to take a case pro bono as far as it needs to go to put the pigopolists in their place.

G4scott
Jun 27, 2003, 11:53 AM
Why doesn't this thread show up on the main page in the current events section?

MrMacMan
Jun 27, 2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Why doesn't this thread show up on the main page in the current events section?

LOL!

I think arn banned the word 'RIAA' ... :eek:

Pete_Hoover
Jun 30, 2003, 07:42 PM
Why are they going after individuals? They should go after the companies, like Kazaa, Morpheus, E-mule, and WinMX.

iJon
Jun 30, 2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Pete_Hoover
Why are they going after individuals? They should go after the companies, like Kazaa, Morpheus, E-mule, and WinMX.
no, i think what they are doing is the smartest decision. i believe what their deal with kazaa was we will let you stay open as long as you give us ip numbers. if they shut down kazaa there wil be another one open in no time. if they sue individuals then the impact will be greater. i know my dad already told me to hold off for a while and to see how well this idea of theirs work. maybe ill have to go wardriving to get songs, not really, dont want to get someone else arrested.

iJon

ouketii
Jun 30, 2003, 08:15 PM
fine, go sue the pants off people, but they have no idea it is actually the owner who is downloading. it might be a friend. just like the read-light cameras, they can't put points on your licenze because they dont know its you. and wouldnt a firewall block it? right now, they are only going after the huge downloaders. just hit 'do not share'. anyway, they are taking away our god-given right to share music. communist states like china have huge problems with piracy, because with communism, the idea of public domain is prevalent. blah blah blah what do you think they make mp3 players for? to play downloded music! there is a whole industry for playing the music. if anything, people are making money, not loseing it. and the only thing that suing people will do is put them into debt, and on welfare, which strains the whole system and puts us further into recession. soon, fido and spot will be on the dinner table as we go into apocalypse. you see, we need to download music. the world depends on it.

iJon
Jun 30, 2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by ouketii
fine, go sue the pants off people, but they have no idea it is actually the owner who is downloading. it might be a friend. just like the read-light cameras, they can't put points on your licenze because they dont know its you. and wouldnt a firewall block it? right now, they are only going after the huge downloaders. just hit 'do not share'. anyway, they are taking away our god-given right to share music. communist states like china have huge problems with piracy, because with communism, the idea of public domain is prevalent. blah blah blah what do you think they make mp3 players for? to play downloded music! there is a whole industry for playing the music. if anything, people are making money, not loseing it. and the only thing that suing people will do is put them into debt, and on welfare, which strains the whole system and puts us further into recession. soon, fido and spot will be on the dinner table as we go into apocalypse. you see, we need to download music. the world depends on it.
music isnt air, the world doesnt depend on it. music is a product someone makes, companies produce it and sell it. when you download it your stealing, its simple as that. now i do not that think the riaa will succeed, but they will probably make examples of some people. guess we wil see.

iJon

jbomber
Jun 30, 2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Captnroger
Suing your customers, now there's a novel idea. Even software companies that nail companies pirating their products go through a third party (SSPA).

Seriously. This is all bad. :(

eyelikeart
Jul 1, 2003, 06:49 AM
I have a feeling this whole thing is going to turn into a situation similar to the cable tv companies who are going after individuals who have bought devices that can be used to illegally obtain free service. Names will be distributed, legal letters will be sent out, and many people will freak out & do whatever they ask, while others do nothing.

It's not going to be an easy thing at all for them to do this I feel. :rolleyes:

Pete_Hoover
Jul 1, 2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by iJon
no, i think what they are doing is the smartest decision. i believe what their deal with kazaa was we will let you stay open as long as you give us ip numbers. if they shut down kazaa there wil be another one open in no time. if they sue individuals then the impact will be greater. i know my dad already told me to hold off for a while and to see how well this idea of theirs work. maybe ill have to go wardriving to get songs, not really, dont want to get someone else arrested.

iJon

That could be a loophole in their plan. What is everyone goes to starbucks to download songs?

pseudobrit
Jul 1, 2003, 10:37 AM
Kazaa can't be shut down. The software has already been ruled legal. You wouldn't sue Adobe and Apple because someone used Photoshop on their Mac to edit kiddie porn.

Now they must turn to those who perform the illegal activities with the legal software. Remember that not everyone who's trading files is breaking the law, and almost no one who is is breaking it 100% of the time. It's going to be very difficult for the RIAA to pin this one down.

Giaguara
Jul 1, 2003, 11:20 AM
RIAA should close down ALL the radio stations, and sue also all the radio owners.


Radios are "sharing" their music with 100s of 1000s of "friends" that they don't know. Besides, most of kids have recorded music from radio to a cassette or CD.


:rolleyes:


The side effect would be that if no one knows who is Ricky Martin or Shakira, no one will buy their cra.. uh, 'consumer muic' (chart crap especially).

But the same logic they apply to the other servers does apply to radios.

And not all radio stations do or even have the possibility to pay for the royalties.


:mad:


Then, are internet radios seen as radios or as those nasty servers? If i grab music from net streaming radio to mp3s for my own use only i see that just as innocent as the kids grabbing from tarditional radio to the cassettes they use with walkmans. If that is something 'different', then damnit, close down ALL the radio stations on the earth, and quit selling radios and cassette recorders and sue virtually anyone for having recorded music at least once ....


:rolleyes:


The more i hear of these RIAAs acts, the more i want to listen to RADIO only. So they wont get a cent from me.

:mad:

Giaguara
Jul 1, 2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
There's no way they'll win any of these lawsuits if the poor college kids they choose to target mount any defence.

upon getting a subpoena

1) wipe any music you don't own from your hard drive or buy the CDs for those songs you want to keep. (now you don't hold any copyrighted material you can't prove you didn't pay for)

2) if someone else downloaded music they didn't own from your hard drive, RIAA must prove that that person doesn't own a recording or never purchased said recording before (even if I owned an 8 track that broke and got thrown away, I still paid for the songs)

If the court decides that the burden of proof will be twisted backwards for these cases (the defendant must prove he owned the songs) then we are heading into dark days indeed. I don't think the Supreme Court would allow such a precedent, but I hope someone is able to take a case pro bono as far as it needs to go to put the pigopolists in their place.

RIAA will probably win all the cases that it will have. SImply because they have money and e.g. the college students rarely have enough $$$ for good defence. Money wins. Sad.

Giaguara
Jul 1, 2003, 11:28 AM
Also, if you buy a cd that is e.g. 20 $ why does the artist still get like 1-2 % of the price of the cd?

I'd rather enable the artists to have their own pages where you download songs and pay e.g. via paypal. (guess if the record companies allow them to do so?) So 5 $ for mp3s of a cd, of which the artist gets 5 $ is 1000-2500 % more than what they get from the record companies now. Greedy pig RIAA. :mad:

pseudobrit
Jul 1, 2003, 12:59 PM
Screw radio. Just listen to what you already have. Refuse to buy any new music.

That's essentially what I've done. I have a 300+ CD collection that I've added maybe 10 albums to over the past two years. My love for new music dwindled as prices rose from $12 to $18 for a CD. Now that I know the bastards did it on purpose, it'll never return. I'll get $13 back from them as a result of the class-action lawsuit.

Too bad I still can't afford a CD with that much. Some punishment...

iJon
Jul 1, 2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Giaguara
Also, if you buy a cd that is e.g. 20 $ why does the artist still get like 1-2 % of the price of the cd?

I'd rather enable the artists to have their own pages where you download songs and pay e.g. via paypal. (guess if the record companies allow them to do so?) So 5 $ for mp3s of a cd, of which the artist gets 5 $ is 1000-2500 % more than what they get from the record companies now. Greedy pig RIAA. :mad:
that comment kind of makes me thinkg sometimes. you say they get 1-2%, which is probably right, you know more than me on this. but when i watch cribs on mtv i see lots of music people and they have big houses and escalades and ferarris. if you ask me they are doing a pretty damn good job.

iJon

pseudobrit
Jul 1, 2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by iJon
that comment kind of makes me thinkg sometimes. you say they get 1-2%, which is probably right, you know more than me on this. but when i watch cribs on mtv i see lots of music people and they have big houses and escalades and ferarris. if you ask me they are doing a pretty damn good job.

iJon

The houses and furniture are rented, the Furries and Lambos have abysmal depreciation and they'll be flat broke in 15 years.

It's probably about $0.40 per CD that the artist actually gets paid.

iJon
Jul 1, 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
The houses and furniture are rented, the Furries and Lambos have abysmal depreciation and they'll be flat broke in 15 years.

It's probably about $0.40 per CD that the artist actually gets paid.
ok thats fine, i didnt know. i was just saying what they had on cribs. i guess 40 cents a cd would really suck. but hell all they are doing is singing some songs.

iJon