The RIAA strikes again

[*DAMN Hazard]

An article from the NY Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recording industry on Wednesday sued 532 computer users it said were illegally distributing songs over the Internet, the first lawsuits since a federal appeals court blocked the use of special copyright subpoenas to identify those being targeted.

 The action represents the largest number of lawsuits filed at one time since the trade group for the largest music labels, the Recording Industry Association of America, launched its controversial legal campaign last summer to cripple Internet music piracy.
Music lawyers filed the newest cases against "John Doe" defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses -- and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live.

 The recording association said each person was illegally distributing an average of more than 800 songs online. Each defendant faces potential civil penalties or settlements that could cost them thousands of dollars.

 The resumed legal campaign was intended to discourage music fans emboldened by last month's federal appeals court decision, which dramatically increased the cost and effort to track computer users swapping songs online and sue them.

 "Our campaign against illegal file sharers is not missing a beat," said Cary Sherman, president of the recording association. "The message to illegal file sharers should be as clear as ever."

 All 532 lawsuits were filed in Washington and New York -- home to Verizon Internet Services Inc. and Time Warner Inc. and a few other prominent Internet providers -- although the recording association said it expects to discover through traditional subpoenas that these defendants live across the United States.

 The RIAA said that after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant, they will contact each person to negotiate a financial settlement before amending the lawsuit to formally name the defendant and, if necessary, transfer the case to the proper courthouse.

 Verizon had successfully challenged the industry's use of copyright subpoenas, one of its most effective tools to track illegal downloaders. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled last month that the recording industry can't use the subpoenas to force Internet providers to identify music downloaders without filing a lawsuit.

 The court said that copyright subpoenas available under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act "betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works."

A couple questions/comments. Have any Mac users been sued by the RIAA? I'm not afraid or anything I just think it would be a cool fact to flaunt if none have. And does anyone actually agree with the artists doing this? I mean I know a lot of work is put into the production of music and the actual creation and a large amount of creativity, but isn't it better that people are actually listening to your music? Aren't people still paying to go to your concerts? Then should people only listen to songs on the radio that they own?

What happens when someone D/L's a cd? This is what happens for me: I burn the cd, then listen to it. If I like the CD I tell my friends, they in turn either buy the CD or burn it. Then there friends burn it, and so on. Some bands even have every song they ever made on previous albums on their site and the singles from their newer one available for listening. So my real question is: Have musicians strayed so far away from that little quality that used to be looked up upon called "being about the music"?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Have any Mac users been sued by the RIAA?

I've never seen anything documented about what systems they were using.

And does anyone actually agree with the artists doing this? I mean I know a lot of work is put into the production of music and the actual creation and a large amount of creativity, but isn't it better that people are actually listening to your music? Aren't people still paying to go to your concerts?

Right here.  I completely agree with it.  First, they continue to go after the people giving it away, distributing it, and usually the much larger users.

Second, it hurts future artists.  How?  Simple.  The industry offers money for the rights to music from artists.  If the industry isn't making as much money, they aren't the ones that are going to suffer, it's us.  They are not going to sign as many new bands, not going to diversify their sounds.  They are going to stay with sure things (yes, much worse then it is even today).  The first artists to suffer will be those on the fringe, not the pop stars, but the bands that we like but aren't hugely popular.

Third, you want to see concert ticket prices go even higher?  Most (there are plenty of exceptions) concerts don't make money for the band directly.  They go on tour to promote their new CD, and generate interest and sales.  It used to cost money for bands to go on tour, but that has changed and is why ticket prices are now so fucking high.  And it's not like the band sees all that money anyway.  The artist gets a percentage of the gate, which they then have to cover all 30 or so people involved, travel, lodging and food expences, etc.  

Then should people only listen to songs on the radio that they own?

Don't forget that you do pay to listen to songs on the radio.  Every time a song is played, the station has to pay a royalty.  Not huge, seems like I read it was 13? or so.  But multiply that by every time it's played by every station in the USA.  Now, the radio pays for it by selling commercials.  You get stuck listening to them, so that's how you are paying for it.

I burn the cd, then listen to it. If I like the CD I tell my friends, they in turn either buy the CD or burn it. Then there friends burn it, and so on.

And if all your friends burn it, not buy it, where did that get the band?  How did they get money to eat, let alone make music?

All that burning doesn't put any food in the mouths of the artists.  You have to remember, you aren't hurting the businessmen, they control it, so they make their coin.  You are hurting the artists in the end (maybe not the one who's CD's you burned, but perhaps the next Nirvana or Doors).

Some bands even have every song they ever made on previous albums on their site and the singles from their newer one available for listening.

And that's up to the bands.  It's their property, to sell or give away.  Most of the time that I see this, it's a poor quality copy, one that you wouldn't want to burn, under the guise of saving bandwidth.  But in any case, if they want to give away their music, it's their choice, not yours.  Just like if you want to give your money to charity, they don't have the right to just take it (except for fucking taxes).

So my real question is: Have musicians strayed so far away from that little quality that used to be looked up upon called "being about the music"?

They've only strayed away from it as far as the "fans" have strayed away from paying for that music.  They have a right to make a living off their work, just like anyone else.

One last thing, anyone that justifies that bands or the industry makes more than enough money that this shouldn't matter, is missing the morality of it too.  I make enough money that if you stole $100 a week from me, it wouldn't actually hurt me.  That's $5200 a year, but it didn't really hurt me.  Does that make it ok?  If it's not ok to steal that money from me, why is it ok to steal the millions from the recording industry?  Just because you are only stealing it $10 at a time or so doesn't make it right.

Oh, and don't get me wrong, I'm not against the "try it before you buy it" mentality.  But that's what radio and internet broadcasts are for (in the case of music).  And face it, if everyone that said they bought it after downloading did, this would never be an issue like it is.

[*DAMN Hazard]

I see your point but have record sales actually increased since the RIAA have been busting people?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I've seen and heard reported that file sharing has gone down considerably, though that's coming from Neilson.

I haven't really checked to see how sales figures are going.  I wouldn't be surprised if the sales that they picked up by people not downloading were offset by people turned off by their approach and not buying as much.

They have been pretty heavy handed, and could have handled it better, even if they are in the right.

[Mr.Mellow]

ARRRRRRGHHHHH. ahem. As I've said in all of these threads in the past, it's not just the artists and the Big Bad Record Companies getting hurt by downloading music. I'm not gonna make it as long-winded as my other ones, simply because I'm too lazy to type it all up again. However, a short list of those being hurt by illegally downloading music:
Studio musicians, the companies that duplicate the CD's, the ones that print the cover art, the artists that draw the cover art, sound engineers, and producers, just to name a few.
By downloading music, you aren't "sticking it to the man" or anything like that. You're just hurting the little guys.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Said that before myself Mellow, and I still agree with it =D

[BFG]

I have a close friend who is a design graduate and works for a small design house who make cd covers, booklets and generally 'do the art' for cds etc...

Over the last five years the company has been forced to look for work else where. They now get a lot of their income doing design work for band websites and branding ect... but they have been sevearly impacted by the decrease of cd sales in some areas

[Lone-Wolf@ school]

Im curious, is the RIAA only able to work inside US borders?  Or is it multi-national, or something along those lines.  (Dont worry, i live in Washington, so it doesnt really matter what the answer is, just curious)

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The RIAA has been working in the USA so far, but other countries that have agreements with the USA over copyright are not exempt from actions as well.

What it comes down to is each countries laws on copyright (they all have them).  This is why you find China and Russia as prime hosting countries for pirated stuff and kiddie porn, since their countries wouldn't recognize the lawsuits.

[tasty]

The RIAA can do what it will, but it's not going to stop me from filesharing. It's kind of a point I'm tired of arguing anyway, and it's not going anywhere, unless the RIAA gets congress to enact some truly Draconian measures. I don't really feel in danger since I don't share files and I download only off a local LAN network now, not even from the internet proper.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

And a thief speaks. Stop calling it sharing, when it's stealing we are talking about Tasty.  File sharing is when it's LEGAL, when you aren't STEALING.

[tasty]

I don't care, call me a thief if you want. My feelings aren't hurt. When I have a salary like yours, I'll purchase every individual song I download. Until then, I'm not going to deprive myself of music since it's basically my main hobby/life. I bought 65 CDs last year. I'm not arguing that it makes my music downloading any more or less morally good, it's just a simple fact that I don't want to be inconvenienced by having to figure out what music to buy from listening to 15 second long clips of 3 of the songs on amazon.com at 24k.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

I don't care, call me a thief if you want. My feelings aren't hurt. When I have a salary like yours, I'll purchase every individual song I download. Until then, I'm not going to deprive myself of music since it's basically my main hobby/life. I bought 65 CDs last year. I'm not arguing that it makes my music downloading any more or less morally good, it's just a simple fact that I don't want to be inconvenienced by having to figure out what music to buy from listening to 15 second long clips of 3 of the songs on amazon.com at 24k.

Wow, better watch out Tasty....the Internet Gestapo is gonna get you if you keep posting your sins on here.....

[Mr. Paper/lazy]

I've seen and heard reported that file sharing has gone down considerably, though that's coming from Neilson.

Courtesy of ABC, music file sharers have decreased from 32 million in the US, to only 18 million since the RIAA cracked down.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I don't care, call me a thief if you want. My feelings aren't hurt.

Wasn't meant to hurt your feelings, just stating a fact.  That and you shouldn't hide behind euphieisms like "file sharing" when it's stealing.

When I have a salary like yours, I'll purchase every individual song I download. Until then, I'm not going to deprive myself of music since it's basically my main hobby/life.

And if that was sound logic, I guess we shouldn't look down on the crack addict that mugs people or steals little old ladies social security checks to feed their drug habit, since it's their main hobby / life.

Just give up weak attempts to justify it, there are none.  You are just as guilty of theft as that mugger, for the same reasons.

it's just a simple fact that I don't want to be inconvenienced by having to figure out what music to buy from listening to 15 second long clips of 3 of the songs on amazon.com at 24k.

So tell me Tasty, how did we discover what music to buy before filesharing came about?  

And I didn't realize that being "inconvenienced" was morally solid ground to stand on.  Damn, it's just a little harder for you to listen to music to find what's worth buying, isn't that a shame.  Guess that makes you and everyone else stealing it ok, doesn't it?

[tasty]

And if that was sound logic, I guess we shouldn't look down on the crack addict that mugs people or steals little old ladies social security checks to feed their drug habit, since it's their main hobby / life.

Just give up weak attempts to justify it, there are none.  You are just as guilty of theft as that mugger, for the same reasons.

Hey, good comparison Bucc. It's almost as good as the time PETA said eating meat was like the Holocaust.

So tell me Tasty, how did we discover what music to buy before filesharing came about?  

And I didn't realize that being "inconvenienced" was morally solid ground to stand on.  Damn, it's just a little harder for you to listen to music to find what's worth buying, isn't that a shame.  Guess that makes you and everyone else stealing it ok, doesn't it?

I don't know how you discovered music before filesharing. I'm twenty years old --before filesharing existed, I didn't listen to music, so I don't know. I'd actually be very interested to hear about how you discovered music without it. And before you even try to go there, don't say the radio or MTV. I don't listen to anything that gets played over either of those mediums.

Until every artist offers their entire album streaming at any time, I don't see any feasible reason to stop downloading mp3s. You can say that it is stealing, but since I wasn't going to buy it anyway until after I downloaded it, I don't see how the artist is personally hurt. Yes, it's true that I shouldn't have the music. But thus is the murky nature of intellectual property that can be duplicated thousands of times. Don't tell me you've never violated a single intellectual copyright. Or maybe you haven't I don't know, it doesn't really matter to me either way. Maybe this is just the economy at work, who knows.

I made a couple points, but it would be wrong for me to claim that filesharing is completely moral. It isn't- I am aware of it, and I admit it. But I also must be honest and say that I don't really feel bad about it, and I don't plan on ceasing the practice. Maybe I should, but for some reason I don't. Music will continue to be produced, and consumers, including me, will continue to buy it. Millions of people are downloading copyrighted music as I type right now. I suggest that you all unbunch your panties and worry about one of the multitudes of more pressing problems facing our country right now.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Hey, good comparison Bucc. It's almost as good as the time PETA said eating meat was like the Holocaust.

Tell me how it is wrong?  You are stealing, all to feed your hobby (not even an addiction).  And because you are too lazy to explore legal means of finding it.

We aren't comparing killing humans to killing cows, we are comparing two thefts, with much of the same motivation it seems.

I'd actually be very interested to hear about how you discovered music without it. And before you even try to go there, don't say the radio or MTV. I don't listen to anything that gets played over either of those mediums.

MTV no (didn't even have it till I was in college), Radio, yes.  By all means.  I've never been a top 40 listener, but I did listen to shows like "Rock over London" where I got my fill of bands like The Cult, The Smiths, BAD, Suzie, Circle Jerks, etc etc etc.  Not all radio is mainstream.  You should especially look at the internet radio (streaming), since you can find many many different genre there.  I use iTunes to listen to radio often, and there are many more available through the web.  And guess what, it's all LEGAL.

Until every artist offers their entire album streaming at any time, I don't see any feasible reason to stop downloading mp3s. You can say that it is stealing, but since I wasn't going to buy it anyway until after I downloaded it, I don't see how the artist is personally hurt. Yes, it's true that I shouldn't have the music. But thus is the murky nature of intellectual property that can be duplicated thousands of times.

That last line is neck deep in bullshit and sinking fast.  The nature of Intellectual Property isn't murky at all.  Not one bit.  It's just a large lump of bullshit pseudo intellectuals use to hide behind.

And the fact that it's morally wrong to steal isn't a reason to stop?  Like I made clear, we aren't talking about just trying it once and throwing it away if you don't like it, we are talking about you listening to stuff many times without paying.  Period.  Remember, they get paid for you to do that with Radio.

I made a couple points, but it would be wrong for me to claim that filesharing is completely moral. It isn't- I am aware of it, and I admit it. But I also must be honest and say that I don't really feel bad about it, and I don't plan on ceasing the practice. Maybe I should, but for some reason I don't. Music will continue to be produced, and consumers, including me, will continue to buy it. Millions of people are downloading copyrighted music as I type right now. I suggest that you all unbunch your panties and worry about one of the multitudes of more pressing problems facing our country right now.

So, should we ignore muggings and banks being robbed?  Should we ignore houses being broken into?

If no, why not?  It's theft, isn't it?  It's taking from the rich and giving to the poor (the thief), isn't it?  I'm serious, how is this any different?

Just because millions of muggings took place last year, it doesn't make mugging right or even acceptable, does it?  Then why is mugging a more pressing problem in your opinion?  Especially since it doesn't effect the quality of your hobby / life like file-stealing does?  Give file-stealing time and the music is going to get worse, not better.

Just because you are taking advantage of the crime, doesn't make it less important than any other theft.  So I suggest you take a real hard look at yourself the next time you cast moral judgments on Bush or policy.  Why should they not look out for their own self interests just like you do?

[Jeb]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-01-22-sb-pepsi_x.htm

Some 20 teens sued by the Recording Industry Association of America, which accuses them of unauthorized downloads, will appear in a Pepsi-Cola(PEP) ad that kicks off a two-month offer of up to 100 million free ? and legal ? downloads from Apple's iTunes, the leading online music seller. The sassy ad, to be seen by Super Bowl's 88 million viewers on Feb 1, is a wink at the download hot button. Pepsi hopes the promotion will connect its flagship cola, as well as Sierra Mist and Diet Pepsi, with teens who've shown more affinity for bottled water, energy drinks and the Internet.


The ad identifies the teens as a "few of the kids sued for downloading music free off the Internet." RIAA has filed 914 lawsuits since it began cracking down in September, including 532 this week.

Now we know that pepsi is better than coke.