RIAA launches more suits

Professur

Professur

Well-Known Member
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The recording industry sued 532 people Tuesday, including scores of individuals using computer networks at 21 universities, claiming they were illegally sharing digital music files over the Internet.

The latest wave of copyright lawsuits brought by the Recording Industry Association of America marks the first time the trade group has targeted computer users swapping music files over university networks.

The RIAA filed the "John Doe" complaints against 89 individuals using networks at universities in 10 states. Lawsuits were also filed against 443 people using commercial Internet access providers in five states.

The recording group did not name which Internet access providers the defendants were using.

With the "John Doe" lawsuits, the recording industry must work through the courts to find out the identities of the defendants, which at the outset are identified only by the numeric Internet protocol addresses assigned to computers online.

The defendants, which the trade group claims offered "substantial amounts" of music files, face potential civil penalties or settlements that could cost them thousands of dollars. Settlements in previous cases have averaged $3,000 each.

"We are sending a clear message that downloading or 'sharing' music from a peer-to-peer network without authorization is illegal, it can have consequences and it undermines the creative future of music itself," RIAA president Cary Sherman said.

Including Tuesday's filings, the recording industry has sued 1,977 people since launching its legal assault against online music piracy last fall, and has reached out-of-court settlements in around 400 of the cases.
Click to expand...

Source
 
i personally think that only people who dont know what they're doing, get caught and sued.
there's a number of things that can be done to avoid being caught with all this.
use a p2p thing that prevents it, first of all.
also, despite the nature of a "Peer to Peer" network, it's ok to not share files. some people will always share, but if someone's THAT paranoid about getting caught, they should just stop sharing their files.

also, my friend had me move all my mp3's from their original folders into another one i made.
that way, if the mp3's are discovered, then that means hacking was involved which is not allowed on their part.

just my dollar-sign-zero-point-zero-two.
 
I've said it before: If you stop paying for the music, you'll stop getting music worth paying for.
 
actually, about 93% of the mp3's i've dl'd in the past couple years, i have a legal right to own... because i have -- and paid for -- the albums they're from. the other ones i have are just a song-or-two from artists cos, oh, i like this song, it's ok, etc. i've actually gotten into -- and paid for -- a lot of albums by different artists, thru the wonders of mp3/filesharing technology.

so, i consider myself comparitively innocent in this situation.
 
ash r said:
. i've actually gotten into -- and paid for -- a lot of albums by different artists, thru the wonders of mp3/filesharing technology.
Click to expand...

same here. thats what pisses me off about the whole attack 'em with lawsuits strategy that the RIAA employs. they are just feeding the lawyers while ignoring an excellent way to market new acts.
 
ash r said:
actually, about 93% of the mp3's i've dl'd in the past couple years, i have a legal right to own... because i have -- and paid for -- the albums they're from. the other ones i have are just a song-or-two from artists cos, oh, i like this song, it's ok, etc. i've actually gotten into -- and paid for -- a lot of albums by different artists, thru the wonders of mp3/filesharing technology.

so, i consider myself comparitively innocent in this situation.
Click to expand...

Comparitively innocent??? OHMIGOD that's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Thanks for making me smile this morning, Ash.

But does paying for your groceries very week, and then stealing a chocolate bar make it comparitively innocent? Didn't think so.
 
Spot said:
same here. thats what pisses me off about the whole attack 'em with lawsuits strategy that the RIAA employs. they are just feeding the lawyers while ignoring an excellent way to market new acts.
Click to expand...

As I've also said before, the entire nature of the business has changed. RIAA needs to change with it or get the hell out of the way. This current strategy clearly won't work. Maybe whot arises after they bankrupt themselves paying lawyers will make more sense.
 
chcr said:
As I've also said before, the entire nature of the business has changed. RIAA needs to change with it or get the hell out of the way. This current strategy clearly won't work. Maybe whot arises after they bankrupt themselves paying lawyers will make more sense.
Click to expand...


Just an aside. Are you suggesting that it's too much to expect people not to steal music? Or that it's less of a crime because everyone's decided to do it.
 
Professur said:
Just an aside. Are you suggesting that it's too much to expect people not to steal music? Or that it's less of a crime because everyone's decided to do it.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Just that the RIAA is trying to deal with the problem in a draconian manner that is doomed to failure. The landscape of the music industry has changed, the old rules don't apply. Apple I-tunes seems to have started getting a handle on it, but even they have a way to go.

And yes, some people will still steal it. They did before file sharing too. That does not make it less of a crime.
 
Professur said:
Comparitively innocent??? OHMIGOD that's the funniest thing I've ever heard.
Click to expand...

ahh yes, you can say that because you didnt quite seem to catch WHY i said "comparitively".

i am comparitively innocent because i usually DO actually BUY or ALREADY OWN the cd's my mp3's are on, whereas there are a LOT of people who haven't bought a cd in years because all they do is download them!

in your terms, i may have paid for my groceries and stolen a chocolate bar (i prefer peanut butter cups :) ) but, i maintain that i'm STILL comparitively more innocent than that guy over there who NEVER pays for his groceries because he always STEALS them.
 
And that attitude, my dear Ash, is a cornerstore of why the world is the shitpit it is today.

And I did catch your 'why'. I've hundreds of MP3 files too. And 100% of them are songs I own. Not 93%. Not 99%. why? Because stealing one song is still stealing. And anyone who can justify stealing, even one song, has justified a crime. A victimless crime?? No such thing.
 
Ash, guilt and innocence are ont comparitive values, but absolutes in this case. Kind of like being a little pregnant.
 
You're still guilty. You're just guilty of fewer counts of the offense than some others are. Just like someone who steals a candy bar is guilty of theft, and someone who steals candy bars 25 times is guilty of 25 counts of theft. Just like someone who kills one person is guilty of murder, and someone who kills nine people is guilty of nine counts of murder. The one-timer is still guilty, no less so than the nine-timer.
 
chcr said:
I've said it before: If you stop paying for the music, you'll stop getting music worth paying for.
Click to expand...

I disagree withthat. The people that steal .mp3s are taking money out of the system. The losers are not, for the most part, the artists. Money is made by live performances. When I was playing, the average artist (band) got less than buck per album. They got 70% of the door. That's why people go on tour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top