did you guys hear what the RIAA plans to do to file sharers?

It sucks, but essentially, they are just protecting their "interests". I'd personally like to see the RIIA go down in a hole, they are just a bank for musicians anyway that forces cookie cutter, executive appointed garbage down people's throats anyway, and rarely give bands a fair chance.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but with this day in age of internet media, wouldn't it level the playing fields for ALL musicians? No longer would people have to sell their souls, and beg for the industries approval, just to then hope they don't get stuck on a shelf somewhere. In theory, the bands that produce GOOD music, and are the hardest working, would be the bands that succeed, without giving 98% back to the corporation.

To that I say, down with the major corportation of art pimping.

Go ahead and tell me I am wrong, as I very well could be, but I feel my odds are much better without having to beg an exec to market it, plus we wouldn't have to listen to all the prefabbed crap they put out nowadays.

Someone argue with me please.

 

WASHINGTON (June 25) - 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.

The Recording Industry Association of America, citing significant sales declines, said it will begin Thursday to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify users who offer ''substantial'' collections of mp3 music files for downloading.

It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.

Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a user's computer will qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.

The RIAA's president, Carey Sherman, said tens of millions of Internet users of popular file-sharing software after Thursday will expose themselves to ''the real risk of having to face the music.''

''It's stealing. It's both wrong and illegal,'' Sherman said. Alluding to the court decisions, Sherman said Internet users who believe they can hide behind an alias online were mistaken. ''You are not anonymous,'' Sherman said. ''We're going to begin taking names.''

Country songwriter Hugh Prestwood, who has worked with Randy Travis, Tricia Yearwood and Jimmy Buffett, likened the effort to a roadside police officer on a busy highway.

''It doesn't take too many tickets to get everybody to obey the speed limit,'' Prestwood said.

Critics accused the RIAA of resorting to heavy-handed tactics likely to alienate millions of Internet file-sharers.

''This latest effort really indicates the recording industry has lost touch with reality completely,'' said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. ''Does anyone think more lawsuits are going to be the answer? Today they have declared war on the American consumer.''

Sherman disputed that consumers, who are gradually turning to legitimate Web sites to buy music legally, will object to the industry's latest efforts against pirates.

''You have to look at exactly who are your customers,'' he said. ''You could say the same thing about shoplifters - are you worried about alienating them? All sorts of industries and retailers have come to the conclusion that they need to be able to protect their rights. We have come to the same conclusion.''

Mike Godwin of Public Knowledge, a consumer group that has challenged broad crackdowns on file-sharing networks, said Wednesday's announcement was appropriate because it targeted users illegally sharing copyrighted files.

''I'm sure it's going to freak them out,'' Godwin said. ''The free ride is over.'' He added: ''I wouldn't be surprised if at least some people engaged in file-trading decide to resist and try to find ways to thwart the litigation strategy.''

The entertainment industry has gradually escalated its fight against piracy. The RIAA has previously sued four college students it accused of making thousands of songs available for illegal downloading on campus networks. But Wednesday's announcement was the first effort to target users who offer music on broadly accessible, public networks.

The Motion Picture Association of America said it supported the efforts, but notably did not indicate it plans to file large numbers of civil lawsuits against Internet users who trade movies online.

MPAA Chief Jack Valenti said in a statement it was ''our most sincere desire'' to find technology solutions to protect digital copies of movies.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who has proposed giving the entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated music and movies, said the RIAA's actions were overdue. ''It's about time,'' Berman said in a statement. ''For too long ... file-traffickers have robbed copyright creators with impunity.''

The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.

''We have no hard and fast rule on how many files you have to be distributing ... to come within our radar screen,'' Sherman said. ''We will go after the worst offenders first.''

The RIAA declined to estimate how much it expects to spend on the lawsuits.

AP-NY-06-25-03 1717EDT

 

Dang. Does this mean that I should move downloaded music out of shared folders, or delete it? What do they mean by substantial amounts of music? I know I have quite a bit of downloaded music, but should the normal Kazaa-Lite or other P2P user be worried? I think I am scared.

jtbp

 

Like they will get past my firewall! The U83R PARANOID NERD WALL `O FIRE 2500!

 

RIAA Plans Lawsuits Against File Traders

By David McGuire
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2003; 4:19 PM


The chief lobby group of the nation's major recording labels today said it would file hundreds of lawsuits against Internet users who illegally trade copyrighted music files.

The lawsuits will target people who share "substantial" amounts of copyrighted music, but anyone who shares illegal files is at risk, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a conference call today. The first round of lawsuits will be prepared during the next eight to 10 weeks. They will ask for injunctions and monetary damages against file swappers, Sherman said.

"We have no hard and fast rules about how many files you have to be distributing" to be targeted in the RIAA sweep, he said. "Any individual computer user who continues to steal music will face the very real risk of having to face the music."

The announcement came around the same time that a New Jersey man pleaded guilty to distributing a copy of summer blockbuster "The Hulk" on the Internet before it was released in theaters. Kerry Gonzalez faces penalties of up to three years in jail and up to $250,000 in fines, the Justice Department said.

There are 57 million Americans who use file-sharing services today, according to Boston-based research firm the Yankee Group. Among the most popular are Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster, which became prominent after the pioneering Napster service was shut down under a judicial order in 2001. Kazaa says that its file sharing software has been downloaded more than 200 million times.

The announcement is part of an attempt to rid the Internet of illegitimate versions of copyrighted works as it tries to find a way to encourage legitimate music download services. The RIAA has said that file-sharing services exist for few other reasons.

Record companies say file sharing is to blame for more than a billion dollars in lost CD sales, as well as millions in shrinking profits. The RIAA has focused most of its efforts on shutting down peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, but a federal judge in Los Angeles in April ruled that the sites have legal uses and should not be shut down. The recording industry instead is pursuing individual file traders.

The ruling came a day after another federal judge ruled that the RIAA could force Verizon Communications Inc., to hand over the names of two of its high-speed Internet service customers who were illegally trading large amounts of copyrighted music on the Kazaa network. Verizon handed over four names, but is appealing the decision.

Sarah Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel at Verizon, said the RIAA's hunt for file sharers could deluge Internet service providers with requests for customers' personal data.

Sherman, who confirmed that the RIAA would use its subpoena power to obtain the names of file sharers from ISPs, said that the practice "is not anonymous. You are engaging in an activity that's every bit as public as setting up a stall at a local flea market."

Sherman said the RIAA is not targeting people who use P2P networks only for downloading, but he warned that the networks often contain technology that allows members to tap other users' hard drives to make copies of music files. That process can make a digital fence out of an unwitting network user, he said.

He pointed people to the Musicunited.org Web site, which contains instructions for uninstalling file-sharing programs and for disabling the functions that open users' music libraries to pirates.

Wayne Rosso, president of the West Indies-based Grokster file-trading service, said the RIAA's tactics are "nothing short of lunacy."

"I can't wait to see what happens when a congressman or senator's child is sued," he said. "They've taken leave of their senses. They lost their [Los Angeles] lawsuit against us and they're pissed about it, so their answer is to sue their customers.

"We know this piracy is wrong and can't go on, but for God's sake, they won't work with us under any circumstances," he added.

The RIAA today also released documents showing that its critics have expressed support for tracking down individual pirates.

One document quoted Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) attorney Fred von Lohmann as saying: "the Copyright Act, like most of our laws, has been built on the premise that you go after the guy who actually breaks the law."

Von Lohmann said he stands by the quote, which came from an interview earlier this year with Techfocus.org, though he added that the RIAA's decision is misguided.

"If they think they can sue 57 million Americans into submission, I think they're going to find it much harder than they think," von Lohmann said.

Von Lohmann and other advocates of legitimizing file sharing have suggested that Congress consider legislation to establish an intellectual property fund that would pay artists and record labels when their materials are downloaded over peer-to-peer networks.

 

You know, after levying taxes on blank CD media and trying to indiscriminately rub out filesharing entirely, this strikes me as the most reasonable RIAA action taken against illegal sharing so far.

They are going after individuals who are doing something which is, afterall, illegal. I have no great problem with that in itself. Also, there is nothing in that link about searching hard drives. Presumably they intend to catch people on line and in action, which is an invasion of nobodies privacy.

I don't think much of the RIAA, but I can't see anything wrong here.

What's stopping you? There's no dictum that you need an industry contract to make music. Go for your life.

 

I totally agree, I guess I was just trying to make a point that I believe the "popular" music would be much, much different, if EVERYONE were on the same playing field somehow.

Joe Blow could write the best single since "louie louie", and never be heard because some exec doesn't see the whole "package" as marketable...aka britney, christina, backdoor boys ect....in other words, something teeny bopper kids wouldn't buy.

PS, the louie louie referece was a joke.

Good quote for the current state of the RIIA: "while it's true the cream rises to the top, turds sometimes float as well"

 

in kazaa, just uncheck the 'allow people to download files from you' box. then you're safe.


they're going after people who share, not those who download. keep your connection closed (which, IMO you'd be stupid not to in the first place) and you'll be fine.

 

Where is this feature, is it on Kazaa Lite?

 

I don't know about anybody else, but using Kazaa has probably gotten me to buy more cds than anything. I never burn an album of songs if I don't own the CD, either. Sometimes someone will recommend a band and I'll download a couple tracks and try them out (I don't use CDNOW because 30 seconds of 5 songs does not give an accurate representation of an album). If they suck, I delete them, and if they're good, I buy the CD and then delete them. I don't know if I'm the average MP3-downloader, but if I am, then Kazaa could be a huge asset the RIAA. Now I'm scared to download songs so I only have a couple live MP3s (which aren't illegal). If they go through with this, they're severely limiting the music that I'm going to be able to hear. I mean, is it illegal for a friend to let me borrow one of his CDs for a couple days to see if I want to buy it or not? For me, it's essentially the same thing.

 

If you want to fight it - legally - then search out, promote and enjoy freely distributed music. Give up your dreams of living like a rock star (a life style that is financed by corporate bean counting, just like pimping is supported by prostitution), get a day job and create music.

Yes - I know that's all a bit on the utopian side, but its certainly worth considering how much your lifestyle, ambitions and spending patterns support what is so easy to speak of as a corrupt industry. The dream of music for music's sake won't come to pass while art for money's sake is the dream that people are buying into

Wulf

 

I was reading over both the articles and I see nothing that says they'll be going into your hard drive either.

Im thinking anyone who has any music on there computer is at risk here. Reason being is you in there eyes obtained illegally. So whether you let other people get it from you may be irrelivent. The wording there IMO is shaky and a gray area.

I also think they they'll go about busting people in one of several ways. Either they'll create kazaa and other various accounts and see who has a ton of material or do what they said they would, just go straight to the IP and suponea them for any records of people who they suspect of downloading alot of music/movies.

Then you'll either recieve a written summons to appear in court or they'll come knockin/bargin down your door with a search/arrest warrant for you.

What Id really like to know is, lets say you downloaded 6,000 mp3s, What if you dont have any of those mp3s on your hard drive. For example lets just for arguments sake say you deleted them or burned them to disks.

I can see the disks being used as evidence, but if you deleted all mp3's from your drive then IMO even if you did down load them they'll have a hard time convicting you since theres no physical evidence in your computer, only thing they'll have is basically a piece of paper from your provider saying what was downloaded and when you downloaded it. That I do not think is or should be enough to obtain a conviction. But lord knows they shall certainly try.


Slightly off topic here:

The record industy has been saying they've been losing millions of dollars a year since 1999-2000 ever since Napster.

I personally dont think they're losing any money, I think their profit margin has decresed some. (big difference between that and losing money)

Now even if they are a few billion dollar a year enterprize, if they're losing millions per year like they claim to be, then why havent they filed for bankruptcy? No business, even if they are a few billion up can withstand losing several millions of dollar per year like they say they are. They're still profitting thats why. Just not the way they used to be.

They RIAA is wording it like they arent making any profits and taking nothing but a bath on this whole ordeal.

Also if they go after people who download, then IMO they damn well better go after anyone who owns an audio cassette recorder because Im sure they record songs off the radio, which is just as illegal and in violation as downloading. Lawyer friend of mine told me that.

 

Don't worry - I know that there are plenty of ways to be a professional musician that don't involve 'selling out'.

However, I wonder how many of us, who despise the corporate greed of the music industry, would be able to turn down the offer of a 'multi-million dollar' recording contract and the chance to tour stadiums with huge sound and lighting rigs and parties every night? I guess the question that really cuts through whether someone has sour grapes (grumbling because they haven't got a slice of the action) is how they are supporting the grassroots music scene.

I've never used Kazaa - is it possible to use it to find music that is freely shareable as well as illegal rips of record company property?

Wulf

 

The fact that the artists VERY rarely see any of the money, makes me unsympathetic to the labels' cause.

 

I'd say the RIAA would do better if they would drop the prices of CDs. You still pay insane amount for even slightly more successful record, considering how much it costs to be made.

By the way, how much is your average CD cost in the States?

Here, in larger stores foreign CDs can be something like $22 - or even more. A smaller recordstore sells the same for $16-17, and Finnish cd's - prices were dropped few years back by local industry - still sell for $12.

 

Over here new CDs tend to be £12.99 or £13.99 - that's about $21-$23 USD.

It also might help if the major labels started putting out more albums worth buying to anyone over the age of 14...

It work both ways. While I don't condone downloading music illegally, if they're gonna charge full whack for this stuff, perhaps they shouldn't be too surprised that some people aren't willing to pay for it...