Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Prepares Legal Blitz Against Filesharers

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the shock-and-awe dept.

The Courts 1192

Sayonara writes "The RIAA are now well and truly gathering their forces for a financial onslaught on file sharers in the US, with a "fear and awe" campaign targetting college and high school students in particular. The strategy can be reduced to 'We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded. Pay us $50,000 now, and we'll say no more about it.' In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"

cancel ×

1192 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Joy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859549)

The RIAA is still at it, huh? It's almost funny to watch how they pursue people, asking these outrageous sums. Then you realize that they really ARE bothering these people and it's not so funny anymore...

My legal advice to the RIAA (1)

KDan (90353) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859581)

"You can go f*ck yourselves."

I believe this is very sound advice. As a matter of fact, they are already following it, aren't they?

Daniel

Re:My legal advice to the RIAA (2, Funny)

QEDog (610238) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859639)

My legal advice to the RIAA
"You can go f*ck yourselves."

Hey, shallow legal advised is suppose to be posted in Ask Slashdot only!

"go fuck yourselves" doesn't hold up in court (5, Funny)

SweetAndSourJesus (555410) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859645)

believe me, I've tried.

Re:Joy (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859589)

It's funny, and yet, everyone is doing it! Look at SCO, for example. :)

brockman (2, Funny)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859552)

I, for one, welcome our new Record Executive Overlords.

Machiavelli and the RIAA (5, Interesting)

takochan (470955) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859616)

Machiavelli:

It is good if your subjects love you.
But better if you can make them fear you.

But you do *NOT* want them to hate you..

Tested with time, over the centuries...

I can already see where this is ultimately headed... ..does the RIAA?

Re:brockman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859656)

Why must people take things out of context like this? The complete quotation is

Ladies and gentlemen, uh, we've just lost the picture, but what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over- 'conquered' if you will- by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Earthman or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves." -- Kent Brockman


It's just not the same without the reference to "underground sugar caves."

Re:brockman (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859740)

I was going to say "Underground Vinyl Mines", but couldn't remember how to phrase it.

Re:brockman (4, Insightful)

gosand (234100) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859777)

I, for one, welcome our new Record Executive Overlords.

Uhh, new?

RIAA and SCO (4, Funny)

suedehed (21718) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859557)

Why dont we get SCO to join the RIAA, and anyone using Linux to swap songs, they can just nail them with a double suit.

Re:RIAA and SCO (5, Funny)

BrynM (217883) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859649)

That would just lead to the RIAA claiming that Linux is theirs and SCO claiming that music is theirs. Then again, if there's a way to get them to fight eachother...

Death to RIAA. (3, Insightful)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859763)



Since they have declared war on us with this scare and awe bullshit, this only will speed up their own demise. There was once a time when the RIAA had a chance to actually take their piece of the pie and keep some market share by selling music to consumers embracing the new technology, but the RIAA has totally fucked it up and ruined their chances of actually surviving this.

So here is what will happen, the RIAA meaning record companies will cease to exist. I dont know how they figure they can sue people into buying music, or scare people into buying music, all this will do is make us boycott. I was not boycotting the RIAA until they started doing this, now I will never buy another RIAA CD. I will buy used CDs from ebay, I will pirate, I will do whatever it takes to keep from ever supporting the big record companies again.

I will support small record companies. I see it like this, why support someone who wants to sue me? Why should I support someone who is damaging the music industry for the musicians as well as the consumer?

Extortion (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859563)

How can extortion be a legit business practice?

IN CAPITALIST AMERICA... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859610)

Legitimate business practices extort YOU!

shallow? (2, Insightful)

mschoolbus (627182) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859564)

I think its pretty 'shallow' of them to bring people to court over this issue. How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...

Re:shallow? (2, Funny)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859596)

I think its pretty 'shallow' of them to bring people to court over this issue. How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...

Oh, come on, _really_.

Re:shallow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859640)

Yeah. Geez. Barely have a chance to post and this dumbass parent comment gets an "insightful"

they can get you on whether you can show ownership of the songs, or simply using the md5sum of the binary (moral, trivially reencode the music in as non-lossy a fashion as possible)

Re:shallow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859608)

in the case of nycfashiongirl, because the mp3s were identical to ones created and traded by others on Napster.

Re:shallow? (4, Insightful)

Lawbeefaroni (246892) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859623)

"Shallow" as in based on that worthless piece of over-valued toilet paper also known by some backwards thinkers as The Constitution. This in vivid contrast to the deep and meaningful music they peddle on the consumer.

Re:shallow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859671)

And what does the Constitution have to do with file sharing? I don't remember anything in there are right of privacy (and don't tell me search and seizure), right to download music, or even right to copyright music. All of these things were made up after the fact.

Re:shallow? (1)

Snowspinner (627098) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859628)

Because they're not stupid?

Re:shallow? (5, Informative)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859635)

How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...

They don't care. Unless I missed something big, they still aren't suing you for DOWNLOADING anything--I don't even think that they can track what you download. AFAIK, they're going after folk who SHARE the files--i.e., what they've got for upload.

You may very well have a perfectly legal reason to download that MP3--but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network.

Re:shallow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859674)

they are going after downloaders as well, but do have a justification for their case in our current (stupid) legal structure.

Re:shallow? (5, Insightful)

syntap (242090) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859642)

This isn't an issue because they are targeting users who share MP3's, ie make them available for upload. Though one can argue that downloading an MP3 is legal and fine if you already own a CD with that song on it, but it's hard to argue that it's legal for you to make that freely available for download on the assumption that whoever downloads it is doing so legally.

I don't know why anyone is complaining about this campaign... the ./ crowd has said all along that the tools shouldn't be attacked, the violators should be attacked. That's what the RIAA is doing. They're not targeting downloaders (yet).

Re:shallow? (2, Insightful)

timmy the large (223281) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859685)

I hater to say it, but you are right. When they sued napster everyone said it wasnt napster, but the users.

Well now they are going for the users.

Re:shallow? (1)

jollis (691129) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859665)

The real issue is that of sharing the files; that's when you violate the rights granted to the author by copyright law, and I don't think shelves full of CDs will change that. Of course, IANAL.

Re:shallow? (1)

Platupous (316849) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859711)

On a similar note, How does the RIAA prove that you were not just making the files available to YOURSELF whilst at work/vacation etc.....?

Hmmm Hmmmm? It is NOT my fault that others choose to steal MY legally owned mysic.

Just my $0.02

first psost! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859565)

OMG! Yuo are suhc a cowboyse!

RIAA & SCO (1)

Sri Lumpa (147664) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859573)


I didn't know that Darl had been employed by the RIAA?

When will they send their $50000 invoices?

Damn I'm a pessismist (5, Insightful)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859580)

I really can't see anything positive coming out of this, people are going to be screwed (pay up because they can't afford the lawyer), the pblic won't care, and the RIAA will just gain more momentum.

The laws that make it possible won't get changed either.

*sigh*

Re:Damn I'm a pessismist (1)

s20451 (410424) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859624)

I really can't see anything positive coming out of this, people are going to be screwed (pay up because they can't afford the lawyer), the pblic won't care, and the RIAA will just gain more momentum.

That sounds pretty positive to me, as I'm on TD Waterhouse right now buying shares in Vivendi.

Re:Damn I'm a pessismist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859655)

What kind of free software linux advocate are you!?!?!?!?

Damn you to hell!!!

GOOD! (4, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859590)

In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"

God, I hope that gets tossed out. Well, actually, I hope it all gets tossed out, or 'nycfashiongirl' gets a small ($1/song shared) damage against her.

Repeat after me: You have no privacy on the internet. Any privacy you think you might have is simply you being too small and insignificant for anyone to bother to look. Consider your activities to be taking place on a sidewalk using postcards and loud voices--and act accordingly.

*sigh*

Re:GOOD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859737)

bukkake?

What's Oppenheim's address? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859591)

I'm not affiliated with any law agency, so if he leaves his door unlocked, does that mean I can walk in and search his house. I won't take anything, but since the address would be public knowledge, then hey, it should be just fine. After all, I am not affiliated with anyone that can't do this.

Re:What's Oppenheim's address? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859636)

But what if I am yelling across the street to my neighbor and you sit in your car and listen. Is that illegal?

shared public files (3, Insightful)

reptilicus (605251) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859745)

But the RIAA isn't invading anyone's house or computer, they're just going through the public directories of shared files that people put up on p2p networks. I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but this is not an invasion of privacy.

koff koff (1)

atari2600 (545988) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859594)

from the article....
Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.

Yep they are immume - everyone needs to work on his/her immumity - the RIAA is immume to everything except perhaps herpes and AIDS - immume - Find more immume here Immumity [artoftoy.com]

Re:koff koff (0)

c00lant (550309) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859681)

immunity to any human violations too... companys don't go to jail for theft or violations that could land you and me in prison for years. they get fines (if that) which rarely even scath their bank accounts.

Non-RIAA Music Reviews? (4, Interesting)

Malic (15038) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859595)

Would anyone be interested the creation of a web site/community/forum that specifically focused on non-RIAA member label artists?

Or is there such a thing and I should be contributing reviews to it already?

Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859660)

Well, what I do is find an artist I like. Then goto s/th like CDnow to find the cd. I look at the label they are with, and cross reference that to RIAA's list of labels. If they aren't on there, then it's pretty much all good. Fat Wreck Chords and Epitaph (probably two of the biggest punk labels) are both not members of the RIAA

Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859689)

Yeah, I would - I write music and definately don't want to have any part with the RIAA. Some of my music is already online at frag.co.uk, free to download and listen to.

Dug

Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859705)

One already exists.

It's called CD-Baby [cdbaby.com] .

Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? (1)

BrynM (217883) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859723)

I'm in. Show me an URL and how to contact you and I'll code some pages for it.

There should really be a second trade association for this too. The Independant Music Consortium or something. From what I have heard, the RIAA has a habit of stepping on and/or ignoring it's smaller members anyway.

Re:Non-RIAA Music Reviews? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859755)

Boycott RIAA site [boycottriaa.com]

$50 or $15? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859599)

'We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded. Pay us $50,000 now, and we'll say no more about it.'

The article says $15K - "OK, we'll let you off the fine if you agree to pay, let's say, a mere $15,000"

If you argue then it goes to $50K.

Kazaa still going strong? (1)

calebtucker (691882) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859603)

I rarely ever get on kazaa.. I usually get my live music over various bittorrent channels. My roommate said that it's getting very hard to find anything on kazaa and other filesharing programs.

Is this true? I know at one point this summer we saw some stats that the RIAA wasn't really affecting the number of sharers. Is their campaign working?

THE NERDS== TOTALLY FOOLED (-1, Offtopic)

FOOLED YOU STUPID NE (703981) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859604)

CURRENTLY RECRUITING MEMBERS OF FNRU

NEED LOTS, TO OVERCOME UNFAIR MODERATING SYSTEM (IT IS LIKE COMMUNISM)
ATTENTION NERDS:
We here at FOOLING NERDS R US (FNRU) are tired of stupid moderation, whether for good or evil. Negative karma points are being tendered away like Billy the Kid trying to shoot some kind of fat nerd in the face, while positive karma is given away if you can at least string a couple sentences together.
THE FACTS ARE
You have all been fooled.
Please read this:
After reading that, please read this, a reply to it by the same author:

Yes, it appears, you have all failed it miserably, and by that, I mean the entire SYSTEM has failed. Thank you, come again.

Sooo... (3, Insightful)

Tyrdium (670229) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859605)

They're targeting high school and college students... Who tend to not have much money... Will they really be allowed to ruin the lives of hundreds (if not thousands, or tens of thousands) of people, just so some execs can make a little more cash? And also, don't college students have a tendency to rebel against things like this? There's going to be a gigantic uprising...

and here comes the exodus (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859707)

RIAA dodgers, where can they go Europe? I don't like Canada, save BC.

Re:Sooo... (1)

Snowspinner (627098) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859738)

"And also, don't college students have a tendency to rebel against things like this?"

I'm afraid you have college students confused with "people who care". It's a common error, and one that seems to have started in the late 1960s when a bunch of oddball college students started making headlines by giving a shit, and it became briefly cool to dress like they did, while sitting in your dorm room too stoned to actually damn the man.

As for why they're going after kids... well, unfortunately, the people with thousands of dollars to hand over in a settlement are also the people with thousands of dollars to hire lawyers and make it more difficult for them. And, also, not generally the people who are filesharing.

Re:Sooo... (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859756)

Gigantic uprising? I think not. College kids these days don't rebel, they just whine.

One word - Precedent (1)

moldar (536869) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859782)

We have seen lots of other corporations that go for the easy targets. Sure, the folks the RIAA are targetting have no dough. However, this establishes the desired long arm of the RIAA. If they get this to happen (and 'let the students off easy' by lowering the $$ sued for) then they think they can come off in a better position.

Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers (5, Insightful)

Jonas the Bold (701271) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859609)

Except these guys are actually dangerous. Can we stop feeding the SCO trolls, and have more articles about this? Maybe some ask slashdots with actual lawyers about what to do if they sue you, what they can actually legally do, etc.?

Someone's really gotta put a stop to this. Where are they getting this $150,000 number from? If you go into a record store, steal the CD, go outside the store with your laptop, and start burning free copies for people walking in, would you fine be nearly as high?

Why the bias against people who "steal" (or infringe copywrites) with computers?

Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers (1)

Snowspinner (627098) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859661)

What to do if the RIAA sues you:

Lose $15,000, because you cannot possibly afford as good a lawyer as they can, and they've already lobbied Congress so that the law is firmly on their side.

Next question?

Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers (2, Funny)

Jonas the Bold (701271) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859714)

Or hire the Slashdot Crack legal team.

I wonder if "IANAL, but.." arguments stands up in court..

Think about it! You could post the 'ask slashdot' on your court date, and read off the comments as they come in!

Re:Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers (0)

c00lant (550309) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859729)

grab all material positions, commit a horrible crime (to justify leaving) and flee the country. the US is begining its downfall to nothingness.

It's been said before, but... (5, Insightful)

pdbogen (596723) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859613)

The tactic is broadly to remind those it catches of the truly draconian penalties the law in the United States allows ($150,000 per song - and you don't have to be a Berkeley mathematician to multiply that a few times to get more dollars that any student loan could cover).

Then when the poor student has picked himself up from the floor and the blood returns to his face, the lawyers will say broadly: "OK, we'll let you off the fine if you agree to pay, let's say, a mere $15,000". ...
Furthermore, in one recent case, a college student was told that just by filing an answer in court, the cost of any final settlement would rise by $50,000.


If this isn't extortion, By God, I don't know what is.

Re:It's been said before, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859733)

It is a settlement. I guess you could say that a plea bargain is extortion too. The idea is to save the courts some time and everybody legals fees. Of course the RIAA is totally taking advantage of this but it is the way it works.

High Schools... (5, Insightful)

BJZQ8 (644168) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859614)

Most High Schools use proxies...if the kids are running Kazaa at school and using a proxy, then it would be unethical and highly illegal to divulge their names to a non-law-enforcement-entity such as the RIAA. Anyway, an intelligent administrator would flush their logs every day.

Re:High Schools... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859704)

A real intelligent administrator wouldn't allow these illegal activies happen on their network.

Re:High Schools... (1)

thebigmacd (545973) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859762)

universal rule which is often forgotten in the intellectual world: intelligence != wisdom

I'd be happy to pay for this music... (1)

rcr484 (601384) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859615)

Just send me the address of the artists. They're the ones who deserve the cash. I prefer to avoid funding anymore RIAA-funded "superstars" like N'suck and Hitme Spears.

Re:I'd be happy to pay for this music... (1)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859724)

Just send me the address of the artists. They're the ones who deserve the cash. I prefer to avoid funding anymore RIAA-funded "superstars" like N'suck and Hitme Spears.

Mod this up, because it is truer that it sounds. The RIAA is using the muse of "lost artist revenues" as thier motive to extort money. Ok, I'll have to agree (as a musician myself) that pirating is bad, mmmkay?

However, any amounts of money the RIAA gains from this barratry will not be transferred to any musicians. They're in it for themselves.

Guess what the RIAA would tell you (as a musician) if you discovered someone used your music w/o permission or paying you royalties?

"Since your claim/song/complaint is only worth $X, we will not be able to assist you in this matter."

Fuck them. They're just a business, and they do anything useful except ruin the industry.

Re:I'd be happy to pay for this music... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859778)

Learn to close your tags, learn what barratry means, and learn what -phile means. After that come back and post again. By the way, I agree with your sentiment but you are a blithering idiot. Somebody has to tell you and it might as well be me.

Sounds like... (1)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859617)

Pay us $low_number now, or we'll have to charge you $high_number later!!

I thought we already did the SCO article today?

Open season? (3, Insightful)

bmf033069 (149738) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859618)

"Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies."

By that logic, everyone is open to whatever searches of other people's systems they want. Why is the US gov't going after people for "hacking", if the intent is just to look around then all is fine according to them.

I love this hypocrasy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859619)

First, when the RIAA went after Napster, and the p2p software makers, you people were crying for them to go after the individual pirates, instead of the technology that facilitates the piracy.

Now that they are actuallly employing this strategy, the cry is noo!! It's wrong, it's bad, or, or something.

What's the deal here? Do you people just don't care about copyright infringement? You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it.

Re:I love this hypocrasy (3, Insightful)

Snowspinner (627098) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859699)

At least in my case, yeah, you hit the nail right on the head.

I think copyright is evil. In its original form it might have been argued to at least be a practical good, and thus worth keeping around, but in its current form it is out and out evil, in that it attempts to squash the development and exchange of ideas in favor of the development and exchange of profit, and ideas are a fundamental part of the development of civilization.

Seeing as I think civil disobedience was one of the better ideas developed lately, I'm pretty much likely to support any user who shares just about any file.

Re:I love this hypocrasy (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859781)

This is a great example of a person who will never create anything worthwhile, and therefore believes that NO ONE should have the right to make a profit off something they produce. Ayn Rand would term you a looter, and so would I.

$50k? (2, Informative)

CaptBubba (696284) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859621)

How on earth do they think they are going to get $50k out of a student? I certainly don't have $50,000 in the bank, nor will I have it anytime soon. I think this is more of a case of going after those least able to defend themselves.

Oh, sure... (2, Insightful)

musingmelpomene (703985) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859629)

$50,000 per song. 6,000 songs and 100 full length movies...yeah, excuse me while I pull that money out of my ass. Hasn't the RIAA ever heard the phrase "blood from a turnip"? What are they going to do, rob piggy banks? I'm sure their lawyers will be really satisfied with the $300 most college kids have in savings.

Re:Oh, sure... (1)

blancolioni (147353) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859725)

Do you really think they're doing this for the money?

Penn State (1)

ignipotentis (461249) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859637)

I read over on ars that Penn State was about to start charging its entire campus regardless of who uses the service (ahhh yes, I remember the great pay for what you don't use fees).

This seems to be a regular bait and switch. We will sell this to Universities for next to nothing, hope we get the majority of the students hooked, the n jack up the price a non-student would pay for the service.

I had enough fees added on to my tuition bill when i was at school. I feel sorry for those of you who are just entering or will be entering soon.

Re:Penn State (1)

ignipotentis (461249) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859659)

Forgotten Link [arstechnica.com]

Shallow (2, Insightful)

RickHunter (103108) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859638)

Because due process is shallow and boring and not really necessary, right? If the RIAA says you're doing something bad, well, that should be all the proof the government needs!

Sheesh. If they're breaking the law to catch people breaking the law, they're still breaking the law.

for downloading or for sharing? (1)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859650)

I don't see anything that specifically says you have to pay $150k per DOWNLOAD. It seems more like $150k per file you share. The title is a little misleading about that. Or have the RIAA really started targeting leeches too?

Re:for downloading or for sharing? (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859739)

If they're just targetting people who share... ...it'd surely be possible to write a worm that would turn computers into Kazaa clients, which would run around leeching files at random from people. With enough of these out there, 1) the original sharers wouldn't have to, except to put new files on the network, 2) the RIAA lawyers would wind up spending resources tracking down people/IP addresses that aren't guilty, and 3) "The worm did it" would become a legitimate defense.

I'm not saying this is a good thing. Hell, such a worm would cause massive bandwidth loads everywhere, and probably cause network admins to block 1214 (until the Kazaa folks get smart and support port-hopping).

But part of me would do a little happy-dance if this happened.

RIAA funding (0)

jedi98629 (544161) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859654)

i dont know how much $ the RIAA has as a whole, but it seems there suing the same reason SCO is, and thats cause there running out of money and want us good ol rich HS and college students to pay um

well done RIAA (3, Insightful)

nocent (71113) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859663)

Well done RIAA! You've successfully embedded the "evil recording industry" image into the hearts and minds of the youth of today, your primary consumers. You may prevent some people sharing your music but you've turned millions more from ever buying a RIAA artist's CD ever again. Previously, people might have felt bad about depriving the artist of income but now, they'll just think "screw them". Well done.

Silly RIAA (1)

West Palm Beach (654328) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859673)

They're targetting some of the poorest lots on the planet - high school and college students. How much do you think they're really going to get?

OK, high school students caught will cost their parents those tidy sums, but for the college students, over 18, I don't know how much they'll actually get.

Speaking from experience, my assets totalled much less than what the RIAA is asking for during my college years. I hope it costs them more in lawyers' fees than what they'll actually get from the lawsuits.

Extortion (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859676)

Someday, someone with several thousand songs will call their bluff, and challenge them. Perhaps in court, they'll point out how stupid the RIAA looks demanding more money than the entire record industry is worth in damages. Perhaps.

The thing is, even if a court does rule that you owe the RIAA $100 000 000, what would happen? It's not like they could ever collect. I never expect to own that much money.

That's right asshole... (1)

BiteMeFanboy (680905) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859686)

Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.

That means you're not allowed to look into private data at ALL.

That may or may not apply, I don't know to what lengths they went to to gather evidence against her. But their attitude has always been, "we'll do what we want".

*frowns* (1)

TwistedGreen (80055) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859691)

I'm getting kind of scared. Though I'm Canadian, so this can't affect me, right?

Re:*frowns* (0)

iMMersE (226214) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859783)

No, you have much bigger things to worry about :)

But they have to USE law enforcement, don't they? (1)

Buran (150348) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859697)

Don't they have to use law enforcement (the courts) to bring a case? Would the court not have the power to throw out evidence that wasn't gathered correctly? I hear of this happening all the time -- which is why there are strict procedures covering the handling of evidence. It has to be collected within strict rules (e.g. to search a home a warrant is needed) and then it has to be kept "clean". If it's tainted, the case can be thrown out.

I don't see why everyone's so quick to dismiss the claims. Well, the RIAA is obviously biased, but third parties should technically be not so biased.

Re:But they have to USE law enforcement, don't the (2, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859767)

You're thinking of criminal law. When the government is brining a case against you, there are far stricter rules.

When it's a private party, the rules aren't _quite_ as tight.

Immunity??? (4, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859703)

[RIAA vice-president] Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.

So if I hack Mr. Oppenheims computer and "unreasonably" search it (i.e. rifle through his private data) I am immune to rules on unreasonable searches because I am a hacker and not a cop? Nice to know.... Now where did I put that SubSeven kit.....

"Futile" (3, Insightful)

barryfandango (627554) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859712)

While I applaud nycfashiongirl's stand, it appears to me that it may indeed be "shallow." The RIAA is not a law-enforcement agency, so is not bound to regulations regarding surveillance. And more importantly, she chose to share her many pirated files on a file-sharing service. How could they have violated her privacy when she decided to publicly display the files to the world? They didn't have to violate anything.

Go after the real source of profit-loss (5, Funny)

Supero100 (664946) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859734)

RIAA Strategist #1: Wait! I got it! Let's put our future customers in financial ruin!
RIAA Strategist #2: Brilliant! Then they'll have more money to buy from us!
RIAA Strategist #1: What should we do about the rampant piracy in eastern europe and asia?
RIAA Strategist #2: Sorry, repeat that? I was listening to the satisfying sound of ruining everyone's lives.

"RIAA Prepares Legal Blitz Against Filesharers" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859743)

RIAA Prepares Legal Blitz Against Filesharers

You must be new here...

RIAA missing the point (1)

ALecs (118703) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859747)

I, personally, have never used any P2P file sharing.

I've never shared my music with anyone over the 'net.

I also haven't bought a record (CD, vinyl, etc.) in over 2 years. (Seriously - I know 'cuz I haven't had to reorganize my CD shelf since I moved in 2001)

Thank goodness my honesty has made the RIAA so much money.

What about other activies? (5, Insightful)

Dr. Bent (533421) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859752)

Why are they just going after P2P filesharing? Why not vigorously prosecute those who download music off of Usenet? Or those who copy CD's from friends? How about people who make bootlegs?

I'll tell you why. It's because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business (in the long term) much much more than a little music piracy by college students who wouldn't be able to afford to buy the thousands of songs they steal anyway.

This is, and has always been, about controlling music distribution and not about stopping piracy. Piracy is a side effect of the real problem: Loss of Control.

Related defense that might work - comments? (1)

Nels (325798) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859753)

Does the DMCA prevent the circumvention of encryption schemes that even *might* reveal copyrighted information?
If so, WASTE [nik.com.au] , simply by virtue of being encrypted, might be a legally impenetrable way of running file sharing.
However, even if that is true, does the law provide any safeguard against people who are privy to copyrighted information who decrypt it and supply it to law enforcement agencies? If it does, well obviously you have to keep things closed off to the public, but on the (extremely unlikely) chance that it doesn't, one could create a program with a deliberately facile encryption feature and the info would be legally protected.

Boycott!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6859757)

Most people on Slashdot are probably already doing this, but if the RIAA continues to use such heavy-handed tactics, they will see a consumer revolt that has never been seen before.

Suing college students, teenagers and their parents has to be the worst way to get their point across that I've ever seen. The music industry is dying, and its death throes are being felt by everyone as their evil tentacles lash out at anyone and anything on their way down.

I like how the article notes that the RIAA is trying to get us to use even more expensive things such as SACD, when the high cost is the very reason that everybody is moving to P2P networks. Rather than work on saving themselves through a reinvention, they would prefer to die.

They could eliminate just about all of the middle men, and just have digital downloads similar to Apple for Macintosh users, which will still give them plenty of profit. But they have been fighting the future, instead of joining it. Die, Dinosaurs, Die!!!

They KNOW how the Internet works? (2, Insightful)

YetAnotherName (168064) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859758)

RIAA vice-president Matt Oppenheim...added that the claim about violating the woman's internet address "reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works".

Sorry, pal. You're a VP. I'm an engineer. I've had an email address since 1988, and I was using ed to write homework papers formatted with roff in 3rd grade on an ancient Unix system. You do not know how the Internet works.

Replies per post compared to RIAA stupidity level (4, Insightful)

Genjurosan (601032) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859759)

I would venture that the number of posts on /. concerning the RIAA is directly driven by the level of stupidity that the RIAA touts to the world. As the stupidity goes up, the amount of posts should go down, as there really isn't much else to do these days other than shake your head with the silent understanding that the RIAA is killing those that they represent.

Don't they understand that college students and high school students download songs because they are broke? Now with the continued slash and burn method; once the college student graduates and finds a job, this new generation of 'pissed off at the RIAA' simply are not going to purchase music legally simply out of hate, spite, etc...

Cribs (2, Insightful)

JeepingNET (522361) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859770)

How are we susposed to take this all serious that ohhh they are loosing so much money when they put shows like cribs on tv... I hardly afford rent yet I go and spent $20 on a CD.. Go over to my parents (cause i cann't afford cable) and see the show cribs... see the artist who's cd i just bought in this big huge house just blowing away all this cash.. Ya sure.. he certainly needed my money.. I understand he only even gets a fraction of what I pay for the record so if he has say 20 million then the record company must have made like 100 million... hard to feel sorry for them when they live much better than I

Take Up Arms? (1)

mwarps (2650) | more than 10 years ago | (#6859790)

Is the RIAA prepared do defend itself against the eventual uprising that's coming its way? Torches and pitchforks aren't quite what they're going to get if they keep this up. They're stupid enough to start persecuting (yes, persecuting) family members of the wrong people and then it's going to get very ugly, very fast.

Stop supporting these extortionists. Stop buying labeled CDs. Stop buying DVDs. All you're doing is giving them more power.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>