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 Sues 261 Major P2P Offenders

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the you'd-better-watch-out dept.

Music 1076

circletimessquare writes "Yahoo!/Washington Post is reporting that the RIAA is suing 261 fileswappers whom they consider to be 'major offenders' in illegally trading music online. Remember to visit the EFF when full lawsuit details are released, and see if you're one of the unlucky few." Details of the amnesty program reported last week were also released, with the RIAA announcing it "...would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."

cancel ×

1076 comments

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

Sweat from my balls! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901276)

Mmmmm..... Tangy....

Suing? (2, Funny)

Vargasan (610063) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901279)

The RIAA sues people?
Never!

Re:Suing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901347)

It's the only way they can think of to remain relevant.

Re:Suing? (4, Interesting)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901424)

The RIAA will remain relevant as long as they have the money to do so. These bastards are going to get away with it for as long as we let them.

It's really going to take grass roots effort to remove this RIAA threat. It's the only way to really combat a monetarily powerful organization.

Speaking of grassroots, the Dean Campaign should take note of folks distrust of the RIAA. If they promise to do something about the RIAA, then they'll probably wind up with a few thousand more votes than they may have had. If nothing else, bringing this up in a fair political manner about it might put a stop to some of this insanity.

Re:Suing? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901497)

If the Dean campaign tells you that they are going to do something about the RIAA then I can tell you they are lying. The Executive branch does not make laws and it does not try cases based on those laws. It is up to the Legislative branch (your senators and representatives) to change the laws or the Judicial branch to declare them unconstitutional. For that to happen it would have to bounce to the top (Supreme Court) which won't happen because nobody has deep enough pockets to fight it that far.

Re:Suing? (1)

gcaseye6677 (694805) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901502)

This is the best Dean campaign idea I've heard yet. Since he's absolutely not going to get any corporate support, he might as well get as many 'non-corporate' types voting for him as possible.

gREAT! i'M ON THE LIST!!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901288)

What the heck do I do now????

Re:gREAT! i'M ON THE LIST!!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901374)

Pack your suitcase for prison!

In prison lingo, "pack your suitcase" means stuffing your ass full of cigarettes and narcotics.

Re:gREAT! i'M ON THE LIST!!! (4, Funny)

BrynM (217883) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901426)

Run.

Run fast.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor and retire to the Bahamas.

Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor and retire to the Bahamas and thank the RIAA for your new life.

Re:gREAT! i'M ON THE LIST!!! (1, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901495)

Pick up the soap.

KFG

My theory... (5, Interesting)

bloggins02 (468782) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901290)

Since they know they can't stop downloaders, they figure if they make it a point to go after the biggest file sharers people will become paranoid and turn file sharing off. They'll become leachers.

Of course we know what happens to a P2P system with all leachers and no sharers...

Re:My theory... (5, Insightful)

Zeriel (670422) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901351)

Alternately, you'll end up with sharers in countries where the RIAA doesn't have a legal way to mess with 'em. The US will likely become 100% leech on the public P2P networks, sadly--but you can't really blame leechers when legal threats are flying, right?

Go one better--stop downloading and stop buying. Let 'em sue themselves right into the dirt.

Re:My theory... (1)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901416)

Could very well happen...it happens already with selfish people though :)

They should try to go after the groups that release albums :) Although a lot of people personally rip albums, the 0-day releases probably hurt their sales most (people downloading the new albums before they are out and burning/listening to them)

These "biggest sharers" all have less mp3's than the average person I know...

Re:My theory... (1)

British (51765) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901528)

How about this, we share no more than 600 or so songs each, and rotate our sharing every week? or would the RIAA just lower their threshold for who is a "major" pirate?

I think (3, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901297)

the EFF needs you donations more then ever. Remember, you don't have to do anything wrong to find yourselves in a position to prove your inocense. Yes, under these circumstances, you have to prove your inocense, simple disgusting.

EFF Action Center (4, Insightful)

FileNotFound (85933) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901400)

Even if you won't donate, at least go to the action center and send some angry letters to your senator.
EFF Action Center [eff.org]

Re:I think (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901421)

You need to spend less time trying to shake people down, and more time learning how to spell innocence. Fag

Re:I think (2, Insightful)

ColdGrits (204506) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901425)

So the EFF needs our donations to protect people whose intention is to steal?

Sorry, no way. People who amass collections of in excess of 1,000 mp3s (of songs they do not posses on CD) are by no stretch of the imagination "victims".

Although I disapprove of it, I can see at least a hint of validity in the claim "I download to try the song out, and if I like it I buy the album". But 1,000+ songs in one go? Nope, that's just plain piracy, pure and simple.

You do the crime, you do the time.

Re:I think (0, Flamebait)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901500)

Exactly! If you don't like copyright law, or the powers it gives copyright holders (ie, to sue for ridiculous sums), fine, change the law. But the fact is, until then, these people are pirates and thieves, and as such, there's nothing to defend. They knowingly broke the law, and now they have to take responsibility for those acts.

Re:I think (1, Funny)

mini me (132455) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901515)

So the EFF needs our donations to protect people whose intention is to steal?

Steal? I thought music was protected under copyright law.

anyone else notice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901464)

the RIAA site is waaay slow....

Can some people not stop sticking the hornets nest with the stick?

They issue subpoenas, sue users, and people attack them?

Besides - The people getting sued are illegally downloading songs! I know that the RIAA does lie, but they are still technically breaking the law people.

Re:I think (4, Insightful)

M.C. Hampster (541262) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901504)


the EFF needs you donations more then ever. Remember, you don't have to do anything wrong to find yourselves in a position to prove your inocense. Yes, under these circumstances, you have to prove your inocense, simple disgusting.

Yes, the obligatory +5 interesting spiel for donating to the EFF. And, of course, it is +5 Incorrect. Yes, the DMCA allows copyright holders to supboena the names of people from ISP's without bringing a case first, or getting it signed by a real judge, but that doesn't mean that the system of innocent until proven guilty is out the window. These people, if it goes to court, will have the same rights afforded to them as in any other legal case.

There are problems with the DMCA, but can we cut out the FUD please?

Why the vow? (5, Interesting)

adamwright (536224) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901298)

"...and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."

If P2P trading of Copyrighted music is illegal (and we know that it is), why require this? Is it purely a move to allow easy prosecution should they offend again? Or do they think that prosecuting under copyright law might not work in some cases?

Re:Why the vow? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901407)

"If P2P trading of Copyrighted music is illegal (and we know that it is), ..." because under some conditions, that is a false statement.

Re:Why the vow? (4, Insightful)

Lawbeefaroni (246892) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901439)

PR. Offering the "amnesty" looks like they're willing to work with consumers. They'll still screw them but they hold up the amnesty as a concession.

Giving someone a temporary break from extortion is hardly amnesty.

Re:Why the vow? (3, Informative)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901442)

It takes away a number of defenses you could use if they sue you for a future infraction. You can't claim that you have no history of this sort of thing (if you do, you've perjured yourself and could be imprisoned for that). It also could be introduced as evidence of your character in the trial.

Re:Why the vow? (4, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901447)

"Is it purely a move to allow easy prosecution should they offend again?"

Yes. If you sign the aggrement they no longer have to rely on copyright law. They have a binding contract with you to abide their terms.

Debt collectors who buy up bad paper and then seek to recover use this trick too. The law has very carefully prescribed limits to the actions that can be taken to collect a debt, even in cases where judgement has been found against the debtor.

If they can get you to sign a contract expanding their rights to collect, by your own volition, than they can hold you to that contract.

Then you are, as they say, "hosed."

KFG

Re:Why the vow? (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901456)

Makes it easier to sue you. If it does get thrown out in court, then they can still hit you if you've signed some agreement with them saying you won't.

That's the only reason I can think of why they'd do it. That or as part of the amnesty, to get you to turn yourself in.

Re:Why the vow? (4, Interesting)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901457)

Actually, if anything, it's a PR move. It's basically a way for the RIAA to look benevolent without looking like they're bending over and letting the pirates win. The only other options are to sue the pants off everyone and risk looking like bullies, or to stop pursuing P2P traders, which, of course, is impossible.

Re:Why the vow? (1)

Gherald (682277) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901463)

> why require this?

It is the legal version of good faith.

innit garet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901300)

oooh no, too rich innit

Sticking it to da man... (4, Insightful)

ScooterBill (599835) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901302)

Last count 4+ million users on Kazaa. It looks like the RIAA is having an effect. Too bad it's the opposite effect they want. M

this is their pressure (1)

2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901306)

to get people to take their amnesty plea bargain... even though the damage is already done, they are still at it.

'Amnesty' with sting in the tail (5, Insightful)

waterbear (190559) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901308)

A demand to sign a notarized admission of guilt is just _not_ an amnesty (literally -- a forgetting). Is there no limit to the way in which these people will twist words so that they are not saying what they appear to be saying?

Just remember (1)

The Analog Kid (565327) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901309)

If your one of the unlucky ones, you can't get out of it, because only the ones not sued can admit to fileswapping.

Will that be on my permanent record? (2, Insightful)

jroos (205868) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901311)

What are the chances the RIAA will become another place employers add to their list of sources for background checks?

Re:Will that be on my permanent record? (3, Funny)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901377)

What are the chances the RIAA will become another place employers add to their list of sources for background checks?

x2 Special double slashdot paranoia bonus modifier.

Get your tinfoil hats now!

Re:Will that be on my permanent record? (1)

Moth7 (699815) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901387)

Bah, if anyones committed such crimes against good taste as many RIAA artists have I see no reason why it shouldn't be o.0

Re:Will that be on my permanent record? (1)

Rheingold (2741) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901450)

Pretty slim, I'd guess, since few employers really have a reason to give a rat's ass. Despite the RIAA's best efforts, they haven't managed to demonize file swappers to the extent that people who use drugs or have lousy credit are demonized.

morally right, but the motivations are not (2, Funny)

humuhumunukunukuapu' (678704) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901317)

i hear a cash register drawer opening and see an RIAA exec, with his hand out, smiling..

Oh what a beautiful morning... (3, Funny)

Kedisar (705040) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901322)

Well... this is going to be a fun morning for those 261 people.

*Random guy turns on computer*

You've got subpoena!

Re:Oh what a beautiful morning... (5, Funny)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901370)

And next, "ENLARE your subPOENA 4+++ inches! MAXXimus V fomular!"

Yes, but do they sue people that use ogg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901324)

I'm going to guess they don't even know about it! Good for me.

Before you all start to whine about this (2, Insightful)

The Old Burke (679901) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901326)

..remeber that these people, however you feel about RIAA and their bussiness, have actually distributed music that they don't have the rights to.
If you do the crime; you should be willing to do the time.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901433)

Mod the parent up! I have no sympathy for criminals, and people who sharing copyrighted works illegal are committing a crime, it's that simple. The RIAA is doing the right thing by going after individuals, instead of trying to pass draconian laws that harm the innocent more than the guilty.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this (2, Interesting)

tarnin (639523) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901466)

What time? They are not trying to send these people to jail, they are trying to squeeze money out of them. They know that if they actually had to bring up a real case agaisnt these people then they would, more than likely, lose. So instead, they sue which makes it harder on the defendant as THEY have to prove their innocence instead of the other way around.

Lovely isnt it? Weither these people are guilty or not means nothing. They will be finiancly ruined by either paying out the absurd suit, a lawyer to defend them, or the RIAA's "Ok well just give us THIS much and we'll go away" deal.

So ya, I think I will whine about this thank you very much.

Re:Before you all start to whine about this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901524)

..remeber that these people, however you feel about RIAA and their bussiness, have actually distributed music that they don't have the rights to.

How do you know that they did? Are they automatically guilty only because they were sued?

I have over 200 gigs of illegal mp3's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901330)

nanny nanny boo boo :o)

Anyone else sweat it a little? (1)

switcha (551514) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901332)

I havn't even fired up a P2P in months, but it still made me sweat a bit putting my IP into EFF's "lawsuit checker" and waiting for the page to load.

I likely wouldn't be scared in the least if the people filing these suits were actually reasonable.

Re:Anyone else sweat it a little? (1)

Lawbeefaroni (246892) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901390)

You mean the RIAA's "lawsuit generator?"

Re:Anyone else sweat it a little? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901503)

The number of people using P2P services is huge -- more people in the US than voted for either Bush or Gore in the last election. The number of suits is comparatively very small, so your odds of getting hit are miniscule.

Statistically speaking, kids who use P2P software probably have a substantially better chance of dying in a car accdident. That's more likely, the consequences are obviously much worse, and hardly anyone worries about that. So why worry about this?

People do a bad job of evaluating risk. Fat people (like me) eat fast food meals, which put them at risk for heart diesease and diabetes, and worry about SARS or West Nile Diesease.

Remember, if you're afraid, then the terrorists have won. :)

(I'm posting this anonymously because I could see those mofo's suing people who speak out against them -- I don't want to affect my odds.)

College students are back (5, Interesting)

PovRayMan (31900) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901337)

I myself just got back into my dorm and seeing this article made me think. Many thousands if not millions of students are going off their dialup/cable/dsl home connections and back to the fat pipes the universities have. As much, I would expect P2P usage to rise again, but how much more with RIAA lawsuits?

Re:College students are back (1)

BillLeeLee (629420) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901437)

Actually, many colleges are starting to block P2P applications from connecting to their networks or uploading and downloading files. The RIAA knows colleges are hotspots of file sharing (look at how MIT and RIT shut down their on campus Direct Connect servers), so they'd target schools first. The schools therefore are trying to protect themselves and the students by blocking these services. My school has blocked all known P2P programs so far, kazaa, morpheus, bittorrent etc.

The case is clear (2, Informative)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901338)

All the people sued in this case have been sharing more than 1000 songs. It is clear that their intent was piracy. Whether the RIAA is scum or not is irrevelent. These users took a major risk and are now paying for it.

What's not clear (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901393)

Is when the United States had the right to authorize business entitities to enforce the law. Is that really the country you want to live in? A country where any company can subpoena you?

Re:The case is clear (1)

Erwos (553607) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901428)

Correct - if you downloaded a couple MP3s off Kazaa, nobody's going to hunt you down, most likely. If you're sharing a couple thousand, it's probably time to stop.

Remember, they're trying to be efficient - and it's much easier to prosecute a few hundred people than a couple million people. Take down the big sharers, and the system will come crashing down... at least that's the idea, I think.

-Erwos

Way back when... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901471)

In 1999, almost no one had a huge collection. Most people had a few, and everyone swapped with everyone else, resulting in big collections. Take out the people with big collections, and other people with big collections will still develop.

Re:The case is clear (1)

cK-Gunslinger (443452) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901506)

Similiarly, Apple releases an iPod that hold overs 10,000 downloaded songs. It's clear that the intent of those who purchase such a device is piracy.

Seriously, why is "1000" songs an indicator of piracy? Are "846" songs just a reasonable amount that a person may legally have?

What is the probability of getting sued ? (1, Insightful)

bulchanm (597921) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901341)

With the tens of millions of users on P2P sites what is the probability that you will get sued ? My guess is you have a higher risk of getting into a car accident. Also what are these RIAA moron going to do when they find out the person they have sued lives in Azerbijan or Malaysia ?

Re:What is the probability of getting sued ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901448)

Well, how many people have been sued? 500? 1000? We'll say 1000. There are 30 million people reportedly doing this in the United states, so 1 in 30,000 fileswappers. 1 in 300,000 (or so) Americans.

Served? (5, Insightful)

Afty0r (263037) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901346)

Remember to visit the EFF when full lawsuit details are released


I'm not sure how justice works in the USA, but here in the UK you are notified if someone initiates legal action against you...

Re:Served? (2, Funny)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901476)

The process has to be served. If the plaintiff cannot give the court instructions on how to serve you with the suit, the court must throw the case out.

A good example of this is a case a few years back of somebody who filed a suit against the devil, but had it thrown out because they could not give the court the devil's address.

I HEREBY PROMISE - (4, Funny)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901350)

I will not ever pay for an RIAA member label music product until such a time that they end their predatory lawsuits.

Frankly, this won't be a hard promise to keep, since most mainstream music sucks.

PS - The radio is still free, and I have an TV/FM tuner/capture card.

Re:I HEREBY PROMISE - (2, Funny)

mopslik (688435) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901438)

The radio is still free...

Not for long [zeropaid.com] .

Re:I HEREBY PROMISE - (1)

notque (636838) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901461)

I will not ever pay for an RIAA member label music product until such a time that they end their predatory lawsuits.

Intresting notion, however I will not ever par for an RIAA member label music product.

No until needed.

Rate the article (2, Interesting)

glenrm (640773) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901355)

You can rate this article if you have a Yahoo! account...

When will the RIAA learn.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901358)

This tactic is obviously not working. It is just a matter of time before the RIAA is no more.

Re:When will the RIAA learn.. (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901479)

It is just a matter of time before the RIAA is no more.

Yeah, about 5 seconds after lawyers become illegal.

You are not safe with the affidavit... (4, Interesting)

Robert Hayden (58313) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901362)

Filing for RIAA amnesty may immunize you from civil litigation, however that affidavit becomes excellent fodder for your prosecution under CRIMINAL statues. Certainly RIAA owns one or two over-eager district attorneys wanting to make a name for themselves.

The you're off to a lovely federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison, or forking up hoards of fines.

RIAA Math (5, Funny)

mopslik (688435) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901368)

261 Major P2P Offenders

So, is that the equivalent [slashdot.org] of 50 file swappers, downloading really fast?

Re:RIAA Math (1)

aerojad (594561) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901414)

So, is that the equivalent of 50 file swappers, downloading really fast?

Nahh, just one college student on a T1 that has a cd drive that rips at 32x.

Waiting For The Backlash (1, Troll)

aerojad (594561) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901371)

Alright... well grab some popcorn, now we get to see the RIAA going after 70 year old grandmas and 13 year old girls who have all of 7 songs shared, while others continue to pump out mp3s by the thousand and never missed a beat during this whole fiasco.

Scaring the crap out of some poor little girl or old grandma might be some sort of sick pleasure for big wigs/artists up in the RIAA, but I'm sure the consumers will just love to watch theirselves getting bossed around with what they can and can not exactly do with something they bought.

The consumer has been scammed since the minute they bought the disk, overpriced and all. Hopefully they wake up soon.

Re:Waiting For The Backlash (1)

pizzaman100 (588500) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901516)

I think you're a bit off on your profiling. How many 70 year old grandmas do you know who file share? I'm sure there are some 13 year olds sharing, but they're probably not "major offenders" (people who have shared more than 1,000 songs according to the article). And the RIAA can't touch the minors anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the RIAA, and their tactics suck. But your G'ma and little sister are probably safe.

Why 261? (1)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901381)

Their ink cartridge ran out, and they realized that it was cheaper to stop than buy a new one.

"File Sharing" (2, Interesting)

Slime-dogg (120473) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901384)

Every time I see this "Vow not to share files" or references to "Illegal P2P applications," I start wondering if the wording is such that the victim will not be able to share any files whatsoever, legally or public domain. I can see these huge corporations not really understanding the difference between serving copyrighted music and serving a distribution of GNU/Linux over KaZaa. I'm sure that they would like neither to take place.

Da' finga' (5, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901388)

"We're willing to hold out our version of an olive branch," Sherman said.

...and I'm willing to hold out my version of da' finga'.

m||n (0)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901489)

That's my version of da finga right there: m||n

43's "Speech": +1, Patriotic (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901391)

Great moments in Stupidity [whitehouse.org]

Courtesy of Talkingpointsmemo [talkingpointsmemo.com]

Great moments in the passive voice ...

BLITZER: But the bottom line is
you have to admit that you could
have done a better job planning for
this current environment.

RICE: The planning went on.
Obviously, there were things that
were not foreseen. They have now
-- are now being addressed.

From today's interview on Late Edition ...

is your username subpoenaed? it is now... (2, Interesting)

Sajma (78337) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901399)

Entering your username or IP address into the subpoena query page seems to be a great way to make sure the RIAA checks out your username or IP address.

Re: read first, comment second (1)

Sajma (78337) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901443)

My bad -- the EFF kindly anonymizes such queries, which is of course, the point :)

File Sharing Legal in Canada (5, Interesting)

ryants (310088) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901401)

A quick Google [google.com] will pull up lots of other articles, I just picked one [101-280.com] .

In short, a levy is paid on blank "audio" media (how they tell the different between blank "data" CDs and blank "audio" CDs is a bit beyond me). This levy gets dispersed to copyright holders in some magic way; in exchange Canadians are expressly allowed private copying, including peer-to-peer file sharing.

Blame Canada.

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada (5, Funny)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901470)

Yes, be jealous.

There was rumours cd-r's were going to skyrocket in price as a result of that thought...however prices of cd-r's have dropped like a stone here just as they have everywhere.

So my 50 cents canadian (0.001 american dollars) is letting my have some legal file sharing

Yay for Canada! We also recently got electricity :P

Re:File Sharing Legal in Canada (2, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901537)

That's not true. Paying the levy doesnt mean you have a right to violate copyrights, its an admission that people will violate copyrights, and as a good socialist country, it's up to society to pick up the tab for their losses.

Think of it as a publicly funded insurance policy for the music biz. Nowhere in canadian law does it make it "legal" to copy music or software.

Tax dollars go to drug rehab programs too, but it doesnt mean using heroin is legal.

BTW, they make no distinction between data and audio CDs, because there really is no distinction. It's like ladies razors vs mens razors - the ladies Bic is pink, and thats the only real difference.

FreeNet them ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901403)

Let's switch to freenet, and chalange them to catch us . http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

Wants vs. Needs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901404)

I wonder about you slash trash who work for companies that rely on selling software for revenue yet get your panties into a bunch when the RIAA goes after people who are illegally distributing music on P2P networks. I mean, you act like a bunch of hypocritical children when you develop all sorts of excuses in case you get caught ripping off someone else's work. "No judge, it wasn't me downloading those MP3s, it was my ten year old nephew." "I ripped those MP3s myself, but I accidently lost the CD." "I swear I don't know how those files got there. I don't even listen to pop music." Keep blowing air out of your ass, nobody believes you. Maybe the RIAA is going too far with their tactics, but you know what? I don't care. They do not produce any goods necessary for you to live. The same with the MPAA, Microsoft, and the media companies. If you don't like their tactics, boycott them. Revenue is their Achille's heel. Voting does not help, all candidates likely to win office are financed by these companies. Writing to representatives does no good-- your representative, as a consumer, is well aware of your pain. Writing them only tells them what they already know. Unlike you, they know all to well what damage a loss of campaign contributions might do to their career. You can bet which way they will vote. The solution to this form of corruption is to cut off funding from the source. That is you.

Now, I think there has been some confusion between needs and wants around here lately. A need is something necessary for life: air, water, food, shelter. A want is everything else, even things you don't want but someone else (e.g. your boss) wants you to have (e.g. a pager). There's nothing wrong with wants; you can enjoy life and surround yourself with them. The problem is when wants substitute for needs. If you can't live without your cable service, something is wrong with you. Cable service (TV and Internet) are not something you need to survive. You won't die tomorrow without it. Needs are important.. if you don't have them, you die. If you keep only a cellphone and credit card with you at all times in case of an emergency, you aren't prepared enough. Cellphones and credit cards can't provide you with anything you need to live, and thus aren't needs. If there's a power outage or a network disturbance, you will be in trouble. Also, you are stuck with monthly payment and interest rate increases at the whim of corporations. Complain and protest all you want, it won't make a difference. The only way to make a difference is to sever your dependence on wants. These dependences are the puppet strings of CEOs and shareholders. Don't make yourself vulnerable to companies, make sure you know how to live without them. Type "survivalist" into any search engine and there will be plenty of sites that will teach you how to be self sufficient, if necessary. Some groups providing the information are right-wing fundamentalists who are predicting armageddon, others are in it as a hobby, others fear nuclear war, still others want to protect themselves from terrorist attacks/computer infrastructure shutdown (y2k), and there's a few who plan for a secession from the Union. Ignore the wild agendas and learn for practicality's sake. It could save your life. Only you can cut yourself free from corporate control.

I Hope They Don't Come After Me.... (4, Funny)

BlackBolt (595616) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901409)

I've [gentoo.org] downloaded [knoppix.com] gigs [debian.org] and [slackware.com] gigs [redhat.com] of [suse.com] stuff. [sourceforge.net]

Re:I Hope They Don't Come After Me.... (1)

BlackBolt (595616) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901488)

Okay, I lied. I didn't [*shudder*] download RedHat.

Whew! Now that I've come clean about that, my family [gentoo.org] can accept me back again.

Riiight (1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901413)

would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again.

Unlike any Corporate settlement in the last 30 years...

So? (0, Flamebait)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901415)

This is what happens when you leave croporation subvert democracy.

You, the people are simply reaping what you sowed. You slept at the switch whilst the croporations stole your power, you only deserved to lose it.

Music Piracy hurts Artists? (5, Interesting)

Accord MT (542922) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901418)

Boo Hoo! The artists are getting ripped off! Can we keep it real for a moment?

The "Artist" doesn't deserve squat.

There. I said it. You can go mod me down, call me Satan, whatever it is you do to those with opinions different than your own. Or you can grit your teeth and read on:

Most "pop" media (music, movies, even books) churned out today is more a product of the producer/publisher than it is a work of art. Except in rare circumstances, the writers, musicians and actors are merely useful brand names, interchangable and of no consequence to the studio's bottom line. Listen to two supposedly different albums with similar production credits. You'll see! Those identical drum beats and background orchestras aren't coincidences. This canned art is inserted as production's way of applying a dose tried-and-true to that brand new artist. "Artists" rarely exert any creative control over the work that will eventually bear their names.

Brittney Spears is hired for her ability to excite teenage boys (and some adult men) and her ability to sell Pepsi, and she is paid handsomely for it. Like most pop "artists" she is barely a part of the product upon which her brand name is stamped, and deserves little, if any, of the proceeds from record sales.

Any recourse for the falsely accused? (1)

HealYourChurchWebSit (615198) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901434)

Not being a legal beagle, will there be any legal recourse for those who might be aquitted?

Personally, I would think it tough for an individual to smack back the RIAA in such a case without the aid of a constituency of an equal or greater legal power.

Question is, do any such organizations exists?

yes but... (2, Interesting)

fuckfuck101 (699067) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901435)

What is their definition of 'major offenders', I wonder if that definition changes from 'case to case' so to speak.

Doesn't sound like propaganda to me (4, Funny)

dswensen (252552) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901444)

"...would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."

Offenders must also confess to having been to the proletariat areas and consorted with the prostitutes, or they go to Room 101...

It will be interesting.... (1)

pope1 (40057) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901452)

...to see how this all plays out.

What will they use as "proof" of filetrading?

Most modern systems are multi-user, so if all they have are IP's, how will they identify which user is in violation? Will they treat it like they treat automobiles, where the person on the title (in this case the owner of the dialup/cable customer) has the responsbility for the charges, or at least identifying the real culprit.

How will they close the "it was a trojan!" loop hole, where by you can duck responsibility if you can prove your system is insecure.

This will certainly set many precedents that we will have to live with in the future, lets hope they get it right (whatever "right" may be).

Do your part! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6901455)

Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime.

All you have to do is teach someone who doesn't know. Explain to them how to aquire MP3s and how to go about downloading them. If they're worried about the lawsuits, introduce them to usenet, the land of the plentiful.

If they don't already have a CD burner, talk them into getting one. Explain to them that a CD burner is around the cost of 5 CDs.

Show them these articles and explain the manipulation the RIAA uses to get their way.

Last, but not least, explain to them that they don't ever have to buy another CD ever again. It's about time the general public raises their voice and responds with, "Yeah, whatever. We're not afraid of you and we're not going to give you another dime."

shit... (1, Funny)

negacao (522115) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901472)

Damn, they've got me!

I'm kazaaliteuser..

So let's see if we got it straight: (5, Insightful)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901490)

The RIAA coordinates an industry-wide reduction in the amount of music released to increase the value of output. They do this to shore up the hyperinflated price of CDs (due primarily to collusion for which they have already had a civil judgement against them) and to attempt to make up for the decline in sales of cassettes, a format that they have actively worked at making obsolete. They also hope to continue to command their traditional percentage of discretionary teen/20s spending.

Unfortunately, the output remaining tends not to be compelling, their target audience has a number of other venues for their spending (video games, DVDs, online activities) and the economy goes south.

So which Business school teaches that the best way of addressing these sorts of problems is to spread fear/resentment/anger amongst the audience you are attempting to win back?

And as a side note, if getting the music listened to by potential buyers is such a bad activity, then why to record promotion people give away free singles and CDs at events? Why do companies allow songs to be played on the radio? And if pirating is such a depresser of CD sales, why was one of the most pirated CDs around, The Eminem Show, such a sales success? Could it be that people liked what they heard and were willing to pay for it?

Hypocracy. (2, Insightful)

man_ls (248470) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901517)

First we cry foul when companys sued and tried to regulate Internet Service Providers, into requiring them to keep the laws for their users.

Then, they became something of a "common carrier."

Now, RIAA is actually going after the people *who are breaking the law* and yet you are still complaining about it?

So what if its some 14-year-old kid in his house downloading the latest MP3 from his favorite band. It's still *breaking federal law* and, under that law, allows monetary damages to be collected by the person whose copyright was infringed.

This right is executed all the time in copyright infringement cases; if it didn't exist, nobody would protect their IP. IP violation fines are the deterrant to copying protected works. Just because the kid isn't even legally an adult yet, doesn't mean he can't break the law just the same.

Federal law allows up to $150,000 / violation. A violation is one infringed work (i.e. 1 unauthorized mp3 file. An "authorized" file is one you have permission to own -- either in writing by the copyright owner, for example, or because you own the CD and ripped it to your hard drive for easier listening.) In this respect, RIAA's $50k and we'll be done with it is more than reasonable, because *the government* would allow for fines of up to $4.5 million!!! for an amount such as 30 songs.

RIAA should produce better music if they want to maintain their customer base and prevent piracy. There needs to be more tangible benefits to purchasing the legal version of the song vs. downloading it. For me, this benefit is the fact that the CDs (1) sound considerably superior to the average 128kbit MP3 file (2) I can feel like I am at least pretending to support the artists I like, many of whom are on indie labels anyways, and (3) I get a physical product that I can take with me in my car to play on my car CD player, which doesn't like burned CDs; and I can make as many mp3s of it as I want, as long as I don't share them.

RIAA could adjust its business model, make it better to purchase the CD vs stealing it. Or, switch to a different modus operandi all together, and provide some new kind of operation.

Illiad's take on RIAA's amnesty (1)

uw_dwarf (611383) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901527)

Here's Illiad's take from Sunday's [userfriendly.org] User Friendly [userfriendly.org] .

Humour or prescience? I'm not sure, but I love the form number.

Freenet! (2, Informative)

magoolsu (661313) | more than 10 years ago | (#6901530)

This would be a good time to move to freenet [sourceforge.net] . It might be slow but as more people use it the faster it will get and the less (almost no chance) of a chance that you will get one of those pesky little letters from the RIAA.

Support freenet and end the RIAA's little game!
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>