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 More Music Lovers

michael posted about 10 years ago | from the killing-me-softly-with-his-song dept.

The Courts 626

DominoTree writes "The RIAA, a trade group representing the U.S. music industry has filed a new round of lawsuits against 744 people it alleges used online file-sharing networks to illegally trade in copyrighted songs, it said on Wednesday."

cancel ×

626 comments

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

what is the RIAA again? (0, Flamebait)

ack154 (591432) | about 10 years ago | (#10076850)

The RIAA, a trade group representing the U.S. music industry
I know they're a US organization and all, and slashdot is obviously global, but really, are there THAT many people who don't know who/what the RIAA is?

Re:what is the RIAA again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076899)

Yes.

Re:what is the RIAA again? (1, Flamebait)

man_ls (248470) | about 10 years ago | (#10076921)

Slashdot isn't global. It's globally accessible, but it's a U.S. site.

Re:what is the RIAA again? (3, Insightful)

log0n (18224) | about 10 years ago | (#10076938)

A good writer knows that you should never assume your audience can read your mind. When in doubt, elaborate. You may know what the RIAA is and find the info redundant, but don't assume everyone else pulls from the same bank of knowledge as you.

Re:what is the RIAA again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10077027)

Anyone in the States knows who the RIAA is, unless you've been living under that rock again.

For anyone else, this story doesn't really pertain to them, but for the curious, google knows who the RIAA is.

A chilling effect on sales? (5, Insightful)

erick99 (743982) | about 10 years ago | (#10076853)

Yesterday I was taken to task about my comments related to a similar article where I stated that the RIAA was suing more of it's customers. I say this because there are plenty of people who download a song or even an album (I hate to buy an album and find that only one song is any good) in a "try before you buy" spirit. I did this recently and then took advantage of Real's $4.99 price for an album. I know that a great deal of people simply download and do not buy but it cannot be a blanket statement. Anyway, this particular round of suits are, once again, filed against John Does:

The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) said the various suits, filed in courts across the country, cover "John Doe" defendants whose true identities are unknown to the group.

From the previous group of John Doe suits more folks have been identified:

Separately, suits covering 152 people who were previously sued anonymously but later identified and offered the chance to settle, were refiled with their true identities after they ignored or declined those offers, an RIAA (news - web sites) spokesman said.

I still maintain that suing your customers, whether your are the RIAA or SCO, can have a chilling effect on sales.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:A chilling effect on sales? (3, Interesting)

Pofy (471469) | about 10 years ago | (#10076929)

>I say this because there are plenty of people
>who download a song or even an album

I think that the cases here are for people sharing music, not the ones downloading, that is relatively easier to find than people downloading.

As regarding customers allready comiting copyright infringement, I do download music and it is not uncommon that I own such music allready, I just find it more convenient at time than to convert the music myself.

Re:A chilling effect on sales? (4, Insightful)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 10 years ago | (#10076956)

I still maintain that suing your customers, whether your are the RIAA or SCO, can have a chilling effect on sales.

...which will lower their revenue further... which will make them find a scapegoat... which will target more technologies... which will prompt the creation of new technologies... which will prmopt more lawsuits.....

You see where this is going.

Also, wouldn't suing your customers piss them off, making them switch to alternate providers, further lowering sales, prompting you to sue more people in a desperate attempt to preserve your business model, causing them to stop purchasing from you (resume loop)?

I'd love to be in the room when the "brains" behind the RIAA finally say "screw it - we lost."

Re:A chilling effect on sales? (1)

Monoman (8745) | about 10 years ago | (#10077023)

You should be "taken to task" for using Real. :-)

Re:A chilling effect on sales? (3, Insightful)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | about 10 years ago | (#10077032)

I say this because there are plenty of people who download a song or even an album (I hate to buy an album and find that only one song is any good) in a "try before you buy" spirit. I did this recently and then took advantage of Real's $4.99 price for an album.

Of course. Numerous studies have shown that file sharing probably overall does more good for the RIAA than harm, and so they should embrace it, at least somewhat.

However, one point that is often overlooked here is that this is their decision to make, not ours.

Re:A chilling effect on sales? (5, Insightful)

jest3r (458429) | about 10 years ago | (#10077033)

I wonder when the RIAA will figure out that they are suing the wrong people ...

For starters the Internet is a global medium. I really don't see how picking on a handful of John Does in the United States will limit the availability of audio on P2P networks as a whole. Even if the RIAA managed to shutdown every computer sharing audio files in the United States people would still be downloading (from the rest of the world) and not buying.

The fact is it doesn't matter where the people sharing are ... because in order to stem to decline in CD sales you have to stop the downloads themselves.

I think the more successful campaign revolved around flooding the networks with low quality audio files. This way they could market CD's as a big step up. In fact even today low quality audio files are a major drawback of using P2P for regular folk.

Furthermore I wonder why the RIAA hasn't gone after .binaries newsgroups, torrents or some of the other networks where people have been "sharing" high quality MP3's and lossless audio for years. Torrents have made sharing audio via websites even more accessible than ever before: to the point that Google searches for band name / torrent usually get results.

The RIAA seems to be 2 steps behind what is going on in the real world.

First post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076854)

First Post! hopefully

Can they keep up? (0, Redundant)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 10 years ago | (#10076855)

If they only sue approx 700 people a month and the net population is growing at a faster rate then can they physically keep up with the explosion of P2P and file sharing?

Re:Can they keep up? (4, Interesting)

kzinti (9651) | about 10 years ago | (#10076958)

If they only sue approx 700 people a month and the net population is growing at a faster rate then can they physically keep up with the explosion of P2P and file sharing?

That depends on how many people are deterred by the lawsuits. I'm not sure about the rate of growth or use of the P2P services, but I'd guess that if filing one lawsuit deters 100,000 people, then they probably can keep up with the rate of growth. If it's 1,000 then maybe. If (as is probably the case) it's fewer than 10, then they would seem to be fighting a losing battle.

I'd also guess that the "discouragement rate" was the highest with the first round of lawsuits, and is diminishing steadily each time.

Has there ever been an actual court case (5, Insightful)

ralf1 (718128) | about 10 years ago | (#10076858)

or is the RIAA just using mass-mugging tactics? Seems the ACLU or EFF or someone would want to make a big public test case out of some individuals lawsuit defense.

Re:Has there ever been an actual court case (5, Informative)

TedCheshireAcad (311748) | about 10 years ago | (#10076904)

First check to see if you are among the accused [eff.org] .

The EFF is helpful :)

Re:Has there ever been an actual court case (1)

jmo_jon (253460) | about 10 years ago | (#10076986)

Our database was last updated December 1, and currently has 2,444 subpoenas.

Doesn't seems like the EFF site is of much help to the current suing victims.

Basic legal fact. (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 years ago | (#10077009)

Settling is a lot faster than trial. RIAA has no hurry either, it is the press coverage they seek. The settlements are slump change to the RIAA. Don't expect any rulings for quite some time.

Kjella

Re:Has there ever been an actual court case (1)

dubdays (410710) | about 10 years ago | (#10077040)

Not only that, but there haven't been court cases because, quite simply, people just don't have the money to defend themselves against lawyers who don't give a rat's ass about anything except enlarging their own bank accounts. These people know they have no way to defend themselves, because they just don't have the money necessary to do so. And, even if these people did win, it is very unlikely that a judge would give you anything to pay for your own lawyers who are going to cost more than $3k anyway. So, I guess we have to pony-up and take it in the a$$.

Re:Has there ever been an actual court case (0)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | about 10 years ago | (#10077058)

Seems the ACLU or EFF or someone would want to make a big public test case out of some individuals lawsuit defense

You generally can't make a good test case when your client doesn't really have any remotely plausible defense to offer.

They aren't picking people at random to sue--there aren't people who downloaded to "try before buy" here. They are suing people who have large download collections and are sharing them prolifically.

Same ol' same o' (3, Funny)

Underholdning (758194) | about 10 years ago | (#10076859)

Film at 11... oh wait, make that puppet theater at 11, since the RIAA has confiscated the film

Re:Same ol' same o' (1)

Anti Frozt (655515) | about 10 years ago | (#10076881)

I think you have your thuggish, monopolistic cartles confused

Re:Same ol' same o' (1)

tobechar (678914) | about 10 years ago | (#10076912)

Heh, that would be the MPAA that confiscated the films. Damn them too.

This about sums up the story. (2, Insightful)

Anti Frozt (655515) | about 10 years ago | (#10076861)

"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."

Is it really news that the RIAA is still filling lawsuits against grandmothers and 12 year olds?

Re:This about sums up the story. (2, Insightful)

Evil Adrian (253301) | about 10 years ago | (#10076922)

a) People that are old enough to be grandmothers are old enough to know that copyright infringement is illegal
b) If your 12-year-old is pirating music, you aren't doing a good job as a parent and the lesson will be taught one way or another
c) I'm sure most of the people named in the lawsuits are neither grandmothers nor underage, and you are just blowing things out of proportion.

Re:This about sums up the story. (5, Interesting)

maximilln (654768) | about 10 years ago | (#10076979)

People that are old enough to be grandmothers are old enough to know that copyright infringement is illegal

That same grandmother wouldn't bat an eyelash if you gave her a CD with old big band music for Christmas. Non-smokers would have no problem if smoking became a felony. People who don't drink have no problem with prohibition.

Your subject group is skewed.

If your 12-year-old is pirating music, you aren't doing a good job as a parent and the lesson will be taught one way or another

There is no theft. This is an artificial crime called "copyright infringement". While the spirit of copyright is a starry-eyed ideal which everyone supports the implementation is flawed and anyone who actually lives under its sway knows that it rarely, if ever, benefits the original author in the way that you think it does.

Or.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076862)

RIAA Sues More Thieves

yawn (5, Funny)

welshwaterloo (740554) | about 10 years ago | (#10076863)

Dupe


Oh.. wait..

Fair Sentence (5, Interesting)

grunt107 (739510) | about 10 years ago | (#10076868)

Why can't these 'illegal downloaders' just repay the RIAA with their purchased CDs, like the RIAA got to do?

Of course, the repayment CDs would be chosen by the defendants, just like the RIAA got to do.

Re:Fair Sentence (3, Interesting)

bconway (63464) | about 10 years ago | (#10077053)

I think if the people sharing music were forced to pay for CDs equal to the number of songs/songs from one album that people had pirated through them, it would probably be a lot more expensive than the settlement others have been paying.

This is why... (5, Informative)

MalaclypseTheYounger (726934) | about 10 years ago | (#10076869)

You all need to get your butts over to MEDIACHEST.COM http://www.mediachest.com/ [mediachest.com] and start trading your music, DVDs, CDs, and Books there.

(This is not a plug, I don't work for them or get paid by them)

Basically, you catalog your collection of stuff using their amazon-like lookup functions, and then other people can search your collections (they find you by Groups, by Zip Code, etc) and then you trade with them any way you want (in person, by mail, etc).

This service is excellent because the RIAA and MPAA and FBI and whomever else cannot I repeat CANNOT get you on law breaking. As the 'swapping' happens offline, they have no way to find out about it.

Please give it a shot, if this website takes off the world be a happier place.

Re:This is why... (4, Insightful)

stubear (130454) | about 10 years ago | (#10076950)

"This service is excellent because the RIAA and MPAA and FBI and whomever else cannot I repeat CANNOT get you on law breaking. As the 'swapping' happens offline, they have no way to find out about it."

Ummmm...can you say "Sting Operation" boys and girls? How the hell do you think they catch kiddie porn freaks who try to meet up with kids offline? Do you know you're not setting yourself up to illegally distribute songs offline with a cop of FBI agent?

Re:This is why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076966)

This service is excellent because the RIAA and MPAA and FBI and whomever else cannot I repeat CANNOT get you on law breaking. As the 'swapping' happens offline, they have no way to find out about it.

I call bullshit, ever heard of a Sting operation?

Re:This is why... (0)

Class Act Dynamo (802223) | about 10 years ago | (#10077016)

That sounds really interesting. I think, though, that the reason that the RIAA, MPAA, FBI, etc can't get you in relation to this service is that trading stuff isn't illegal.

Circumvent the RIAA (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076874)

Why not pay your favorite artist personally?

Circumvent the managers at the RIAA by letting your software music jukebox manage your favorite artists. This requires a central database listing creative works and the artists who actually made them so that you can donate automatically to your favorite artists.

problem: telling some site what kind of music you have my get you sued as you declare to have illegal music.

solution: give partial hash code (checksum). Site returns say 200 potential hits. You verify for yourself if you have have a copyrighted song 'belonging' to the site. You discard the 199 misses and you use the info about the song to compensate the listed artist directly. This can be done anonymously: "I love your (unspecified) work here is a donation of 20 cents". Artist uses statistics to figure out how to compensate those who helped him with popular creations if the donations rise above thousands of dollars.

So you spend say 300 dollar per year to (automatically) compensate your favorite artists directly without confessing a crime as your jukebox figures out compensation anonymously and you can also donate manually, even though you do not have any works of arts of that artists in your possession, making the system a black box, meaning that donations do not directly indicate illegal possession.

Why pay for distribution? Let's circumvent the RIAA.
--
Dennis SCP

Dupe (1)

aussie_a (778472) | about 10 years ago | (#10076925)

Sheeesh, this is pretty much a re-post of the same comment a few days ago. First the stories are duped, now comments are getting duped? What's next?

Re:Dupe (2, Insightful)

Danse (1026) | about 10 years ago | (#10077022)

Sheeesh, this is pretty much a re-post of the same comment a few days ago. First the stories are duped, now comments are getting duped?

A few days ago? Several comments virtually identical to this one have been posted to every RIAA-related story for the last few years.

Re:Circumvent the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076926)

why not actually pay the artists for what they produce. Whats so special about musisicans, that the rest of us get paid an hourly rate, but these guys have to beg for scraps from people who donate to them.
Making a movie,game or song, is no different to making a washing machine. Someone has to put hard work into it, and if its popular, they deserve to reap the rewards.
Its about time slashdotters grew up and stopped acting like script kiddies when it come to stealing digital content.
If someone had to make it, you have a copy, its not free, and you didnt pay, then you can argue all you want, but you stole it buddy.

Re:Circumvent the RIAA (5, Informative)

xhorder (232326) | about 10 years ago | (#10076936)

Or one could only buy from non-RIAA labels. See RIAA Radar http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ [magnetbox.com] for a cool service to search for independent music. Also... Support metal! \m/

Re:Circumvent the RIAA (2, Insightful)

tobybuk (633332) | about 10 years ago | (#10077010)

You should pay all the people who have an interest in the song - this includes the record company as well.

By just selecting who you want to pay, you're denying someone their rights. That's against the law!

It's the same as copying an eBook and just paying the artist. What about the people who spent money and time on preparing, promoting and releasing the eBook?

How much do you pay the artist? Do you decide on what they should get? What if the artist wants more than you are prepared to pay? What if the artist wants you to pay all the other people entitled to their money?

You're living in a dream land where you make excuse after excuse as to why your own version of stealing is OK. Its not.

The only really effective form of protest is to not buy the music. Cannot live without your music? Then you just don't feel strongly enough about it, so just stump up the money and but the friggin CD.

Just what gives you the right to do what you please with someone elses property?

You are an arse.

Re:Circumvent the RIAA (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 10 years ago | (#10077043)

If you do this for music from a label under the RIAA then you are STILL COMMITTING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. In most cases, the 'artist' doesnt own the copyright for the work, the label does, so paying the artist does not settle you with the copyright owner. If you want to do this, then dont do it with mainstream artists.

Kudos. (5, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | about 10 years ago | (#10076875)

Kudos on the inflammatory title. They're not even infringers, they're "Music lovers"! :P

Re:Kudos. (1)

ultrabot (200914) | about 10 years ago | (#10076924)

Kudos on the inflammatory title. They're not even infringers, they're "Music lovers"!

Anti-RIAA choice of words is hardly inflammatory, at least on slashdot. The first pro-RIAA guy to show up should be bitch-slapped for -20 karma, though I suppose such a mentality would have accumulated any karma at all, or read /. for that matter.

Re:Kudos. (1)

radja (58949) | about 10 years ago | (#10076990)

they're music loving copyright infringers, who like to share what music they like. sharing music is considered copyright infringement in US law.

happy?

Keep it coming (5, Insightful)

maximilln (654768) | about 10 years ago | (#10076880)

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

Please continue turning a blind eye to reality. Please continue to pulverize youngsters for sharing music, which youngsters have done since anyone could copy a tune on a banjo or flute. Please continue to support corporations with broken business models. Please continue to encourage businessmen to neglect the physical realities of their product in favor of government backed enforcement of arbitrary laws.

Some day, all of these evil p2p sharing kiddies will come visit you in the nursing home. Enjoy your power while you've got it. It'll never substitute for intelligence.

Steven

Re:Keep it coming (1)

the unbeliever (201915) | about 10 years ago | (#10076890)

And Ashcroft has absolutely jack and shit to do with civil lawsuits, but thanks for playing.

Re:Keep it coming (1)

BridgeBum (11413) | about 10 years ago | (#10076957)

Yes and no. See this [slashdot.org] article.

Re:Keep it coming (1)

the unbeliever (201915) | about 10 years ago | (#10077042)

That involves criminal charges, much like Operation Cyberstrike in the mid 90's.

Re:Keep it coming (1)

ultrabot (200914) | about 10 years ago | (#10076959)

Some day, all of these evil p2p sharing kiddies will come visit you in the nursing home.

"Err... what did you say I was leaning on? Let me adjust that IV for you, it seems to be misplaced..."

Re:Keep it coming (1)

cliffski (65094) | about 10 years ago | (#10076999)

there is a big difference. Years ago you might tape an LP for a freind. Here I can upload an MP3 and share copyrighted music with 10,000 people I have never met, and with no effort on my part.
Are you hnonestly saying that music piracy hasnt gone up since the days of home taping?

Anyone who reckons that freely allowing people to take a product that costs money to make and giving copies to everyone on the internet for free, isnt going to wreck that industry must be smoking some serious drugs.
OF COURSE it hurts the guys who make the digital content. In many cases they are rich superstars, but in a lot of cases they arent, and you are wrecking peoples incomes who might be no better off than you *just because you can*

When will they learn? (5, Insightful)

cecil36 (104730) | about 10 years ago | (#10076883)

It was in the article that fans are stating that the decline in CD sales is not due to piracy, but the quality of the music (in terms of performer's talent) being published. It's not mentioned in the article about the cost of CDs being a contributing factor. The RIAA lost a class-action suit for setting CD prices high. When you set a price for something, there is a certain demand for the product at that price level. If there is a significant price increase, the demand will drop off to where only the people who really see value for what they are going to spend will buy.

All the better reason for me not to buy another CD again. Last time I bought one was in '99.

Euphemisms (4, Insightful)

essdodson (466448) | about 10 years ago | (#10076884)

"RIAA Sues More Music Lovers"
I guess that sounds a little nicer than the truth. "RIAA Sues More People Who Habitually Break the Law"

Re:Euphemisms (1)

maximilln (654768) | about 10 years ago | (#10076901)

"RIAA Sues More People Who Habitually Break the Law"

We're charged as citizens to disobey laws which are unjust. Perhaps you'd rather people succumbed to Prohibition and slavery?

Re:Euphemisms (5, Insightful)

Evil Adrian (253301) | about 10 years ago | (#10076941)

If you don't like the price of something, then don't buy it -- you don't have any right to take it for free.

Taking something offered for sale without rendering payment is UNJUST.

Re:Euphemisms (1)

maximilln (654768) | about 10 years ago | (#10077014)

If you don't like the price of something, then don't buy it

If they feel they're not profitting from their product they can raise the price of the product.

Taking something offered for sale without rendering payment is UNJUST

I'll be sure to send McDonald's representatives to your next cookout.

Re:Euphemisms (2, Insightful)

t_allardyce (48447) | about 10 years ago | (#10076993)

I think many countries round the world punish people for breaking the law.. often the law includes gems like "not smoking certain plants or else you get jail", "not saying anything bad about the leader or else you get your tounge cut out" and "not having sex outside marrage or you get stoned to death".
Breaking the law is never ok..

Boycott? (5, Insightful)

Glock27 (446276) | about 10 years ago | (#10076886)

An effective response to this type of behavior would be to boycott RIAA products.

Sadly, this would probably be trumpeted as "yet more evidence that piracy hurts CD sales".

I don't download music, and I haven't bought a CD in years.

BTW, an interesting alternative is to digitize analog from FM or digital cable, then rip to MP3. It's even legal (VCR law). ;-) You won't notice a quality difference in most situations.

Just don't share.

TiVo for XM Radio (1)

rarose (36450) | about 10 years ago | (#10076919)

Those USB connected XM Radios are dirt cheap (~$39 if I remember right)... somebody needs to make a TiVo like recording engine for it.

Just let it record and catalog in the background 24/7.

Re:Boycott? (2, Interesting)

Kombat (93720) | about 10 years ago | (#10076937)

BTW, an interesting alternative is to digitize analog from FM or digital cable, then rip to MP3. It's even legal (VCR law). ;-) You won't notice a quality difference in most situations.

Except for the annoying, inane chatter of the DJ at the beginning of the song, and breaking back in at the end, as the song is trailing off. "That was 50 Cent's latest, 'Kill all the white ho's and sell drugs to kids,' off his latest album, 'It's fun to pretend you're a pimp.'"

Why do they do that, anyway? On the radio stations around here, the DJ will be introducing a song, talking about whatever, and the song will start while they're still talking. Just the instrumental part though. The DJ always finishes whatever he's saying just before the lyrics of the song actually start (I'm convinced they have some kind of countdown display that tells them exactly how many seconds are left before the lyrics of the song start). Are they just trying to be smooth, or do you think their license agreements for the songs actually requires them to talk over some portion of the song, to try and discourage exactly the kind of activity you described (i.e., taping the songs off the radio)?

Re:Boycott? (2, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | about 10 years ago | (#10077004)

I believe that in the UK at least they are required to render part of the song useless - start a few seconds in, finish a few seconds early, or talk over part of it. Of course, with patience it's theoretically possible to record a song a few times and either get one with the start trashed and the end okay and one the other way round for splicing or use correlation to filter out the voice.

Re:Boycott? (1)

EpsCylonB (307640) | about 10 years ago | (#10076954)

BTW, an interesting alternative is to digitize analog from FM or digital cable, then rip to MP3. It's even legal (VCR law). ;-) You won't notice a quality difference in most situations.

This is why digital radio could potentially be more of headache for the RIAA than p2p. It's not too hard to concieve of a digital radio tuner in you computer that could identify and rip tracks straight off the air.

Re:Boycott? (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 10 years ago | (#10077003)

This is why digital radio could potentially be more of headache for the RIAA than p2p

If the purpose of this is to use a legal loophole, don't count on it for too long. RIAA will soon use their bought congress critters to make this illegal too.

The only solution to this problem would be massive civil disobedience. They can't lock up more than 10% of the juveniles and adult population; and be it only for economic reasons!

Re:Boycott? (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 10 years ago | (#10076964)

digitize analog from FM or digital cable, then rip to MP3.

This is a technical solution to a social problem. What's the real difference to ripping a CD? A legal one?

The point here is that RIAA's business model is coming to an end. They can't sue literally millions of file swappers back into buying their overpriced CDs or DVDs. Their near monopoly is coming to an end; just get over it.

Musicians, singers etc... still have the old and proven way to make money: go on tour, and put up good performance. Add to this some old fashioned but sill effective merchandising, and you're in again. Ah, and use the Net to promote your popularity!

Re:Boycott? (1)

nkh (750837) | about 10 years ago | (#10077019)

Don't waste your time with mp3 encoding, use streamripper during the night on your favorite Shoutcast servers. It's not legal, but it's efficient and you can suck more than 1Go of music every day.

Re:Boycott? (1)

Zorilla (791636) | about 10 years ago | (#10077026)

You won't notice a quality difference in most situations.

Well, it's true, as long as you don't consider the background noise, insane amount of dynamic range compression, attenuation of frequencies above 12 kHz, occasional hissing at certain frequencies (clipped hissing "s" sounds during speech always bug me), and the obnoxious DJ talking over the song.

Misleading headline (4, Insightful)

Evil Adrian (253301) | about 10 years ago | (#10076891)

The headline is misleading, and puts an obviously pro-filesharing (pro-piracy?) spin on the whole thing.

It's like if someone was getting mauled by a dog, and another person ran over and killed the dog to save the person, and the headline ran: Man Beats Puppy To Death

A bit misleading, no?

Re:Misleading headline (1)

lachlan76 (770870) | about 10 years ago | (#10076911)

No, more like someone who needs a dog to exist randomly shooting dogs which walk in front of them.

Re:Misleading headline (1)

Evil Adrian (253301) | about 10 years ago | (#10076967)

You need all different types of cells to exist.

Obviously blood cells and brain cells are good.

Cancer cells are bad.

So you get rid of the cancer cells.

People that are pirating music and not paying for it are obviously not HELPING RIAA, and are not contributing to its survival. They are cancer cells.

Therefore, RIAA goes after the cancer cells.

You know why RIAA hasn't gone and sued me? Because I don't pirate music, I pay for my CD's.

Isn't that odd?

Re:Misleading headline (1)

Ziffy (443563) | about 10 years ago | (#10077048)

So, you think we're all cells in the RIAA's body?

Canada (5, Interesting)

tobechar (678914) | about 10 years ago | (#10076898)

As a Canadian, I will do these people justice by using my protected rights to share gigabyte after gigabyte of pirated music.

We need more Canadians to have music 'available' for download. We could really cause a ripple effect in which so many of us can legally provide music to p2p apps, that there would be no way to stop the rest of the world.

I'm going home tonight, making a bunch of torrents for my 100 disc collection of mp3, and making all few thousand singles available on gnutella network.

I propose a rally of all Canadians or any other nation that can legally share music. If you can share music, spend the bandwidth and do it. Lets create so much of a problem that the RIAA is defenseless.

Let's show the RIAA that we are in control.

Re:Canada (3, Informative)

Ubergrendle (531719) | about 10 years ago | (#10076975)

I'd like to point out that it has not been proven whether we have the right to legally share copyrighted music. The point proven in a court of law was that the standard of evidence presented for copyright infringement by the CRIA was insufficient to proceed with copyright infringement charges against individuals (basically the John Doe approach was rejected by Canadian courts).

The argument that 'sharing music online was like a photocopier' was in favour of treating the technology as a neutral medium, and that it was the activities of the users that needed to be questioned. ~Another~ A+ for common sense...

However...

I'm glad that our courts are more prudent and careful with judgements, but I'm less confident that our government will pass laws that are more open than the US. Just take a look at the joke called CRTC...

Re:Canada (2, Informative)

Kombat (93720) | about 10 years ago | (#10077044)


Note that Parliament will be stengthening Canada's copyright laws as soon as the MP's return from summer break. So enjoy it while you can, because it will be made explicitly illegal in Canada shortly.

Not so innocent (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076902)

The RIAA is suing *distributors*, not mere downloading "music lovers". Distributing copyrighted content has never been legal. It's not fair use to serve up a song for download by others.

If some guy is selling ripped CDs on the side of the road that's illegal, just because you're doing it online for free doesn't make you any better.

If they were suing people for downloading a song we'd have something to be outraged about, but people serving the downloads have brought it on themselves.

Re:Not so innocent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076991)

Typical slashdot, any comment that doesn't denounce the big companies as totally evil is immediately supressed.

The RIAA are undoubtably bastards who do a lot of bad things, but they are as within their rights to stop *distributors* as any other content makers are. It's not okay to distribute a thousand copies of a new game or software application, or of a new book, so why should it be okay for songs and movies?

It was a short time ago when the RIAA was attacking the p2p companies (napster) and people were screaming "don't attack the application! go after the people who are using it for distribution!".

But then I guess this will get modded flaimbait too.

Rate of suing (3, Interesting)

EpsCylonB (307640) | about 10 years ago | (#10076908)

Including the 744 from Wednesday, the RIAA has sued nearly 4,700 people since last September in its efforts to combat piracy, which the music industry has blamed for a multiyear decline in CD sales. Some music fans have countered that bad music, and not piracy, was to blame for the decline.

My maths might be wrong but 5000 people sued in year, 2.5 million kazaa users divided by 5000 = 500. So in 500 years time they will have sued everybody. Good luck to em.

Re:Rate of suing (1)

cliffski (65094) | about 10 years ago | (#10077018)

At the current rate file-sharing will have wiped out all digital content providers by then.
You dont expect people to keep making movies and music for nothing do you?
do you?
Why should artists work for free when you and I take an hourly wage?

Some Correlation? (-1, Redundant)

Wilkshake (788751) | about 10 years ago | (#10076913)

Including the 744 from Wednesday, the RIAA has sued nearly 4,700 people since last September in its efforts to combat piracy, which the music industry has blamed for a multiyear decline in CD sales. Some music fans have countered that bad music, and not piracy, was to blame for the decline.

I would blame the standover tactics and rip off merchants of the recording industry for the decline in CD sales more than anything else.

Re:Some Correlation? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 10 years ago | (#10076971)

I'd blame the increase in DVD and video game sales, but that's just wild speculation my my part.

the great RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076918)

the last A makes me happy i dont live there

Boycott RIAA products (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076927)

... to show them that you disagree with what they are doing, if, of course, you disagree.

patterns.. (5, Interesting)

t_allardyce (48447) | about 10 years ago | (#10076928)

In the UK we have a similar but different thing, every couple of weeks the police arrest about 100 people around the country under our wonderful new terrorism laws (thank you Blunkett) then about 6 months later 99 of them get released without any charges. oddly around the same time about 4 people are released from concentration camp x-ray and are flown back to the UK where they get questioned for about 24 hours and then released.. without charges.. maybe they're actually filesharing or something?

boycott (2)

Eisenfaust (231128) | about 10 years ago | (#10076939)

I no longer listen to music released under RIAA labels. There is plenty of music out there released under different labels, much of which is better anyway.

I don't support corporations that sue their customers on a regular basis.

Burden of proof (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076948)

Is it illegal to download a digital copy of something that you have already purchased (ie. misplaced it, have on vinyl or on a scratched up CD)?

I am old enough to have 2 large boxes of vinyl. One day I would like to find them online in digital format. And, I have a CD sitting right in front of me that is so scratched that I can not recover the music from it. Am I not entitled to download digital copies of those?

So, if the RIAA comes knocking, where's the burden of proof if you say you already own the music?

question (1, Funny)

ColonBlow (120356) | about 10 years ago | (#10076962)

Is porn copyrighted? Is that illegal to file-share?

I'm just askin' is all. No reason in particular. None at all.

Suing over Bit Torrent... (2, Interesting)

thoolie (442789) | about 10 years ago | (#10076972)

Just out of curiosity, it seems pretty easy to sue someone using Kazaa/Gnutilla due to the ability to scan their machine for tradable files and then get them for sharing. Is there any evidence that using BitTorrent is any safer for those out there who chose to "trade" files?

I have recently found BT and really enjoy it, if it is "immune" to current RIAA tactics, that is just another bonus.

Please advise.

Re:Suing over Bit Torrent... (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 10 years ago | (#10077020)

Caveat Canem: If RIAA get subponea the tracker's operator, they can get hold of the IP you were using . Then if they can subponea the ISP to whom the IP belongs, you're in for big trouble.

Perhaps someone would come up with an anonymizing version of the BT protocol soon. The current version is not safe at all.

Re:Suing over Bit Torrent... (1)

maximilln (654768) | about 10 years ago | (#10077034)

the ability to scan their machine for tradable files and then get them for sharing

Filenames are not directly indicative of content.

A suspicious government will imprison its people in the same manner that suspicious parents ground their children.

Re:Suing over Bit Torrent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10077062)

That would be a big NEGATIVE.
Its easy to pull IPs of those who are in a particular torrent .. very easy.

Dreamworks sues torrent tracker (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076973)

This is what can result when mediacompanies (dreamworks in this case) goes after torrent trackers and warez-traders abroad:

Piratebay response to dreamworks [thepiratebay.org]

and how many 9 year olds did they sue this time? (3, Funny)

Jrod5000 at RPI (229934) | about 10 years ago | (#10076983)

kid to teacher: "he stole my lunch money!"
teacher: "who did?"
kid: "that lawyer over there!"

ticker (-1, Troll)

musikit (716987) | about 10 years ago | (#10076989)

instead of getting these daily articles can we get a ticker on the side of the main page

people sued by RIAA
people sued by MPAA
barrels of oil stolen by GWB

we've discussed the suing to death. no point in rehashing our concerns. just a ticker please

Screw the RIAA. Support Artists Directly (2, Informative)

wackysootroom (243310) | about 10 years ago | (#10076992)

A good way to tell if an album is released by an RIAA member is to use the RIAA Radar [magnetbox.com] website.

It's a good way to boycott the RIAA while still being able to buy CDs.

SBC (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10076995)

This is why I like being an SBC customer, as far as I know they still refuse to cooperate with the RIAA and thier John Doe IP address lawsuits. I feel sorry for any file sharers who use RoadRunner, which is owned by TimeWarner, which is a record company.

Simple cure.. (5, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | about 10 years ago | (#10076996)

put low quality mp3s for free download (add an advert at the start and the end to hence make money) and let people download them. If they like them then people will goout and buy them.

It's a simple cure AND they get money from selling thr advertising space. Why haven't they tried this yet? They can also track who downloads it, put upa mini survery, whatever is popular they can whore even more.

It's fucking common sense and costs alot less then repeatedly sueing people.. and makes you get a free fans.

Re:Simple cure.. (1)

natron 2.0 (615149) | about 10 years ago | (#10077059)

So after you down load them you can load them into any audio editor and remove the adverts but you still have a low quality mp3...hmmm

RIAA alternatives - iRATE radio (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10077007)

"iRATE radio is a collaborative filtering system for music. You rate the tracks it downloads and the server uses your ratings and other people's to guess what you'll like. The tracks are downloaded from websites which allow free and legal downloads of their music."

Free, open source iRate radio [sourceforge.net]

OMG RIAA bought SCOX! (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | about 10 years ago | (#10077028)

OMG the RIAA just bought SCOX...

suing customers must be the new fangled business strategy

More rationalizations for being cheap (4, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | about 10 years ago | (#10077049)

"It's not stealing, only the big evil RIAA loses money!"
I know somebody who is not rich, not an evil RIAA executive, and hell, he doesn't even make music, but he has personally been hurt by P2P file traders who think it's their 'right' to get everything they want for free.
This guy does in depth analysis of political issues and publishes research online that are used by high school and college debate teams. He provides a very valuable service since there would not be enough time to stay abreast of current political issues and also be prepared to debate so his reports act as executive summaries to condense all the garbage floating around on Google.
So what happens to his stuff? Well there are a few people out there who will pay for it, but then P2P kicks in and for every 1 debate team that buys the report there are probably 10 that don't.
"Information wants to be free!" "It's evil to want to get money for your work!" (in which case why do you complain when your job is outsourced?)
This guy is providiing a valuable service, and he does it all on his own, but I'm sure there will be 10 posts rationalizing why stealing his work is OK and he is worse than Bush for daring to charge to make the lives of other people easier.

My Analysis (5, Interesting)

Ckwop (707653) | about 10 years ago | (#10077055)

I'm going to use the 5 step approach that Schneier utilises in Beyond Fear to analyse security decisions. Hope you enjoy this analysis. I don't have the book to hand so I'm not sure i've got the steps spot on but it's close enough.

What assets are you trying to protect? The profitability of copyrighted music.

What are the threats to your assets? The biggest threat to profitability is the very large levels of copyright infringement. This is such a massive risk that considering any other threat to profitability is a waste of time at this stage.

What is the proposed countermeasure? Suing random copyright infringers.

How does the countermeasure mitigate the risks? The idea is that by suing random copyright infringers you instill fear in people who are more risk adverse. They don't want to be slapped with a large fine so they'd rather pay for the record. There are a number of questions that need to be asked. Firstly, how many people does this approach really scare off? Secondly, How much revenue is it likely to recover? Let's say for every person sued 10 people decide not to infringe and go out and buy the record and each record brought a record for $3. Then the revenue brought in would be $2232. The cost of the legal action would be more than the revenue recieved. Even if 100 people were dissuaded for every infringer sued this would only increase to $223,320. You'd likely make a profit over the cost of the legal action but it'd be small and you've not really done much damage to the millions of remaining pirates. In light of this analysis, I don't think this counter-measure mitigates the risk.

What side-effects does the proposed counter-measure produce? People generally don't like to buy from a company that likes to sue its user base so public relations may be damaged. A side-effect of particular note is people boycotting your products. In those circumstances you've the lost sales as a direct result of deploying the counter-measure - a very bad situation.

Is the trade-off worth it? This step is always subjective but I think the counter measure is meritless given the damage to public image, the small amount of money recovered from most of the infringers and the small amount of people who actually stop downloading as a result of the legal action. The RIAA should consider other counter-measures.

Simon.

In other news... (1)

fafaforza (248976) | about 10 years ago | (#10077056)

Undue persecution of boy lovers continues around the world.

Really, what a loaded and ridiculous headline. If you love music so much, try not to exterminate those that produce it by redistributing it free of charge by violating copyright law.
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>