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!

New RIAA File-swapping Suits Target Students

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the share-and-share-alike dept.

Music 287

Fletcher writes "The Recording Industry Association of America filed another round of lawsuits against alleged file-swappers, including students on 13 university campuses. The 750 suits come just a few days after Internet researchers released a study that found peer-to-peer traffic had remained constant or risen up to the early days of 2004, despite the pressure of recording industry lawsuits."

cancel ×

287 comments

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

Do you want my fluids in your mouth, Fent? (-1, Troll)

(TK11)Dessimat0r (672416) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671797)

-INSANE-PRIEST--INSANE-PRIEST--INSAN
I___________,.-------.,____________I Slashdot
N______,;~'_____________'~;,_______N fucking
S____,;____LINUX FUCKING____;,_____S sucks
A___;___SUCKS, YOU FUCKING____;____A
N__,'____SLASHDOT RETARDS.____',___N Rob Malda
E_,;___GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD___;,__E is a
-_;_;______._____l_____.______;_;__- cocksucker
P_l_;____________l____________;_l__P
R_l__`/~"_____~"_._"~_____"~\'__l__R Slashdot
I_l__~__,-~~~^~,_l_,~^~~~-,__~__l__I fucking
E__l___l________}:{__ (O) _l___l___E sucks
S__l___l_ (o) _/_l_\_______!___l___S
T__.~__(__,.--"_.^._"--.,__)__~.___T Rob Malda
-__l_____---;'_/_l_\_`;---_____l___- is a
-___\__._______V.^.V___((oo))./____- cocksucker
I__O_VI_\________________ll_IV___O_I
N_____I_lT~\___!___!___/~ll_I______N Fucking
S_____I_l`IIII_I_I_I_IIIIll_I__o___S lameness
A_O___I__\,III_I_I_I_III,ll_I______A filters,
N______\___`----------'__ll/____o__N will
E____O___\___._______.___ll________E this
-_________\..___^____../(_l___O____- ever
P_________/_^___^___^_/__ll\_______P fucking
R_O______/`'-l l_l l-';__ll_l___O__R WORK?!
I_______;_`'=l l_l l='__/ll_l______I
E_____O_l___\l l~l l__l/_ll_l______E Your mother
S_______l\___\ l_l l__;__ll_l__O___S was good
T__o____l_\___ll=l l==\__ll_l______T in bed, she
-____o__l_/\_/\l_l l__l`-ll_/______- grunts like
-_______'-l_`;'l_l l__l__ll_____O__- an ape.
I_O_______l__l l_l l__l__ll________I
N____O____l__l+l_l+l__l__ll___O____N Rob Malda
S_________l__"""_"""__l__ll________S is a
A__O______l____o_o____l__ll____O___A cocksucker
N_________l,;,;,;,;,;,l__ll________N
E_____O___`lIlIlIlIlIl`__ll________E
-__________llIlIlIlIll___ll_____O__- By Dessimat0r
P__________`"""""""""`___""________P (c)2003 Trollkore
-INSANE-PRIEST--INSANE-PRIEST--INSAN

The bishop, while living, was a follower of God.
Now dead, his rotting fingers are able to raise
an army of skeletons from the grave.

Trollkore
"I hate you, I hate your country, and I hate your face!"

# Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

uNF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10671800)

oh god, fuck, shit, oh........... yes....... ahhh

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10671802)

You sue RIAA! (FP!)

heil (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10671803)

hail weisheit

Bishoujo games (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10671821)

I've been swapping a lot of Japanese "dating sims" in order to improve my social skills with chicks - am I in any danger of being sued, or is this ONLY for music? What about games, bishoujo games in particular?

Re:Bishoujo games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10671846)

Aside from the danger of being a socially inept fool, you will likely be fine.

Not news any more. (4, Insightful)

eddy (18759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671836)

99% of the whole point of these lawsuits is to get filesharing fearmongering into the news where it can "deter" and influence politicians.

Personally, I don't feel like it's newsworthy any more, and I don't see any reason to actively help RIAA in their fear-spreading mission.

Re:Not news any more. (-1)

fafaforza (248976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671911)

The story is also a bit late. I heard it on AM radio on Friday morning, so /. is late at least a day.

"News for nerds. Stuff that matters. Two days late."

Re:Not news any more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672061)

OMG a whole DAY Late?!!
Thats like one 7th of a week!!!

Quit whining.

Sig: PoS (0, Offtopic)

tommut (123314) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672008)

Yes. Pain of Salvation is an awesome band. I've loved all their albums, though I still haven't been able to get into their latest, Be.

OT:Sig: PoS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672137)

A little is lost without the show to go with the music.

RIAA & unauthorized filesharing are *both guil (4, Insightful)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672071)

"99% of the whole point of these lawsuits is to get filesharing fearmongering into the news where it can "deter" and influence politicians."

Well, now that you've commented on it, you're complicit in that too... ;)

Yes, it is absolutely correct that the point of the lawsuits is to get publicity for this issue. And it is correct that Slashdot is participating in that process.

However it is also worth differentiating between "filesharing" and "unauthorized filesharing."

These suits (as opposed to the Napster, Grokster, etc.) are about unauthorized filesharing, and not the technology itself.

Indeed, those that constantly act as apologists for unauthorized filesharing are just as guilty as *IAA for endangering an emerging technology.

Who's being sued? (3, Insightful)

leav (797254) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671839)

Who's gonna take the heat for the file swapping? the students or the campus/university?

this is an important question because one could say that the universities allowed them to swap files by not-not-allowing (:p) and so the students could use this in there defense (however crooked and twisted a defense it is...).

Re:Who's being sued? (2, Insightful)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671851)

> Who's gonna take the heat for the file swapping? the students
> or the campus/university

As the RIAA are scumsucking filth, they'll attack those with the most to lose from a loss to their "alleged" lawsuit, and coerce thousands in settlement from them.

Re:Who's being sued? (2, Interesting)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671903)

The RIAA really changed the climate a lot..

Nowadays I'd always see these little posters around the computer labs in uni reminding users that downloading pirated stuff is illegal and that we can be jailed for it yadda yadda..

Needless to say every machine is now firewalled like nuts now.

Way to go RIAA :(

Re:Who's being sued? (2, Insightful)

Indy Media Watch (823624) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671947)

It's probably irrelevant.

The RIAA or any plaintiff in a civil action is likely to go after wherever the big money is. In this case, it's the university, not the starving students.

They are probably banking on a win or a painful settlement that means other universities will 'get the message' (whatever that is) and clamp down on students in turn.

Re:Who's being sued? (1)

slaad (589282) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672132)

The RIAA or any plaintiff in a civil action is likely to go after wherever the big money is. In this case, it's the university, not the starving students.

You must not have seen the previous lawsuits. Traditional logic doesn't really apply. They will sue [goforlaw.com] anyone [radiomute.com] no [afterdawn.com] matter [slashdot.org] what [com.com]

This is an organization that doesn't care one bit. You can be 12 or 60. You can be a student. It doesn't matter. They're out to make an example out of people. They don't care what anyone thinks about them and they're not in it for the money. They'd be more than happy to take the $10,000 you have in your bank account.

Not that I can imagine a more effective way of getting people to buy CD's...ha

RIAA again going for the little guy (4, Interesting)

dreadfire (781564) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671841)

Not to say that artists don't deserve money for their work, but again they are doing it the wrong way.

For one, you can't stop it by going after people that don't have enough money to pay for cds. CDs printing costs are in like the cents (30-70 cents) to make the CD ready for packaging.

They charged 15 dollars for most. Only give the artist maybe 70cents-1 dollar for each record sold. If they ultimately actually lowered the price to a more convient number maybe people will by them.

Or even maybe have them actually good music to purchase. Going after college students who have enough to worry about is a horrible way to get support. Its a negative campaign that'll end up hurting them.

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (3, Informative)

dafoomie (521507) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671885)

Only give the artist maybe 70cents-1 dollar for each record sold.

Its more like 6 cents if they're lucky, minus "expenses" that the RIAA charges them, like 25% for packaging. And thats not even considering how the recording industry cooks their books to screw people out of the rest. Artists barely see a dime from cd sales, their money is made from concerts.

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (4, Insightful)

nkh (750837) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671888)

I love how DVDs' prices are decreasing and will one day be lower than audio CDs' prices. How is it possible for such an old technology to be so expensive? (I know the answer but I'd really like their point of view...)

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (4, Interesting)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672081)

This reminds me of something I saw someone say on the news a few years ago. It was when the labels began making a stink about filesharing (2001-2002ish). Some guy they were interviewing posed the question "Why should I spend 18 dollars to get the soundtrack to a movie, when I can buy the DVD of the movie itself for 15?"

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (1)

bob beta (778094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672318)

I've never understood why anybody would buy the soundtrack to a movie (unless, perhaps its a Musical with all original music) in the first place.

It's always seemed to me like 'Joe film-scum's favorite tracks all clustered into one mass,' and Joe film-scum is just your typical Hollywood moron.

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (1)

rizzo420 (136707) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672221)

funny you mention that... shortly before dvd's became real mainstream, we were walking around target or walmart or something and one thing caught my attention. some vhs movies came with 2 tapes, one with the movie, the other with "special features" (american beauty was like this). those sold at the same price as regular 1-tape videos (about $15). you buy a cd with 2 discs and depending on the store and album, it'll cost you anywhere from $20-30, nearly twice the cost of a single disc album. what's up with that? my friend replied "the mpaa is only slightly better than the riaa".

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (2, Insightful)

bob beta (778094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672407)

Similarly, people will pay 50 cents, up to sometimes even several dollars, for a 'fresh' newspaper off the news-stand.

And yet, the same people bundle big sheaths of newsprint up and then pay someone to haul it away.

What's up with that? Didn't the pages of paper cost the same, no matter what the value of the content printed on them??

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (0, Offtopic)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672461)

and recycled paper is really a scam...do you realize the polution that recycling paper causes from just getting the ink off the paper...the sludge it creates?

Actually, recycling itself is a scam...except for aluminum cans. It's actually cheaper and more cost effective to get aluminum from recycling than it is from hauling it out of mother Earth.

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672386)

>I love how DVDs' prices are decreasing and will one day be lower than audio CDs' prices. How is it possible for such an old technology to be so expensive? (I know the answer but I'd really like their point of view...)

Already happening (at least here in Canada). I see a lot of (old) DVD movies at about 8-10$CAN, and most new CD releases are at *least* 15$CAN.

The RIAA is talking crap when they say CDs cost a lot to make. Heck, even CD-Rs are costing 50 cents in Canada (name-brand). How can a commercially made CD cost more than a CD-R?

WOW! I never thought of that... (3, Insightful)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672405)

Look at the average DVD, it's what...about 20 bucks give or take a few bucks plus or minus. OK, some are 30 bucks but most are around the 20-24 dollar point.

Ok...let's take an average hollywood movie that cost today around 50 million give or take to produce. Some cost upwards to 100 million. And that's just from producing the movie itself, not including the marketing for it. Yet the DVD, where they make a ton of cash from, costs only 20 bucks when it hits the stores. 20 bucks.

The RIAA claim that the CD's cost so much because they spend so much on the artists, the promotion, the artwork etc etc so the price point is 17 bucks for a CD with 72 minute of music. Now I KNOW a music CD doesn't cost 50 million dollars to produce and market. No way NEAR that amount.

This is just blatent money-grubbing bastardship in it's prime. I how can they possibly defend themselves with this?

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (2, Insightful)

DarkEdgeX (212110) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671894)

Its a negative campaign that'll end up hurting them.

Yeah really, if nothing else it's raising a whole new generation to hate and loathe the RIAA. I know when I was a kid I'd never even heard of the RIAA except, maybe, when Al Gore's wife (you know, Tipper) was trying to get music censored-- then I seem to recall the RIAA actually being out against that (hence the "explicit lyrics" labels). But todays young adults? I don't see them having any love for the RIAA.

So.. way to go guys, keep it up! Another 4-5 years of this and you'll have a nice chunk of the next generation totally hating you!

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (1)

bob beta (778094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672434)

Actually, another five years and there will be a solid but tiny subculture of angry nerds who have no idea what the rest of their culture enjoys. A small pack of angry denizens of their parent's basement, wearing tattered 'Boycott the RIAA' t-shirts that nobody else knows what the hell mean, on those rare occasions when they venture out.

I mean, come on.

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (2, Insightful)

sedmonds (94908) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672118)

This is going to come off as flamebait, but that logic taken to absurdity boils down to: rape victims shouldn't file civil suits against rapists that couldn't afford hookers, or that victims of carjacking shouldn't file suit against those who carjack them, because the carjacker couldn't afford their car.

Even if it was specifically targeting people who couldn't afford cds, they are noncustomers benefiting (arguably with most major label crap) from copyrighted works without paying. Lower prices don't necessarily imply that violators will purchase enough to achieve higher profit for the recording industry either. There are goods, and major label crap is one of them, which consumers will not purchase at any price. They may, however, consume them at no cost. The common response that someone who wouldn't have paid anyway should be allowed to violate copyrights is ridiculous. If that were the case, even people who are willing to pay $15 (or whatever) for a CD have little, if any, reason to pay.

Under current law, they're going at it exactly the right way - filing against flagrant violators of their copyrights.

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (3, Insightful)

Nathan Forget (661938) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672220)

You're making the common mistake of comparing victimless crime to victim crime. Granted, if I download a CD rather than buying it the RIAA doesn't get my money, but if it's a CD I wouldn't have bought, no one has lost anything. Whereas, in your carjacking example, the victim has definitely lost something, whether the thief would have otherwise bought the car or not.

RIAA again going for the little guy-Arrogance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672320)

" You're making the common mistake of comparing victimless crime to victim crime. "

And you're making the arrogant statement that humanity is fully capable of knowing what is victimless, and what isn't.

Not only is humanity not omnipotent (and hence not fully cognitive of all their actions and consequences present and future). The historical record is filled to the brim of mans failures to anticipate the consequences (Thalidomide, and DDT are one small example, and global warming could be the next one) of their actions.

RIAA again going for the little [crimminal] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672269)

"Not to say that artists don't deserve money for their work, but again they are doing it the wrong way."

Funny how everyone's willing to go to a high degree of telling the artist the "right way", but would chafe and complain about their rights being violated when such a degree of attention was focused on their own activities. Plus I don't see any of you setting up the "right way" with your own monies.

"For one, you can't stop it by going after people that don't have enough money to pay for cds. CDs printing costs are in like the cents (30-70 cents) to make the CD ready for packaging."

Gee, everyone knows that the only thing to making music is having a "cheap" pressing and printing plant. Oh and distribution, and marketing are free too. Are you certain you don't work in the music industry?

"They charged 15 dollars for most. Only give the artist maybe 70cents-1 dollar for each record sold. If they ultimately actually lowered the price to a more convient number maybe people will by them."(1)

Look up mooching and vicious cycle.

1) All the people who are paying legitimately for the product are also paying for those who don't (the mooching part).

2) The "vicious cycle" part comes into play when someone complains about the prices (like you just did), and seeks to relieve the pressure by becoming a moocher.

3) Goto 1, lather, rinse, repeat.

Of course there's no such thing as infinate recursion in economics, so eventually everything collapses, and in the end. The moochers have only what they could make out with, and the artists are out of a job. Between now and then lies the wreckage, of laws, and technology were even those who have nothing to do with all this suffer.

(1) Like iTunes, and other such efforts?

"Or even maybe have them actually good music to purchase."

I wasn't aware there was a universal agreement on what constitutes "good music". Maybe what you really ment to say is "I" don't like certain music, and I'll call other people's choice in music "bad". And just to top things off, I'll use it as justification to mooch.

Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (2, Informative)

espo812 (261758) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672353)

CDs printing costs are in like the cents (30-70 cents) to make the CD ready for packaging. They charged 15 dollars for most.
You're missing the point. The value (and thus the cost it can be sold at) of a CD is not in manufacturing it - would you pay 30-70 cents for a manufactured and packaged blank CD? The value comes from the content, that is the music from the artists' time, creative efforts, innovation, etc. So when you are paying $15 for a CD (or whatever) that was manufactured for 30-70cents (or 6cents as the case may be), you're paying upwards of $14 for the "value added" by the artist, producers, distributers, promoters, managers, kitchen sink, etc.

P2P via anonymous proxies (4, Interesting)

trifish (826353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671849)

We need to start using only P2P software that allows connecting through anonymous proxies. Those proxies should of course be located in countries that are known to be unwilling to collaborate with US/European authorities. It would make P2P much slower but should put these lawsuits to an end.

Re:P2P via anonymous proxies (2, Insightful)

trifish (826353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671905)

The biggest problem now is: Is there enough anonymous proxies in these countries to handle the P2P traffic?

Re:P2P via anonymous proxies (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672029)

no, the biggest problem is 5the **AA making their own proxies which log everything, then they can see every file oyu download or upload

Re:P2P via anonymous proxies (2, Insightful)

trifish (826353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672046)

Can you imagine a US proxy physically located in, say, North Korea? BTW, one can easily verify that a proxy is really located in a country that does not collaborate with US/European authorities by using tools to traceroute the IP of the proxy.

Re:P2P via anonymous proxies (3, Interesting)

Usagi_yo (648836) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672030)

Duel Servers with an alogorithm on the client that determines what portion and split of the bytes to send to you -- even with moderate encyption, it still looks like random data to network sniffers.

Server A sends random encrypted bytes from the material requested and Server B fills in the blanks. Sent non-sequentially or out of play order and they'll have a tough time figuring out what the hell is being downloaded.

Re:P2P via anonymous proxies (1)

espo812 (261758) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672373)

Duel Servers
Raymond Burr would be estatic!

Re:P2P via anonymous proxies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672443)

Aaron Burr?

These are college students, right? (2, Insightful)

Tony Hammitt (73675) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672109)

Jeez, hate to sound like an old-timer here, but there is no way you'll get caught sharing files if you take your iPod to your neighbor's dorm room.

Hell, they probably have some original CDs you might want to rip tracks from. Not to mention the library, which probably has thousands of CDs available (my public library sure does). Ya, I know it's illegal, but chances are, no one else is using that CD's track at the moment.

I mean, sure, centralized P2P is convenient, but a lawsuit is pretty inconvenient. Go back 10 years and use SCP to download music. Just trade lists on chat rooms like we used to do. Hell, you can trade lists over SCP as well.

Give up on the whole centralized P2P networks and do some social engineering, you'll never get caught.

Disclaimer: I own *cough* all of my MP3's original media, Really!!!

P2P via anonymous proxies-Bad Impressions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672464)

"We need to start using only P2P software that allows connecting through anonymous proxies. "

Gee I can't image were people get the impression that P2P is only for copyright infringement?

It's Just (4, Insightful)

haX0rsaw (687063) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671853)

Wrong! No matter how you try to spin it, trading copyrighted material over the internet is against the law. Don't like it? Change the LAW.

Re:It's Just (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10671877)

"wrong" does not mean "illegal", idiot. One of the best ways to change the law is for large numbers of people to break it.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with sharing information (I think it is wrong to claim to be the author of the information if you're not - i.e. plagiarise), but copyright is just government-supported censorship.

I love to view this as civil disobedience.. (2, Insightful)

Tracer_Bullet82 (766262) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672060)

but most file swappers,I'll put myself on a limb here; would not even know what that means.

Most file swappers are just interested in getting something quick and free, not any social cause.

Re:It's Just (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672126)

"wrong" does not mean "illegal", idiot.

Trading copyrighted material (where the copyright stipulates that it can't be copied or re-traded), IS illegal, idiot.

So help us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10671936)

and tell us how we can get the law changed when we have no money and no power?

You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672040)

...Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] ?

(unfortunatly, CC's website is down :( )

Re:It's Just (1)

slaad (589282) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672044)

Here's a few spins that aren't against the law: fair use, GPL, Creative Commons, ... Those are all things that allow legal trading of copyrighted material.

To be fair as well, there is an awful lot of money backing the law as is (not to mention making it more restrictive). It's certainly good to try to change the law, but I'm doubting it's going to happen here.

Re:It's Just (2, Funny)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672068)

Dear haX0rsaw, "changing the law to allow trading copyrighted material over the internet without permission" is a copyprotection circumvention method, you are not allowed to tell others about it. The RIAA

Re:It's Just (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672416)

>Wrong! No matter how you try to spin it, trading copyrighted material over the internet is against the law. Don't like it? Change the LAW.

Just because it's copyrighted doesn't mean you can't trade it. All works are copyrighted, even home-made stuff.

So I guess you're talking about commercial stuff.

Go RIAA... (3, Insightful)

Mad_Rain (674268) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671861)

[sarcasm]
Go RIAA! Way to sue some people who are unlikely to be able to defend themselves. You truly have a gigantic collective business mind.
[/sarcasm]

Seriously, when will this business model of suing some of your most interested customers cease? When the weather report in Hell changes?

Re:Go RIAA... (4, Funny)

AbbyNormal (216235) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671995)

When the weather report in Hell changes....
Simple, last week it was a chilly 0 degrees Celsius.
Apparently a team named the Boston Red Sox were able to win some big game or something. Cats and Dogs were seen living together for the night.

Re:Go RIAA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672360)

Seriously, when will this business model of suing some of your most interested customers cease?

But are they truely customers if all they do is share and take from others? How much do they actually pay for?

So the RIAA targets those.... (5, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671869)

.....who not only cannot afford to fight back, but can't really afford to pay their fines in the first place. Since these people are students, it's not as if they can hire Johnny Cochran or someone to defend them...this, I dare say, makes the RIAA's number of 'sucessful suits' more effective, as more of them are settled out of court.

It really is kind of like the schoolyard bully shaking down the smaller kids for their lunch money. Why does the RIAA exist these days, anyway? I haven't heard a single thing about what they've done other than file lawsuits....

Re:So the RIAA targets those.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10671985)

Since these people are students, it's not as if they can hire Johnny Cochran or someone to defend them

It would be interesting to see which schools they are targeting and get a comparison of parents' income, school tuition rates, and the frequency with which those students were sued.

You have to think if the RIAA is suing Ivy League students that sooner or later mommy or daddy will supply their kid with an army of high-paid lawyers. My bet is that the RIAA investigates their targets carefully first, and avoids going after students with rich families.

If you could prove that behavior, you might have a fun little packet of information to send over to the ACLU. Sooner or later the RIAA is going to get challenged for racketeering behavior.

Re:So the RIAA targets those.... (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672224)

. My bet is that the RIAA investigates their targets carefully first, and avoids going after students with rich families.

I would be inclined to agree, but how would you reconcile this with the number of "John Doe" lawsuits, in which the RIAA ostensibly has no idea against whom they've filed suit?

Re:So the RIAA targets those.... (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672327)

I haven't heard a single thing about what they've done other than file lawsuits....
You missed the /. stories about them getting their^H^H^H^H^HUtah's Senator Orim Hatch to try to make laws?

It is not too unlike... (1)

awfar (211405) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672369)

a serf being shaken down by the landlord. Granted, it's not food, but it isn't music (art) nearly as important(to human existence and experience)?

Isn't this close to having to buy from the company store?

So the RIAA targets those....Innocent Babies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672513)

".....who not only cannot afford to fight back, but can't really afford to pay their fines in the first place. Since these people are students, it's not as if they can hire Johnny Cochran or someone to defend them...this, I dare say, makes the RIAA's number of 'sucessful suits' more effective, as more of them are settled out of court."

Of course what the OP doesn't say, but implies that if they could hire a well-heeled lawyer. Their copyright infringement will be proven to all be a big misunderstanding, and eventually they ment to buy the product (Honest! Would this face lie to you? *sad puppy dog eyes*).

Time To Strong-Arm Colleges and Universities (4, Interesting)

Prototerm (762512) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671873)

Those Colleges and Universities that haven't agreed to pay tribute to the RIAA by forcing all students to participate in things like the new Napster (participate = include the fee in the student's tuition) will be "strongly urged" to do so at the point of the RIAA's legal gun.

Oh, well, at least it's a good education in the way the outside world "works".

Re:Time To Strong-Arm Colleges and Universities (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671898)

Those fees would hurt the students who don't listen to music. So it's very unfair.

Re:Time To Strong-Arm Colleges and Universities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672130)

Thats what the poster said.

Re:Time To Strong-Arm Colleges and Universities (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672167)

Since when does the RIAA care about fair? This isn't about morals, this is about business. And this fear mongering has been sold to the RIAA as a profitable business plan. They don't give a shit about anyone's rights or fair. Not yours and not the artists.

Re:Time To Strong-Arm Colleges and Universities (1)

NewStarRising (580196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672410)

The RIAA don;t care, ut he Universities and colleges should.
They are not there to force music-download services on our children, they are there to educate them.
Why should tution fees be spent on irrelevant services I will never use?

All your child are belong to us ! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10671896)

Good model to get more people buying music. Pissed me off so much I haven't bought a cd in years.

And I will not till they stop this BS. Remember all these losers back in the 60's and 70's I'm sure they copied there buddies music if they liked it.

It's the same shit.

The way to stop this crap is boycott music period. Listen to the radio if you must. A one year boycott and they will crumble like a cracker in a vise.

What's the difference if you get it off the net or get it off FM? I'm sure if they like the music they'll go and buy it to support the band so they can make more for them to enjoy.

Re:All your child are belong to us ! (1)

rodrigogo (795954) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672050)

yea cos u and me together can make everyone in the world boycott all forms of music by choice, no matter.[/sarcasm]

The only successful method is to bring the RIAA down with force, forcefully if necessary! Im talking bombs, napalm, NUCLEAR WINTER!!

Anyone know any Taliban???

Re:All your child are belong to us ! (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672196)

I seem to hear a lot of people say "but I'm only one person, I can't do jack shit." If only all those people didn't believe that.

It really depends on priorities. What's more important, contributing to the RIAA's funds and buying music, contributing to the RIAA's propaganda and illegally downloading music or finding alternative music and not helping the RIAA?

Let's face it. Everyone knows the RIAA is telling the truth about these people they're sueing. Everyone knows P2P is mostly for illegal uses. Firefox started out with only 10 person using it, and now it's got a small percentage and it's growing. Imagine if those 10 people had said "no-one else is using it."

The difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672079)

The music on the radio sucks. ;-)

Current IP List? (3, Interesting)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671920)

Is there a current, up-to-date list of the sued IP addresses? The EFF's doesn't seem to have been updated anytime recently.

They can't stop it (1, Insightful)

haxor.dk (463614) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671932)

This is like the proverbial little dutch boy trying to stop a dike collapse by sticking his finger in the hole of the breach.

You cant stop information freedom, RIAA. The genie IS out of the bottle.

the dutch boy and the dike (2, Informative)

GreenEggsAndHam (317974) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672409)

The boy actually *did* prevent the dike from collapsing. The story is about how the boy's courage and endurance saved the town.

HTH

Sue People Who Can't Afford Books Let Alone CDs (2, Insightful)

SPYDER Web (717344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671940)

This makes a whole lot of sense if you think about it. They want to take the money from the people who can least afford it cause they can only afford to buy so many cds a year compared to someone who is out of college and has a job. This is like pro-active gestapo marketing...take all the money you think your customers should have bought. I mean these kids waste all their money on hundreds of dollars worth of books a semester and tens of thousands of dollars on tuition, room and board...they really need to get a piece of that pie! Don't you wish the government was on the peoples side just once where they could actually look at something like this and realize...Hey they aren't on the peoples side! This is not what America wants. I bet things will change when a politian's daughter accidently gets sued because the RIAA forgot to check their list properly just like they didnt care about spyware and spam until their computers started to get effected. Keep on downloading Jenna and Laura Bush!

Re:Sue People Who Can't Afford Books Let Alone CDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10671978)

so they can't afford books but they can afford expensive computers and broadband ?

perhaps they should examine their priorities a bit deeper

Branding (4, Insightful)

marktaw.com (816752) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671977)

Major corporations attempt to imprint branding on us when we're young so that we'll be loyal to them later in life because we'll view those brand as canonical.

What the RIAA is doing here is cementing P2P as the way to get music. They think they're creating negative associations with P2P, but what they're really doing is creatin negative associations with the RIAA. It's basic psychology. We hate being told what we can't do by large oppressive corporations, and it only makes us want it more.

"There is no such thing as bad publicity." But what they don't realize is that this is publicity for P2P, not publicity for the RIAA.

Cowboy RIAA (1)

AcidPhish (785961) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671983)

Go get 'em RIAA! EEhhhaaa! Those youngsters seem to always cause trouble. Then again, maybe it is you that's ageing?!? Whatever the case, your methods have put me off from purchasing music under the RIAA. Plenty more record companies and bands that I can support without cowboy RIAA shooting me in the ass.

GWB Listen up! (-1, Troll)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671993)

The 750 suits come just a few days after Internet researchers released a study that found peer-to-peer traffic had remained constant or risen up to the early days of 2004, despite the pressure of recording industry lawsuits.

Sounds like a page from Bush's playbook: If something isn't working, keep trying the same thing even more aggressively!

What if (1)

bananaape (542919) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671996)

If somebody on Slashdot was the target of one of these lawsuits, would the community join together and help raise money for a lawyer to stand against the charges?

Re:What if (1)

smallfeet (609452) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672114)

"community join together"

What are these strange words you speak? I do not understand you.

Re:What if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672298)

I would help I would give 10 US dollars to them. If everybody gave then then that would be like 10* however many people read this.

University students today, CEOs tomorrow (2, Insightful)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 9 years ago | (#10671999)

Good work RIAA. Keep pissing off and targeting the students today. All your doing is devising your demise in the future.

The university students today will be in the work force in the next few years, and then the main force of the work world not long after, as the baby boomers are getting all to be seniors.

So good work. Keep pissing us off. Keep targeting us. Your end will be tragic, except you can go fuck yourselves because nobody will care.

Re:University students today, CEOs tomorrow (1)

AcidPhish (785961) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672042)

They DON'T care. All they care is to make a few quick bucks and to kick as much as they can, because slowly their company(?) is killed by the mass.

(?)Company generally means they offer a product or a service. Does RIAA offer any of the above or just legal threats to children?

But I thought... (1)

Stratis_Gus_Aftousmi (822829) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672020)

Students are the future of America...

Those people who seek/work to further their knowledge and help refine the various areas of study to futher civilivation.

A few decades ago I'm sure a pardon would have been accepted, for the students, silly old music nuts that they are. I guess somewhere along the line we decided to throw caution to the wind, and primality anyone who comes between business and money.

How does BitTorrent fit into all of this? (3, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672052)

The RIAA says that it's only going after people sharing 1000 or more files. Most people probably only use, at the very most, five BitTorrent streams at once. Let's assume that each instance of BitTorrent is a CD with 20 songs. That's at best comes to a user sharing 100 songs at a time, well below the RIAA's threshold.

Will the RIAA change the number of songs shared before legal action is taken or will BitTorrent users get a free ride?

Re:How does BitTorrent fit into all of this? (2, Insightful)

nbert (785663) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672295)

Will the RIAA change the number of songs shared before legal action is taken or will BitTorrent users get a free ride?

since BitTorrent isn't a huge central network it's quite likely IMO that Torrent users are mostly safe.

It's much easier to track copyright violations on networks like Kazaa than monitoring some websites and the irc for torrents.

But even if the RIAA manages to monitor the entire net some day they'll still have to deal with offline trading. It's so convenient today to copy some friends Music Collection onto mobile storage. Thousands of *new* songs transfered within minutes. And there's nothing the RIAA can do about it. Whatever steps they take, there will always be unauthorized copies around. They should realize that they can't do much about it. The next step would be to come up with a business model, which takes into account that they can't win this war.

Re:How does BitTorrent fit into all of this? (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672444)

All the RIAA would have to do is set up its own SuprNova.org styled website and then start tracking IP addresses.

You're right about off-line sharing, though. Portable hard drives are getting cheap and flash drives are getting larger.

Why peer to peer music sharing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672149)

All I do any more is listen to the radio. Time shifted mostly. I've found stuff on radio (wireless and internet) that I could never find on P2P. P2P is fishing at the trout farm vs radio which is more like fishing in the ocean. Harder to catch on the radio, but there seem to be a greater variety of fish (if you can find the good holes). There's the added enchantment of wireless, but you've got to be pretty old to still appreciate this.

A good radio station streaming 128kbps mp3 uses up about a meg a minute. Same for converted on the fly from wireless broadcasts. This works out to about 10gig/week. It's easy to skim through and cut out my favorite shows. More difficult is marking songs with ID3 for easy indexing and out of sequence time shifting. I suspect this is why most folks who actually listen to the stuff prefer already tagged, from the P2P. The hoarders (accumulate vast collection, brag about it, never listen) I'll never understand.

An application to buffer stuff by 20 seconds or so would be handy. I could listen to the radio live and when I hear something interesting, hit the record button. get the beginning.

supply & demand anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672179)

This really is getting stupid now. While I am aware that music certainly isnt a necessity the principles must still apply. Anyone with a basic knowledge of economics can see that while there is an ever increasing supply the price will have to drop.

The record companies are completely hypocritical about this position. We are constantly bombarded with repertoire whether it is on the radio, tv, film in their self fullfilling proficy that is the music marketing/charts, so why would i bother buying it?

Not only this but the fact that in some cases (eg Universal) the same company complaining about the piracy seems to keep very quiet about the huge growth in DVD sales which of course is responsible, along with games, for diverting disposable income from music.

The same time these figures are reported to start to drop (99 roughly) is the time that games began to appeal to older age groups and now 50/50 between men and women. This is due to better tech and the generation growing up with games becoming the main holders of disposable income. Yet, of course, this is never mentioned. There is only a certain amount of disposable income for people/families and music has to be effected by the rise of greater choice.

Why is it such a problem to develop subscription services or advertising led strategies to improve the situation. TV companies - in the UK at least - pay a 'blanket fee' to the MCPS, PPL, PRS (collection agencies for the Record companies and artists) to use whatever work they like as many times as they like. This is clearly the way the industry will have to go in the long term.

Or consider TV companies business models. In the UK there was only BBC in the early days who charge a licence p/a for the use. Along came ITV who offered the content and service for free to end users and generated revenue from advertising. Why can this not be applied to music, specifically online distribution?

And anyway, since when has the industry, which evolved in the American market from stolen European works, ever cared about the artist? Untill the price resembles the value the piracy will contine.

P2P Usage Truths (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672195)

That storying is trying to 'hint' that all P2P traffic is for 'piracy'.

P2P is agnostic.. its a concept, not a action... a more accurate study would be the USE of the P2P networks they are 'surveying'.

Just spreading more half truths and misconceptions...

I know personally my P2P usage has gone WAY up in 2004, I now get most of my BSD ( and related ) ISO's via torrents now.. Last I heard that's legal traffic.

Re:P2P Usage Truths (1)

bob beta (778094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672507)

How many BSD ISOs do you need? You download one, install it, then fetch updates and what-not.

You're one of those ISO collectors who is the freenix communities (the portion who pay for FTP site bandwidth, anyways) worst enemies, it seems. 'Whoah, they came out with NetBSD-1.6.7, all I have is 1.6.6. I better download the whole damn thing for all architectures again, in case I ever get a VAX between now and the time when 1.6.8 comes out and I have to download it all again.'

IOW- lame excuse for why you 'need' all that P2P traffic, dude.

And so we go and install I2P (3, Interesting)

ControlFreal (661231) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672232)

Get your copy here [i2p.net] . It's an onion-routing network, and open mix-net if you like. It protects your anonimity by using a number of proxies to channel the data, and encrypting the data such that one always knows only the next hop to send it to.

In contrast to, e.g., Ants or MUTE, finding your data scales as log(N) (N: number of nodes in the net), whereas Ants and MUTE scale as N^2. And in contrast to Freenet and friends, this actually works.

Now, you can already just put all your music files in the eepsite/docroot folder of your install, and post your key on forum.i2p. That's enough for anonymous sharing.

Even better: A BitTorrent system that works completely within I2P is in the works ;)

its time... (1)

PerlDudeXL (456021) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672296)

... for a decent iTMS like online-music store that has everything to buy online thats available to buy on CD in stores. Using fair prices and a platform open to all modern operating systems.

I don't like to look for something on iTMS without finding it, like Katie Melua or Vienna Teng.

Walking around to different music stores is ok, but using 10+ different online music stores with different DRM-concepts and players is not.

Why download when you can get XM or Sirius? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672316)

I can only speak for XM, because that I what I have, but for $9.00/month (on an extended subscription), I get about 60 channels of commercial-free music of more different types than I can listen to, plus all the news, sports, talk, and comedy channels that I could ever imagine. That's about the cost of a single CD every *other* month.

The best part is that I don't have to do *anything* to get the music -- I just turn it on, and someone is already programming it for me. I don't have to download it. It's there whenever I want it, and unlike anything that I might program for myself, it is never repetitive and never boring. I can use the same radio at home, in the car, and at work, and by plugging it into the audio input of my sound card, I can listen to it through my computer's speakers, if I want to do so.

I happen to like the three classical music channels, the 60's channel, and especially the five or so jazz channels that I have programmed on the radio buttons. But there are dozens of other music channels, including channels with about a dozen different kinds of rock music, including uncensored channels that I'm sure would be of interest to people here. Sirius makes a similar offering.

I realize some of the cost of the service goes to RIAA royalties, and that some indoor locations might have trouble them, and that I'm just an old fart compared to most of the people who frequent this forum. But at the absolutely minimal cost for satellite radio services (XM, at least, has family plans so that service to a second radio costs only about $7.00/month) and given the incredible variety and depth of their offerings, I don't understand why people don't get a satellite radio instead of downloading music.

Let's use our power (1)

RealBorg (549538) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672319)

The intellectual property mafia needs our money to criminalize and sue us. Just because we are no longer willing to buy albums with only one or two good tracks.

Let us realize that nobody needs this blown-up industry anymore and let them starve to death. I do not buy music anymore and I ask everyone to follow.

Re:Let's use our power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10672440)

Hi Borg,

I disagree with your assessment. However, I strongly applaud your solution.

If you don't like an item on offer for a given price, don't buy it. This is how the market works.

Only on slashdot do people realistically consider stealing (i'm sorry - "copyright infringement") it a legitimate market-changing tactic.

RIAA needs a decent business plan (2, Insightful)

farmer11 (573883) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672415)

I'm getting so tired of this kinda stuff by the RIAA. Maybe they could deter copyright-infringers by actually providing a comparable service. And not iTunes selling tracks for USD$0.99. I mean seriously. This seems like a ploy for the RIAA to make more money than with CDs. Now they've dispensed with any physical material, any shipping and distribution - AND they charge the same amount for a CD. Except buying from iTunes versus a regular CD I am limited to where and how I can play it. And the quality is worse, and I don't even have any liner notes.

Seriously, sueing college students is not a good business plan.

Provide a decent service and the people with money to spend on music will mostly use it. And all the students with _no_ money will still continue to download their music for free.

This ill will campaign does nothing but make people even more content to share music now that doing so is a slap in the face to the clueless and tyrannical RIAA.

p2p traffic up or down? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672425)

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/29/191521 0&tid=95

someone's lying.

Good (3, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672441)

They targetted the apps, and there was an outcry here - "The tool has legitimate uses! Go after the users who misuse it!".

They targetted the companies/people producing the apps, and there was outcry here - "The tool has legitimate uses! Go after the users who misuse it!".

Now, they're targetting the users who misuse it - and yet still there is outcry here. How is this a YRO issue? You have no right to distribute copyrighted works without the copyright holder's permission. That's partly why the GPL exists, to grant you those rights.

Don't like it? Work to change it. But don't admonish the RIAA for upholding their rights, while cheering on others when they go after GPL violators.

File-Swappers (1)

NewStarRising (580196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10672452)

I can only presume that by "file-swappers" they mean the tiny sub-set of file-swappers: "Files-of RIAA-owned-Music Swappers" ?
The amount of files exchanged across the internet is HUGE, even compared to the P2P illegally-distributed-music downloads.
e-mail anyone? sounds like file-swapping to me.
Isn;t web-page-surfing file-swapping?
Can we get some consistent terminology?
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>