Posted on 06/25/2003 6:15:06 PM PDT by jimmccleod
Music Labels Step Up Internet Piracy Hunt
TED BRIDIS
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The embattled music industry disclosed plans Wednesday for an unprecedented escalation in its fight against Internet piracy, threatening to sue hundreds of individual computer users who illegally share music files online.
The Recording Industry Association of America, citing significant sales declines, said it will begin Thursday to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify music fans who offer "substantial" collections of MP3 song files for downloading.
It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.
Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a user's computer might qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.
The RIAA's president, Cary Sherman, said tens of millions of Internet users of popular file-sharing software after Thursday will expose themselves to "the real risk of having to face the music." He said the RIAA plans only to file lawsuits against Internet users in the United States.
"It's stealing. It's both wrong and illegal," Sherman said. Alluding to the court decisions, Sherman said Internet users who believe they can hide behind an alias online are mistaken. "You are not anonymous," Sherman said. "We're going to begin taking names."
Shopping at a Virgin Megastore in San Francisco, Jason Yoder was planning to delete file-sharing software he uses from his home computer because of the new lawsuit threat. He acknowledged using the Internet recently to find a copy of a rare 1970s soul recording, but he agreed that illegal downloads should be curtailed.
"It's sort of like a serial drunk driver has to have their license taken away at some point," said Yoder, 30.
Sharman Networks Ltd., which makes the popular Kazaa software and operates one of the world's largest file-sharing networks, said in a statement, "It is unfortunate that the RIAA has chosen to declare war on its customers by engaging in protracted and expensive litigation." Sharman said it was interested in a business relationship with music labels and could protect their songs from illegal downloads using technology.
Country songwriter Hugh Prestwood, who has worked with Randy Travis, Trisha Yearwood and Jimmy Buffett, likened the RIAA's effort to a roadside police officer on a busy highway.
"It doesn't take too many tickets to get everybody to obey the speed limit," Prestwood said.
Critics accused the RIAA of resorting to heavy-handed tactics likely to alienate millions of Internet file-sharers.
"This latest effort really indicates the recording industry has lost touch with reality completely," said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Does anyone think more lawsuits are going to be the answer? Today they have declared war on the American consumer."
Sherman disputed that consumers, who are gradually turning to legitimate Web sites to buy music legally, will object to the industry's latest efforts against pirates.
"You have to look at exactly who are your customers," he said. "You could say the same thing about shoplifters - are you worried about alienating them? All sorts of industries and retailers have come to the conclusion that they need to be able to protect their rights. We have come to the same conclusion."
Mike Godwin of Public Knowledge, a consumer group that has challenged broad crackdowns on file-sharing networks, said Wednesday's announcement was appropriate because it targeted users illegally sharing copyrighted files.
"I'm sure it's going to freak them out," Godwin said. "The free ride is over." He added: "I wouldn't be surprised if at least some people engaged in file-trading decide to resist and try to find ways to thwart the litigation strategy."
The entertainment industry has gradually escalated its fight against piracy. The RIAA has previously sued four college students it accused of making thousands of songs available for illegal downloading on campus networks. But Wednesday's announcement was the first effort to target users who offer music on broadly accessible, public networks.
The Motion Picture Association of America said it supported the efforts, but notably did not indicate it plans to file large numbers of civil lawsuits against Internet users who trade movies online.
MPAA Chief Jack Valenti said in a statement it was "our most sincere desire" to find technology solutions to protect digital copies of movies.
Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who has proposed giving the entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated music and movies, said the RIAA's actions were overdue. "It's about time," Berman said in a statement. "For too long ... file-traffickers have robbed copyright creators with impunity."
The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.
No,its only if you then make it available for others publicly.
Do libraries pay royalties to authors?
Not sure,but in some circumstances radio stations and clubs pay for public broadcast rights.
Is not FreeRepublic guilty of publishing copyrighted materials (excluding the LAT/WT) articles? Is someone guilty posting a picture taken by AP or some other news source without their expressed written permission? Do libraries pay royalties to authors?
One thing to keep in mind: For the most part, copyright law is the realm of civil, not criminal, law. In other words, alleged infringement is often in the eye of the infringed.
So, someone e-mailing you a pirated song, or giving you a burned CD -- these are not likely ripe for prosecution. Downloading songs, whether or not you own them -- that's a different story.
There are many, including me, who will tell you that Free Republic's posting of copyrighted material -- photos and stories -- is wrong. But again, infringement is in the eye of the infringed. Los Angeles Times and Washington Post have obviously been the only ones to see fit to pursue it.
As for libraries... sigh. Not the old library fallacy again. Yes, libraries pay royalties each time they purchase a book or CD. Once they own that media -- which is an authorized copy, unlike the stuff people download -- they can do with it whatever they want. Except for making new, unauthorized copies (like the stuff people download).
No one is asking you to be.. They just don't want YOU to steal..
They will deal with your brother later.
I am "western society" and I don't have a problem with it.
And all that stuff about their business model is beside the point. If you don't approve, then don't buy their product.
It's called "voting with your feet" and I do it all the time.
But you had better not steal it either, cause they will get you if you do..
Hundreds already have been sued for substantial amounts.Within the next month it will be thousands.Its not just the RIAA either,its worldwide.
No, they don't, for the same reason I outlined above with the library example.
I don't understand why this confuses people so much.
The video store rents authorized copies of copyrighted works. Each video on that shelf is is a single licensed copy, lawfully acquired. The video store can do whatever it wants with that piece of plastic.
What it CAN'T do is make and distribute a new, unauthorized copy. But that's precisely what happens on Kazaa -- millions of new, unauthorized copies being made and distributed every day, without permission from the copyright holders.
The difference between online downloading and the video store (or library) is very simple: One is copyright infringement, the other is not.
Because it represents a very large opportunity for the advancement of income for attorneys AND because the Big Record Labels want them to.
The RIAA doesn't sell anything. They are a marketing organization of lawyers. The Big Record Labels are the ones who have product to sell.
The RIAA is the attack dog that the Big Record Labels use to do their bidding.
Do the joints look exactly like regular cigarettes, and did the person put them inside a pack with other regular cigarettes?
The joints could look like the big fatties in a Cheech and Chong movie and be wrapped up in baggy with the word "JOINTS" written on them, but if they were stuffed under the sofa in your living room, your not likely to see them every day. But that won't stop a drug-sniffing dog from finding them during a DEA raid. Just like the illegal mp3 files could be named "PIRATED SONY RECORDS SONG.mp3" or the more innocent looking "innagoddadavida.mp3" and left in a directory you hardly look in. Posession is unlawful and subject to criminal sanction and in this case, civil penalty as well.
I could also claim complete ignorance of the way that the song downloading program works. I could plausibly claim complete ignorance that it was even on my computer. I am blonde, all it would take is a little white-out on my computer screen.
Let me introduce you to a legal phrase, here and now, before you end up trying to use that one: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." It's not right, it's not fair, but it's the law and judges and lawyers use it every day with great success. And if you are going to use the blonde defense, you better hope you have a male judge and a nice rack...and I don't mean spice rack! ;)
Nobody could claim that they didn't recognize the funny looking pills or joints in their purse.
I've seen a few women in court claim that...just before being found guilty. And not long after them was the girl who's boyfriend stashed a few hits of acid under the seat of her car...she managed to plead trafficing down to posession because she had a nice rack...and I STILL don't mean spice rack.
It doesn't have to be about drugs. It's about the execustion of law. A stolen bike has nothing to do with a stolen purse, but DA's will still treat both as theft cases. The rules of evidence for drug cases would just as easily be applied to copyright infringement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.