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.
You basically hashed over the same things you and I have both already said. I'll make it a little clearer.
Differences:
#1-Drugs are less likely to be carelessly left behind because they cost money. Drugs cost money, and you don't leave money at someone's house very often, do you? Files would of course be left.
#2-Illegal files are not only free, they are non-portable. Even if someone emails or copies the file, the original stays on the computer unless deleted. Drugs are portable and would be expected to go with the person. Files=not.
#3-Everyone is capable of searching the house for drugs. Everyone is not capable of searching their computer.
#4-Drug users are generally easy to spot. Computer file sharers are not so easy. The dark socks worn with shorts may give some of them away, but too many of them look like normal people. ;)
#5-Considering #3 and #4, everyone can be expected to know when someone using drugs has been in their house and should be expected to look for illegal objects, and could reasonably be expected to find them. Everyone could not reasonably be expected to find illegal files.
#6-Everyone found with illegal drugs is not always even suspected of being in possession of those drugs. I've got family in law enforcement and I majored in criminal justice, with quite a lot of contact with those in the force. The gal with the drugs in her car who says the boyfriend did it usually has to show signs of being a drug user or have a large amount of the stuff to get arrested. If they are in her purse, then she knew about them. It's rare for someone to go in a woman's purse without her knowing about it, and even rarer that she would not check her purse and easily see the drugs within a half hour of being out somewhere.
The decision on who to arrest and prosecute is based on the circumstances. If the cops come to your house looking for illegal files, and you've got your shorts and black socks on, I'd recommend getting a good lawyer. If you are a regular Joe or a youngish kid, or especially a (non-horribly-ugly) woman, get the lawyer anyway, but I doubt it will make it to trial.
There are just too many differences in these cases for any competent lawyer to allow most of their clients to get convicted for something like this.
Do you really believe those gals that say their boyfriend put the pot in their purse? You believe they didn't know about it? To get off for something like that, you need a very good and airtight explanation of how something illegal came to be in your possession. If you could prove that your house had been broken in to the week before the cops busted you with a few joints under the couch, AND your house was messy so you can prove you don't clean very often, a good lawyer would make a case that the burglars left their pot behind. You'll have to have a VERY good explanation for why there was pot under the couch. Most people don't, because it was their pot.
What is a legal copy?
A legal copy would be one that is created by the copyright holder. An illegal copy would be one that is created without the copyright holder's permission.
Libraries/Music Resellers/Storefront Swaps offer what you deem as licensed copies that they haven't paid for. Royalties don't go to the industry.
You're confusing "paid for" as synonymous with "licensed." If I legally obtain a copyrighted work -- a CD, a book, a DVD -- I can do with it what I want. That includes reselling it to someone else, who can resell it to someone else, or give it away, or poop on it, or use it as a doorstop, or whatever. THEY JUST CAN'T MAKE A NEW COPY OF IT.
If this point is still confusing you, you may want to do a quick Google search on "doctrine of first sale."
As for time-shifting: The legendary Sony v. Betamax case was applied by the Supreme Court uniquely to television broadcasts, which were treated as distinct events. It was not intended to cover other forms of copyrighted work.
I can sell, swap, borrow and buy used music. Now, explain why downloading is different?
Well, to be honest, this is kind of frustrating, because it's been patiently explained in great detail throughout this thread. But here goes again: When you "sell, swap, borrow and buy" a CD, you are dealing with a licensed copy of that disc, created by the copyright holder. It doesn't matter how many times it goes on to be sold or swapped -- it remains a copy that was licensed by the copyright holder. But when you download or upload music on your computer, you are reproducing and/or distributing copies that were not licensed by the copyright holder.
CD you buy at Joe's Used CD Shop: a licensed copy.
Song you download on Kazaa: an unlicensed copy.
All very simple.
Unless they were intentionally left there. Maybe someone was worried about getting popped after leaving your house and think that either they will have a chance to retieve it later or left it there and forgot to grab it before they left. People who are high do the damnedest things that offen defy logic.
#3-Everyone is capable of searching the house for drugs. Everyone is not capable of searching their computer.
You might be able to convice a jury of that, but it will cost you a few grand in legal fees.
The decision on who to arrest and prosecute is based on the circumstances. If the cops come to your house looking for illegal files, and you've got your shorts and black socks on, I'd recommend getting a good lawyer. If you are a regular Joe or a youngish kid, or especially a (non-horribly-ugly) woman, get the lawyer anyway, but I doubt it will make it to trial.
And if you are lucky enough to have a judge, DA or RIAA lawyer looking to make an example of someone, you had better have a reincarnation of Raymond Burr on retainer because the jury will be your last hope. And if you have a judge, DA and/or RIAA lawyer who are of the same mindset, there's a pretty good chance that you will not be allowed to show the jury any evidence that would clear yourself. And a lot depends on what kind of court you end up in. In "criminal" court you have an even chance of being able to use constitutional protections. But if you are in civil court, due process is more easily avoided...again, especially if the judge is sympathetic to the RIAA's point of view. When these groups and individuals are looking to make an example of someone the last thing you want is their complete and undivided attention.
If you have considerable assests or just something that would make a nice trophy for some hack, I wouldn't take a day of your life on a dare.
Do you really believe those gals that say their boyfriend put the pot in their purse? You believe they didn't know about it?
I've known some gals who are "straight-through-the-skull blondes" who (1)are vapid enough to not know and (2)are not attractive enough to get out of it.
Wrong.
Lower55 responded: Wrong.
Care to elaborate? Which part is wrong -- that the CD you buy is a licensed copy? Or that the song you download is an unlicensed one?
the song you download is an unlicensed one?
Yes, that part is wrong.
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.