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.
What percent of the sales price is the IP worth?
Where can I bring a case of unlistenable lps, tapes, cds to be exchanged for new copies? How much should they cost to replace?
If one buys a cd, loses it, then get's a copy from a friend, did one pay the licensing fee?
If your home burns, and you lose a 500 cd collection, do you have to replace it at full price?
What if the albums are no longer available?
How many times should one pay the piper for the same song?
Say what?? What does any of this have to do with the rights of copyright holders, or the status of authorized/unauthorized copies of copyrighted work?
Could you please elaborate on the reasons that you think:
1. A CD at Joe's Used CD Shop is not a licensed copy.
2. A song you download on Kazaa is not an unlicensed copy.
Everything.
Such as: ---, ---, ---? Please fill in the blanks.
And please answer the rest of the previous post:
Could you please elaborate on the reasons that you think:
1. A CD at Joe's Used CD Shop is not a licensed copy.
2. A song you download on Kazaa is not an unlicensed copy.
1. This is a business making a profit selling a cd and not allowing the copyright holder any benefit from the sale. This is clearly wrong. Also, used book stores are doing the same underhanded practice.
2. A song from Kazaa "could" be an unlicensed copy if.......
A. the song has a valid copyright in the first place ...and (aa.) it was never played on a radio station or anywhere it could be heard for free (bb.) the Copyright holder doesn't want you the hear it
B. A person has never bought the song at any time in the past and paid the "piper" already
1. This is a business making a profit selling a cd and not allowing the copyright holder any benefit from the sale. This is clearly wrong. Also, used book stores are doing the same underhanded practice.
This is not an underhanded practice. I suggest you look up something called the "doctrine of first sale." A copyright holder maintains rights to royalties only on an initial purchase. From there, the disc or book or whatever is the owner's to do with as he wishes. (Except to make a copy.)
A song from Kazaa "could" be an unlicensed copy if... A. the song has a valid copyright in the first place
Well, every piece of work is inherently copyrighted. Only work that has fallen into the public domain would be exempt.
(aa.) it was never played on a radio station or anywhere it could be heard for free
This is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything. I mean, you're essentially just making stuff up at this point.
(bb.) the Copyright holder doesn't want you the hear it
Bingo.
B. A person has never bought the song at any time in the past and paid the "piper" already
This is irrelevant. "Buying the song" at some point in the past does not empower you to infringe a copyright holder's exclusive right to reproduce and distribute his work.
When was your first post on this issue? How many have you made since then? That's an awful lot of posts, and an awful lot of points.
Fact is, when you made your post here and then tried to back it up here (after being asked to do so no less than three times), I knew you had left Ignorance behind in your rearview mirror for Stupidville, howling like Gary Busey in The Gumball Rally.
If you are right,then.....
I buy a cd from a record shop... I make my "allowed" single copy for my mini-disc player...... I give the cd to a friend...... The cd is his now (there are now two legitimate copies)...... He makes a copy for his computer...... and so on...... and so on......
Or someone could call and request the song on the radio......then everyone (that wanted one) could have a copy simultaneously
For example: Recording the content onto a cassette tape for your own personal use.
Recording a song off of a radio is also prohibited, even if for your own personal use.
In fact, "personal use", in and of itself, is a term opposed by the RIAA.
Where did I say that?
No, actually, recording a copy onto a cassette tape for personal use is defensible under fair use.
You were describing the scenario of a song on Kazaa. Distribution is inherent to that scenario. "File-sharing" is a distribution of files.
Such as playing it on the radio????
And a farmer who has his watermelon patch raided is distributing watermelons.
You are much worse off than I thought.
But, since you actually require me to explain it:
You said songwriters need that copyright protection so they can feed their kids, implying these people are dirt poor.
After my asking you three times, you give a response that reminded me of an occurrence at a university on the east coast ten years ago: As part of a class, a group of female students posted a sign bearing the names of every male member of the student body at that university, under the legend, All of the below are potential rapists. The insinuation, of course, was that all boys are potential rapists.
With your suggestion in the latter linked post all songwriters are dirt poor, you were making an absolutely incredulous and absurd statement on par with Jhoffa's "Don't like the RIAA and record companies? Then don't listen to music."
In fact, judging from your and his posts in this thread alone, it seems you are once again engaged in a race to the summit of the mountain called obnoxiousness.
Exactly correct, and it remains the modus operandi of the internet pirates attempting to justify their thievery on internet message boards. They simply refuse to objectively look at the personal responsibility of their own actions, and subsequently incorrectly conclude what they ultimately represent. Much like the alcoholic, who without admission of what his actions indicate, instead blame others and continue their path of self destruction. Good luck in your efforts to educate and enlighten, unfortunately many have simply becomed 'hooked' on free music and will never be cured without equivalent education as provided in 'detox' programs.
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.