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.
Actually this is perfectly legal and the RIAA receives a royalty on every blank cassette tape sold, whether or not the end-user puts RIAA music on it or not.
1) The RIAA tried to get a bill passed last year (sponsored by Sen. Ernest "There's too much consumin' goin' on out dere" Hollings) that would have created an exemption for them to hire hackers to go in and corrupt not only file sharing programs such as Kazaa, Grokster and Morpheus, but the files themselves as well, causing untold damage to the computer that downloads it.
2) The RIAA has deliberately raised fees on internet-only radio stations with the intent of wiping them out.
3) The RIAA and record companies conspired to keep prices for CDs high.
4) Record companies have intentionally sat on product they know there is a market for. (Case in point: Shortly after The Beatles Anthology Volume 3 was released, it was announced there was nothing more to release. I know for a fact, however, that is hogwash. There is still a lot of stuff out there (alternate takes and unreleased material, such as, Return To Commonwealth, Goodbye, All Things Must Pass) and they have been released, albeit in bootleg form. Judging from how Anthology sold, we know there is a market for this stuff. So why did EMI et al lie to us?)
And the same things applies to music that is out of print.
If record companies are not willing to make things available to the consumer, and there is a market for it, the consumer will be forced to go elsewhere for it.
Which is why blaming the consumer, and going to war with them, is the height of arrogance and stupidity within the record industry.
Actually, it's not. And as long as you are downloading songs for your own, personal use, it does not make any sense for the record industry to go after individuals who do it.
It reminds me of a sketch I had seen on the long dead ABC-TV series, Fridays. It featured a Howdy Doody-like marionette doing a show for children. But as soon as the camera turned off, the puppet became very nasty and belligerent with everyone within shouting distance.
Finally, after he defiantly shouts, "I don't need you! I don't need anybody!", the strings promptly fall away, and the puppet clunks onto the floor, where he stays until the camera goes to black.
My point, of course, is the music industry needs the consumer. In fact, it is wholly dependent upon it. How far do you think they will get if they arrogantly alienate us?
About as far as that puppet.
It's called "the purchasing power of the consumer", and a cliche is "let their wallets do their talking". These are legal and respected ways of dealing with the RIAA if you are unhappy with them.
Stealing their property and giving it away to others is not.
It is comforting to know that recording industry is not affected by the present economical situation and that file-sharing is the main problem. Hopefuly the emerging Indian and Chinese markets will help.
I already made comments above, but in addition, and most importantly, 'illegal distribution of solen property' is not a business.
No, not a business, what it is, is unfair competition - that no one profits from. And because the cost is 'free', it is certainly is appealing to the consumer, and turns them mostly into thieves.
Your end model is a situation where unfairly competitive stolen copies of music dominate the market, and no one makes any money or invests in music killing the industry completely. Along with encouraging further moral decline of the consumers. I really so no benefit to this line of thinking whatsoever.
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.