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.
Everyone needs a hobby..
Then you should have no trouble convincing the court of this black and white distinction.
Good Luck.
The files are simply copied data.
When someone buys a CD,they do not 'own' the music,only the physical CD.They are merely 'renting' the music.Every CD clearly states this somewhere on the sleeve(rules for public broadcast etc etc),and when you purchase a CD you are entering into this agreement.
When someone copies and distributes this music via p2p as if they own the actual music,the original agreement is violated.Not only is it thievery,it is thievery thousands of times over.
Alot of people dont believe in copyright protection.But alot of people do not believe in 'ownership' of anything.It is the mark of a civilized society that other peoples work and creativity is protected.
Now, it's also really not that plausible for someone to put joints in my purse/car/house without my knowing about it. That's because #1, I don't go around letting people open my purse, and #2, I know very well if someone's using drugs or not (it's easy to spot them, even when not high, and it's especially easy since only people I know well come over) and I don't allow anyone like that in my house or car, because I don't want to be legally associated with it. What they do in their own home I don't question, but it's not done around me. Yes, I have had friends who have started using drugs, and no, they were no longer allowed in my car or house, and definately not near my purse. That is a controlled substance, which is entirely different from them having something that is legal for many people but not legal for others.
It is entirely plausible that someone could have used my computer and put things on it that I didn't know about.
Remember that this case is completely different from anything involving illicit drugs in yet another way. Computers are often shared and used by friends that come over. My friends often check their email, websurf, etc. on my computer when they are over. I do not watch them to see if they are doing something illegal. It is MUCH more likely I would know if they had illegal drugs in my house than that I would know they downloaded some songs and left them in the "share" file.
I think with a competent lawyer, you wouldn't get convicted. If you are attractive and good at seeming like you are a nice, honest and slightly stupid citizen, I doubt it would even make it to trial.
Not with the RIAA. Actually can't stand much of what the RIAA stands for. Sorry, wrong guy.
so why do they call it file swapping software and not "file stealing software"?
Oh, gee, I don't know -- is it maybe because the people who invent and use the programs like the euphemisms "sharing" and "swapping" better than the word "stealing"?
Good Lord. Is this place populated by any actual adults?
In my adult life, I haven't tossed anyone down the stairs in probably a week or more.
I think I'm mellowing somewhat with age.
Thats the key thing in my opinion, mp3's are inferior copies, and anyone who is willing to pay for the original content wont be satisfied with an inferior copy,
Folks that are satisfied with inferior copies arent serious music consumers to begin with.
No, the winners here will be artists, musicians and those others to whom they've legally transferred their copyrights. You know -- people who invested money, time and creative energy banking on the good faith that society would live up to the copyright laws it has written.
You may think that five years' worth of downloading technology suddenly mitigates centuries' worth of basic common law principles regarding copyright. The courts, I'm afraid, are apt to disagree. They're not quite so myopic.
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?
The problems with that are simple: I am not my brother's keeper, and zero tollerance via the court is something that western society has to have zero tollerance for. The entire downloading issue would have been far less of a problem if the record industry wouldn't have engaged in price-fixing (which the industry recently had to settle a lawsuit for) and clinging to a business model that technology is turning to dust. If you screw over your customers by using a monopoly on distribution, there is going to be a backlash by those customers. The industry helped turn a minor, underground illicit activity into something like Napster becasue the industry broke the law and abused their customers. I don't feel any more sorry for the RIAA than you do for the downloaders. Maybe if enough services like the one Apple is offering spring up, the market will re-balance itself, but not with the jack-booted tactics the RIAA is using.
That's what the RIAA has wanted all along. It's the big Record Labels that want to squash Napster, Kazaa, et al.
The RIAA has only been carrying water for the Big Labels because the Big Labels pay their salaries.
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.