http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...030908/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music_lawsuits LOS ANGELES - The recording industry was filing hundreds of lawsuits Monday against individual music lovers whom music companies accuse of illegally downloading and sharing songs over the Internet, a music industry source said. The lawsuits, being filed in federal courts around the country, had been expected, as the industry has become increasingly aggressive in cracking down on the trading of pirated music files online. The source spoke on condition of anonymity. The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) was filing 261 lawsuits on behalf of its members, which include Universal Music Group, BMG, EMI, Sony Music and Warner Music, the industry source said. The music industry says file-sharing is a violation of copyright laws and blames the practice for a 31 percent decline in compact disc music sales in the last three years. The recording industry announced in June that it would target hundreds of individual computer users who illegally share music files, an aggressive gamble to cripple online piracy by suing fans. The announcement came just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to readily identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files. Earlier, the recording industry association sued four college students it accused of making thousands of songs available for illegal downloading on campus networks. The group settled those cases for $12,500 to $17,000 each. Monday's lawsuits resulted from subpoenas sent to Internet service providers and others seeking to identify roughly 1,600 people the group believes engaged in illegal music sharing. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has promised hearings on the industry's use of copyright subpoenas to track downloaders. Coleman has expressed concerns that the campaign could ensnare innocent people, such as parents and grandparents whose children and grandchildren are using their computers to download music. He also said some downloaders themselves might not know they are breaking the law. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but the industry group has said it would be open to settlement proposals from defendants.
Just one more step in the RIAA's flushing of its business. They are just like SCO now, the only way they can continue to pillage is to litigate instead of coming up with a product that is worth buying. It is a shame, though, that artists will suffer because of the RIAAs sins.
Its hillarious that all of you people criticizing the RIAA claim their product's aren't "worth buying" to justify downloading. If they aren't worth buying, why is everyone downloading?
I have 2 questions. 1) There used to be legal precedents which allowed me to make an audio cassette copy of musical material I had purchased and give that cassette to someone as long as I didn't make a profit from the sale. How is non-profit file sharing different? 2) What ever happened to the punishment fitting the crime? Am I the only one that thinks $750+ for one song is excessive? I could kill someone by breaking the speed limit but my speeding ticket fine wouldn't even be close to $750. To totally blame file sharing for a 31% drop in music sales is total BS. I don't know the formula the RIAA used but I am nearly positive that it includes some sort of estimate as to the number of times a file is swapped and backing that into a % of lost sales. The fallacy in the argument is that many swappers (especially the over 35 crowd which I'm a part of) would not have purchased the CD in the first place. For example, there are a great many Classic Rock tunes I would love to have...but there is no way in H*** that I would go spend the money even if a Kazaa fileshare system never existed. IMHO, the real reason for the drop in CD sales is a combination of our stagnant economy, short-sightedness and a lack of vision within the oligopoly which controls the industry, and an aging population demographic. For many of us, mortgages are more important than CD's.
2) What ever happened to the punishment fitting the crime? Am I the only one that thinks $750+ for one song is excessive? I could kill someone by breaking the speed limit but my speeding ticket fine wouldn't even be close to $750. I'm sure a lot of that is court costs and such. Your illegal actions made the RIAA have to waste money suing you, so you have to pay for that. The fallacy in the argument is that many swappers (especially the over 35 crowd which I'm a part of) would not have purchased the CD in the first place. For example, there are a great many Classic Rock tunes I would love to have...but there is no way in H*** that I would go spend the money even if a Kazaa fileshare system never existed. That's your choice. Doesn't give you the right to commit copyright infringement, and then assist in helping others commit it too. Those are the people the RIAA is suing - the ones that are facilitating the infringement rather than the end users. They are just like SCO now, the only way they can continue to pillage is to litigate instead of coming up with a product that is worth buying. The products were worth buying 5 years ago, apparently. And the SAME product is now being stolen. This whole "lower your price" crap is a boatload of BS from people trying to avoid responsibility for their behavior.
You've got the cart before the horse. The ability to share music had a 25 year history under the Fair Use Doctrine. That is why virtually no one was prosecuted for sharing audio tapes which were copied from phonographs (in the absence of profit). The fact that the RIAA used statistical data as proof to the courts that they were losing major amounts of money is what the cases hinged upon...not that copying in and of itself was wrong. A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004; see also MGM v. Grokster It was the monetary issue which short circuited the Fair Use Doctrine in the courts. That is why I question the methodology which yields a 31% sales drop as entirely file sharing related. While the RIAA was claiming losses of money, there were independent studies stating that they were actually making money. http://www.motherjones.com/mustreads/022701.html While this is my opinion, the facts are from the George Washington University Law School website. http://www.chillingeffects.org/index.cgi
Did you guys get a glimpse of the affidavit the RIAA wants you to sign swearing you'll stop swapping? Here it is...I took some liberties. CAUTION!!!***THIS LINK MAY HAVE A WORDY DIRD IN IT!
Among the people the RIAA is suing, is a twelve year old girl. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html I know people that are sharing music are guilty of copyright infringement, even if they are twelve, but this isn't going to look too for the RIAA ======================= NEW YORK — The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers — including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun. Click to learn more... Click to learn more... Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country. "I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother. "I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?" The Recording Industry Association of America (search) — a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits — couldn't answer that question. "We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss. Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals." Brianna's mom, Sylvia Torres, said the lawsuit was "a total shock." "My daughter was on the verge of tears when she found out about this," Torres said. The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge. Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said. When reporters visited teh apartment last night, Brianna — who her mom says is an honors student — was helping her brother with his homework. Brianna was among 261 people sued for copying thousands of songs via popular Internet file-sharing software — and thousands more suits could be on the way. "Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action." At the same time, the RIAA offered amnesty to file-swappers who come forward and agree to stop illegally downloading music over the Internet. People who already have been sued are not eligible for amnesty. Brianna and the others sued yesterday under federal copyright law could face penalties of up to $150,000 per song, but the RIAA has already settled some cases for as little as $3,000. "It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
