Music industry to sue hundreds of song-swappers Associated Press WASHINGTON -- The embattled music industry disclosed aggressive plans today 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 substantial sales declines, said it will begin Thursday to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify users who offer "substantial" collections of mp3 music 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 will 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, Carey 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." "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 were mistaken. "You are not anonymous," Sherman said. "We're going to begin taking names." 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 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. "We have no hard and fast rule on how many files you have to be distributing ... to come within our radar screen," Sherman said. "We will go after the worst offenders first." The RIAA said it expected to file "at least several hundred lawsuits" within eight to 10 weeks but will continue to file lawsuits afterward on a regular basis. ------------------- this will be interesting....
and they wonder why music sales are down...unbelievable... HELLO RIAA, ITS BECAUSE YOU PRODUCE CRAPPY MUSIC, NOT CUZ OF SHARING!!!!!!
ok, say they outlaw file sharing... what's to stop people from putting 200 songs a CD and giving it to a friend or two?
When hasn't the music industry produced crappy songs. I find that argument lame. Sales in CD singles are down 93% since 97. I doubt that's all about quality.
It seems pretty simple. Amazing that they just don't get it. I don't consider song swapping "stealing". What's the difference between that and taping a song off the radio in the old days? Or taping albums for your friends like the old days? Stealing is actually stealing a CD from the record store or downloading a CD then selling it for profit to someone else. I just don't see the harm in burning CD's for personal use.
So are they seriously going to try and find people who use stuff like Napster (now defunct) AudioGalaxy (defunct) or KaZaa and sue them? All I have to say is good luck. If I were to register for such services (he he) I would use a fake name, fake address, and public domain email account such as Yahoo. Try to find me via IP address? With DHCP on my cable modem? Besides wouldn't they have to show proof that I had the songs in question? Best of luck...
No sh**, that's like saying the ratings for the NBA Finals were down because not as many people watched. I know no one buys singles, because they download music.
CD single sales aren't an accurate measure of how downloading music has affected CD sales. I think this was rH's point.
So singles sales have magically and just coincidently dropped to almost zero at the same time more and more Americans have started using the internet. Are you telling me there is no correlation???
Yes, there is a correlation. But, how much are CD singles? Like $4? The RIAA is more concerned about CD ($15 ea) sales than they are about CD singles ($4 ea). Besides, I doubt CD singles were ever that big of a seller anyway.
You're right, and those sales are more than a billion dollars, but the percentage isn't nearly as great. So I think before we just write it off as the music sucks, there needs to be a comprehensive study done on the subject. Maybe the recording industry does need to look at their product, but I know sales aren't down just because the music sucks. I personally know people who haven't bought a CD in two years but have downloaded plenty of music.
Let's say a user is sharing around 1000 files. Would clearing his/her shared folder get them off the radar?
it's really sad that some file sharers with 56k modems would rather take a few hours to download one song instead of purchasing the cd. that shows how crappy cds are. perhaps if they had more than one good song and you didn't have to pay 15+ bucks for cds with only 7 songs on it... with 5 of those 7 being interludes. i can count on one hand out of the hundred cds that i have that i can listen to all the way through without skipping 5 songs to get to the next good tune. Coldplay, Radiohead, Portishead, System of a Down, Missy Elliott (even with the interludes)... i think that's all. well... of course you could always wait 10 years or so for a greatest hits album.
Another point. I'm glad that there are so many ppl downloading music. Music should be FREE. Fine, the artists need to get paid, I wholeheartedly agree. What? The freakin' $70 plus the new convenience tax that I pay to see an artist is not enough? Times have changed, deal with it. You can't sit around and make music that isn't any good and just expect to get rich over it. Here's an idea, charge $100 per ticket to see an artist and keep the music free. This will bring integrity back into the music. If you suck, well guess what? You're going to have to go back to working at Wendy's. However, if you make some quality music, ppl will gladly shell out $100 to go see you. More tours, better music, free music. It all works out. Of course, the rich execs will never do this, because it scares the **** out of them that they might actually have to work for a living. Ya know, like the rest of us who spend $70 for a concert or $15 for 2 good songs on an AOL CD.
I've bought like 6 CD's in the past month and a half... so don't tell me that file sharers don't buy CD's cause that's BS... also... i think i may have posted this in the wrong forum... (maybe?)
