Music Industry Cracks Down

[tonybradley]

It is also untrue to say that these lawsuits will cost the taxpayers money. Usually if you are sued for breaking the law part of your sentence is to pay the court costs and fees associated with bringing you to justice.

That is irrelevant if the person doesn't actually have the money. The judge still needs to be paid. The bailiff still needs to be paid. The prosecuting attorney still needs to be paid. The fact that they may add those fees to the final judgment against the accused isn't relevant if they don't have it to pay.

Also- the RIAA is a non profit organization. They do not themselves hold or make any money off of copyrighted materials. Instead they represent a large majority of the music industry copyright holders. So saying the the RIAA is greedy and just wants to make more money is a grossly inaccurate statement as they do not make any profit as dictated by SEC standards on what is a non-profit organization.

I knew someone would bring up this point and the fact that the RIAA doesn't work with artists- the labels do. I almost went back and edited some of my stuff to make it politically correct and then decided not to. The RIAA may be non-profit, but it is a non-profit made up of and representing the record labels and the industry. They are synonymous for the purpose of this discussion.

Besides, being a "non-profit" corporation certainly doesn't validate them as being altruistic or charitable. Non-profits are still corporations. For many non-profits it is just a legal way to avoid some other taxes by exploiting loopholes in tax code while still operating as a standard capitalist corporation.

An RIAA bot searches a P2P network looking for what it thinks is copyrighted music. Once it successfully finds something it thinks is copyrighted it will try to download it and any other songs that the "sharer" is offering. It will then also gather any information it can about the complete file list the person is sharing as well as the IP address of the "sharer." Once all of this data is gathered it is flagged for a human to listen to the music to make the determination if the music is the proper copyrighted material. If it is, you are marked to have a summons sent to you...

I agree that this is how they are doing it- but the P2P networks are already introducing versions of the client software that reroute connections through multiple proxies and use other methods to attempt to obfuscate the identity of the end-user. I am sure it is all breakable given enough time and resources but the RIAA has to decide how much time and resources they want to devote to this.

I agree that downloading illegal songs is stealing. I agree that the RIAA (translate="the music industry") has a right to enforce their copyright, enforce the law, and prosecute to the full extent of the law anyone found to be violating it.

They are technically within their rights. It is just a slippery slope and a very poor public relations and marketing decision on their part. And they need to stick to using and enforcing existing laws instead of lobbying for new laws or for exemptions for them to go around existing laws in tracking people down.

[mohaughn]

They are technically within their rights. It is just a slippery slope and a very poor public relations and marketing decision on their part. And they need to stick to using and enforcing existing laws instead of lobbying for new laws or for exemptions for them to go around existing laws in tracking people down.

I agree totally with your comments. I did not comment on these items specifically because you covered them sufficiently. I was moreso directing my comments to those that were trying to somehow justify breaking the law.

The only comment that I do have to make out of your post is that if the P2P networks develop software that circumvents current methodologies to identify music piracy, new laws will have to be developed. Copyright holders depends on the laws of this land to uphold their copyrights. If the laws cannot do that adequately due to changes in technology, the laws will have to be changed. So in a way it is the people who insist on creating new P2P networks that allow music piracy to continue anonymously that are causing the extra cost to be incurred.

If you are not distributing illegal items on P2P why does the technology have to change from how it is now? I think the legal system will also look much differently upon P2P systems that have anonymous features that are only there to foil law enforcement.

I forgot to comment on this -

That is irrelevant if the person doesn't actually have the money. The judge still needs to be paid. The bailiff still needs to be paid. The prosecuting attorney still needs to be paid. The fact that they may add those fees to the final judgment against the accused isn't relevant if they don't have it to pay.

So if you do something to me, let's say you break into my house and steal all of my stuff. Let's also assume that we are/were friends and that I know you are broke as hell. Am I then the one to blame because the state had to eat the cost of prosecuting you as you cannot repay the costs and I knew this going into it? Should I just let you go free instead of having the courts uphold the laws which is what they are designed to do? I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think the RIAA should be blamed for asking the courts of this country to uphold the laws that our democracy has agreed upon.

If anything the way in which one repays the courts should be re-addressed. If you can't pay it outright, then you have to go and work a city/county/state job without getting paid. This would then counteract the impact of the city/county/state having to pay for your trial. But this is an entirely different discussion.

[Director]

I've been following this on the Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/) -- reading each development as presented by their dry and very Brit sense of humer. Follow the link, and when you get there type "RIAA" into the search field near the top. If you're like me, you'll laugh your ass off at the recording industry's antics, groan at their stupidity, and find yourself looking for ways to fight back.

Speaking of fighting back, the RIAA website has been the subject of numerous hack attacks since this all began. There's a story about that in today's Register.

The Director

[THE RADICAL]

Heh heh,

mohaughn, I suggest you take a real big step back for a second... Look at the big picture here.

It is also rather silly to continue to bitch about albums sucking and only wanting one or two songs when you can legally go buy individual songs now for prices ranging from .59$ to 1.09$ a song.

Now usually, I must be insane, but usually when a band comes out with a song that you really like you don't go out and buy the single track so you can listen to it millions of times over again but instead, try and extend your musical horizons and buy the actual album and to support the band that made that song...

Let me guess here, you might be saying well if you do go out and buy it and it sucks, that was a poor decision on your part. Too bad $20.00 down the drain blah blah blah... why don't you listen to the 15sec mp3 sampler before you buy it... etc.

15 seconds Isn't enough dammit... I want to listen before I buy to the whole damn thing and I'm not gonna reach into my pockets and blow money. Wish I could... but I'm only 17 and I've got to take care of a bro. and a sis. not because mommy and daddy split but because they both have gotten screwed over by their employers (believe me heh I'm a realist for the most part so if they screwed up on the job I wouldn't mention this at all) but I'm getting off topic.

If your so sad about people making illegal CD's then campaign against CD burners.

I was moreso directing my comments to those that were trying to somehow justify breaking the law.

Oh give me a break, you call this a REAL crime, your all wet, you go off shouting about how it's not right to steal from artists that make millions upon millions of dollars and then when someone like me comes along you run and wrap yourself around the American flag and cry capitalism. Non-Profit... maybe not directly, but... step back further now...
indirectly now, of course there is.

There is so much more that we could be doing as a nation than crying about this. These people are well off as it is, give it up!

Wow...

[xmaddness]

Well, Since AO has felt they would take my RIAA post and move it off the front page (yet they leave this one *sigh*), I felt I would just post the link to the Project "Screw the RIAA" again.

http://www.planetmaddness.com/riaa

We are doing nothing "illegal", just a small experiment. Fell free to join up.

xmaddness

[valhallen]

5mb an mp3, 2gb = 400 songs
400 x $150,000 = $60,000,000

hmmmmm oh o (not saying that this is whats on my HD am just using average mp3 drive size =P)

v_Ln

[Scatman420]

Does anyone find it scary that they actually are suing people!? I hate these people trust me, but I hate losing money more. What will we do?

scat

[mohaughn]

15 seconds Isn't enough dammit... I want to listen before I buy to the whole damn thing and I'm not gonna reach into my pockets and blow money. Wish I could... but I'm only 17 and I've got to take care of a bro. and a sis. not because mommy and daddy split but because they both have gotten screwed over by their employers (believe me heh I'm a realist for the most part so if they screwed up on the job I wouldn't mention this at all) but I'm getting off topic.

I can name atleast 8 record stores in my local area that will let you listen to the entire album before you buy it. And honestly, I think if P2P is used in an ethical way it is a great way to preview albums. But how many people on here honestly use it that way? From the earlier posts on here that I was directing my comments at people will download an album, see that most of it sucks, and then keep the two or three songs that they like instead of going out and buying those particular songs.

Let me guess here, you might be saying well if you do go out and buy it and it sucks, that was a poor decision on your part. Too bad $20.00 down the drain blah blah blah... why don't you listen to the 15sec mp3 sampler before you buy it... etc.

You are putting words into my mouth here, the only time I mentioned anything about making a bad decision was to address people talking about artists getting ripped off.

Oh give me a break, you call this a REAL crime, your all wet, you go off shouting about how it's not right to steal from artists that make millions upon millions of dollars and then when someone like me comes along you run and wrap yourself around the American flag and cry capitalism. Non-Profit... maybe not directly, but... step back further now...

I don't know, maybe it is that I have thought about that their are other people in the music industry other than the artists. I tend to have to agree with the new marketting campaigns that show all of the little people who work in the industries from which people are stealing. How many sound engineers work on a particular album? I can assure you those sound engineers for the most part of not making much money at all. And again I ask, who are you to say that artists make to much money? Isn't that the American way? You would do well to do some research into the matter and you will find that almost all music artists make the vast majority of their money off of music licensing(for commercials and things like that), and touring not album sales.

I also do not agree with the RIAA that piracy alone is causing the decline in the industry. Instead I would have to say that almost all industries are in decline and it is moreso a factor of the economy. Nor do I really agree with the idea that going after all of these people is a good idea as I stated in my last post. I still don't think stealing music is right.

[valhallen]

sorry just had to add I can't remember who said it but i agree completly

the music industry is complaining that p2p software is to blame for the decline is music sales (single sales maybe but albumn sales are up) but it is not p2p software that is to blame it is the fact that all modern songs are **** !!!!

v_Ln

[Krimlin]

I believe in free music just as much as i believe in free information. The internet is a tool for getting both. I don't know much about the income of a music artist but wouldnt they make up for their losses by putting on more live concerts and stuff? Buying a CD and downloading it, I get the same experience from both, the songs. But there is no alternative to actually going to a concert. Did someone calculate out 3GB of music to be a 60,000,000$ fine? Damn, at one point I had 10GB on my HD.

Do anyones ISP's give them a set of rules, like things you can and cant do with your internet connection? cuz i mean they kinda gotta tell you if you doing something illegal dont they? My isp never gave me a set of rules, i could do whatever i wanted and just say "I didn't know" couldnt I?