[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30875-2003Jun25.html[/url]

RIAA Plans Lawsuits Against File Traders

By David McGuire
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2003; 1:08 PM

The chief lobby group of the nation's major recording labels today said it is preparing hundreds of lawsuits against Internet users who illegally trade copyrighted music files.

The lawsuits will target people who share "substantial" amounts of copyrighted music, but anyone who shares illegal files is at risk, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a conference call today. The first round of lawsuits will be prepared during the next eight to 10 weeks. They will ask for injunctions and monetary damages against file swappers, Sherman said.

"We have no hard and fast rules about how many files you have to be distributing" to be targeted in the RIAA sweep, he said. "Any individual computer user who continues to steal music will face the very real risk of having to face the music."

There are 57 million Americans who use file-sharing services today, according to Boston-based research firm the Yankee Group. Among the most popular are Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster, which became prominent after the pioneering Napster service was shut down under a judicial order in 2001. Kazaa says that its file sharing software has been downloaded more than 200 million times.

The announcement is part of an attempt to rid the Internet of illegitimate versions of copyrighted works as it tries to find a way to encourage legitimate music download services. The RIAA has said that file-sharing services exist for few other reasons.

Record companies say file sharing is to blame for more than a billion dollars in lost CD sales, as well as millions in shrinking profits. The RIAA has focused most of its efforts on shutting down peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, but a federal judge in Los Angeles in April ruled that the sites have legal uses and should not be shut down. The recording industry instead is pursuing individual file traders.

The ruling came a day after another federal judge ruled that the RIAA could force Verizon Communications Inc., to hand over the names of four of its high-speed Internet service customers who were illegally trading large amounts of copyrighted music on the Kazaa network.

The Los Angeles decision helped pave the way for the RIAA's latest legal attack, said Sherman, who confirmed that the RIAA would use its subpoena power to obtain the names of file sharers from Internet providers.

File sharing "is not anonymous. You are engaging in an activity that's every bit as public as setting up a stall at a local flea market," he said.

Sherman said the RIAA is not targeting people who use P2P networks only for downloading, but he warned that the networks often contain technology that allows members to tap other users' hard drives to make copies of music files. That process can make a digital fence out of an unwitting network user, he said.

He pointed people to the Musicunited.org Web site, which contains instructions for uninstalling file-sharing programs and for disabling the functions that open users' music libraries to pirates.

Wayne Rosso, president of the West Indies-based Grokster file-trading service, said the RIAA's tactics are "nothing short of lunacy."

"I can't wait to see what happens when a congressman or senator's child is sued," he said. "They've taken leave of their senses. They lost their [Los Angeles] lawsuit against us and they're pissed about it, so their answer is to sue their customers.

"We know this piracy is wrong and can't go on, but for God's sake, they won't work with us under any circumstances," he added.

They can have my mp3's when they pry them from my cold dead fingers!
molon labe! (or however the hell you spell it)

Grokster this and Kazaa that.

When it's all over, there will still be USENET.

NOne here.  Never had any never will.

Anyways, I don't want Orin Hatch blowing up my puter.  It's the only one I have!

If anyone tries to create a law that says posting an mp3 to USENET is illegal, it will be immediately shot down because no mp3 ever gets posted.

They can't make it illegal simply because what gets posted to USENET isn't a binary file. It's an ascii attachment. The binary rendering is done at the local level after download. They would have to completely ban all forms of NNTP newsgroups, and in effort to legislate that, they would have to essentially ban the underlying technology that drives the entire internet.

They can try to ban USENET utility software, but that will sink like a lead balloon too.

They are shit out of luck on the newsgroups. The RIAA can suck my kielbasa.

The RIAA is pissed because they woke up one day and realized that the average consumer doesnt want to pay for shitty music anymore.

I would like to know how they plan on proving that individual "A" is the individual that supposedly D/Led music evidence "B", when it could just as easily have been a hijacked IP.

Or it could have been the plumber, working on your pipes, D/Ling the latest britany spears song while the solder melts.

Isn't there something called "proof" that is neccessary?

Maybe there decrease in sales is because the shit they sell sucks....american idol anyone?
Or how about 6 young white girls who sound exactly alike--christina spear, britney aguilara...etc etc...or how about one more whiner rock band or one more gangsta wannabe? I can't even find most of the stuff I listen to on any shelves.....Snake river comnspiracy..Meja...lots of Finnish stuff..screw them and Usenet will always be here.......join a newsgroup..it's not just for alt. binaries fluffy bunnies anymore....

Proof is required only in criminal court.  The requirement for civil court is only that something is more likely than not, tip the scale one way or another.

Can the tell which files were transferred??? Just because I label something as destinys child- that doesn't mean I was transfering a DC song. Fvuck those whiners. I refuse to pay $20 for a Cd. If I buy a cd, I can give it away to whomever I choose.

True, but since you seem knowledgable about law, you also know that you have to name your defendants with specificity.  You would have to PROVE that defendant A had IP address #145.34.168.84 in order to sue him.  

Imagine the consequences.... Cherry Dr. has 10 homes on it, all are connected to Verizon Cable modems.  One of the homes is sharing files, except you cannot prove it without access to records from both Kazaa, where your account is listed, then from Kazaa to your ISP (Verizon) who will then inform them of your address.

How else can they sue without that level of specificity of information?

You know, if I made a living leeching off of the talent of others (music), and I had no vision or ability to adapt (or find a creative outlet for my frustration), then I'd be just as bitter and jaded as any RIAA exec.  Can't blame them, really. Sure, we can see that it's all just the wild thrashing of a body that doesn't want to accept the fact that it's dying.  But you have to give them credit - their single mindedness does completely blind them to the truth.

fukk the riaa, friggin theives.

What total idiots.

Haven't they ever figured out that sharing of MP3's actually is a GOOD thing?    It's responsible for INCREASES in CD sales as people find music they like that they wouldn't have otherwise bought.

I view MP3's as a way to audition music.  The stuff that I like, I buy.   A lot of people do this.

I don't care to listen to MP3's for listening pleasure, though.  The quality is never as good as CD quality and I can hear the compression artifacts, and they bug me enough that it's an issue with me.   So I find music I like but for the compression artifacts, and then I go out and buy the CD.

"Try before you buy" actually works.  The RIAA needs to learn that, the stupid cocksuckers.

Anyway,  all transactions via Kazaa are encrypted.  If they were to try to hack into my transactions (and I'm not even an active Kazaa user anyway),  they would be committing a felony if they were monitoring this encrypted transmission,  and I would press charges against them in federal court.   I'd win, too.

CJ

The industry as we know it is changing..and they won't adapt..
therefore, their monoploy is dying.

The RIAA want to surpress MP3 so you can't find out about independant artists, indie artists, or the fact there might be one good song on a disc and the rest is FILLER.

and..they want to charge almost$20 for a disc...and they got caught on price fixing in court.

If they focused on developing talent instead of marketing, maybe the price of disc would be lower and the quality of music would be higher.

In the meantime, Iw ill continue to download to find new bands and support the ones I like.

Balzac72,
Point taken.  I freely admit that while I use the internet alot, I don't know alot about the technical details that drive it...more than some less than others.

I was actually just clarifying the misconception many people have about court.  That's why you see so many people getting ridiculous amounts of money for stupid things like spilling coffee on their lap.  However, come to think of it, copyright infringement I believe is criminal rather than civil and the burden of proof definitely higher.

Since everyone here's so big on personal responsibility, how many are gonna complain if they're slapped with fines that could be as high as $150k a song?

You know you illegally DL'ed copyrighted shit so pay up right?

Take responsibility for your own actions is what I always see around here.

Norman74 wrote:
> They can have my mp3's when they pry them
> from my cold dead fingers!
> molon labe! (or however the hell you spell it)

I've been saying that to my co-workers all week regarding our new internet policy.

Me: "I didnt sign that."

I've bought more stuff that I would have otherwise after being exposed to the mp3 via friends ( ;) ).

The RIAA is just doing this because they want money, and their grip on the industry is slipping.

There are more record labels out there now that are not associated with the RIAA in any form than I think there ever have been since the RIAA became established.

Their monopoly is starting to unravel.  

I hope they choke.

CJ

cmj.....perhaps you should look deeper into the issue....echelon, PGP, ISP server trunk taps,EU court case against US are good places to start...they already have all the info.

And none of it changes the fact that the evidence points to MP3 sharing as a factor that has actually INCREASED music sales.  

"Try before you buy"  WORKS.  If the RIAA had half a brain they'd give their blessing to at least some variation on the theme.

CJ

Hey, RIAA, listen up, in case none of the morons in your focus groups keyed you into this:

I (and assume many thousands of others) would happily shell out a few bucks (maybe as high as $3 or $5) to buy an individual MP3 file of the one or two songs that are actually good from most "albums" you're putting out these days.

The last CD I bought without previewing every song was the one by Seven Mary Three with "Cumbersome" on it.  EVERY OTHER SONG ON THAT GOD-FORSAKEN DISK SUCKED ASS.  I vowed never to waste my money again.  There have been a couple CDs I did buy after downloading and sampling the majority of the songs from it.

If they somehow manage to stop all the MP3 file swapping, I propose we all bring our laptops with CD burners to the range or other public places and just copy the original CDs without leaving a trace.

I really hope there is a huge backlash that comes out of this, along with boycotts and the works.  

A boycott would be real difficult because I really like music.  There are around 57 million "file sharers" in the US alone.  at about any given time you can find about 4 million users on Kazaa alone.  they cant get us all.  They have released this "news article" to scare John Q Public.  They may get a few high profile cases, but like you have all said, ultimately file sharing can only be good for the music industry.