RIAA Sues Nearly 500 New Swappers 637
Digitus1337 writes "Wired has the story. " U.S. music industry group says it has sued 493 more people for copyright infringement as part of its campaign to stop consumers from copying music over the Internet.
The Recording Industry Association of America has now sued nearly 3,000 individuals since last September in an attempt to discourage people from copying songs through peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa and LimeWire." "
LimeWire is NOT a network! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I wonder... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I wonder... (Score:2, Informative)
Representation (Score:5, Informative)
"According to the study, 60 percent of those surveyed do not believe the RIAA's efforts to halt file sharing through lawsuits will benefit musicians and songwriters.
Additionally, 35 percent believe free downloading has helped their careers, 37 percent believe it has not had any effect and only 5 percent believe it has exclusively hurt their careers. Of those interviewed, 83 percent have provided free samples of their music online."
Re:LimeWire is NOT a network! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Informative)
... all is not lost (Score:3, Informative)
Regards,
John
Re:"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:3, Informative)
That's exactly what these John Doe suits are basically doing. They don't need the name and address of the person you're suing, they just need enough info to uniquely identify the person, and then they can use a subpeona to force the ISP to disclose who that person is. Without the filing of the John Doe case, the ISP wouldn't have to co-operate.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
You represent yourself, you find a lawyer that will work pro bono, you settle, or you admit liability.
Don't like it? Don't buy RIAA-affiliated releases (Score:2, Informative)
The RIAA radar [magnetbox.com] can be a good place to start looking.
Re:I wonder... (Score:1, Informative)
Why is everyone getting this wrong? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:2, Informative)
Re:DC++ (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Excellent point (Score:5, Informative)
If it is downloading, then that means that a new copy is being created in the US, and that's infringing. Even if it were construed as importation (which it is not) then it is still infringing as it is pretty damn likely a piratical copy by US standards, regardless of the situation in Russia. Take a look at 17 USC 106, 602, the MAI v. Peak case, and the Quality King case.
The bottom line is, you cannot expect foreign legal standards to apply within the US. It's like arguing that the US' First Amendment protects foreigners from foreign governments.
Re:Whats up with this? (Score:3, Informative)
When you borrow a book -- or whatever -- from the library, it is an instance of a lawful copy of the work being distributed. While this could be illegal per 17 USC 106, it is not when you take into consideration the exception in 109. 109 basically says that it's okay to distribute lawful copies of works, if your posession of them is lawful. Or, more simply, if a copy was bought from the copyright holder, it can be resold, lent out, and otherwise redistributed to people.
OTOH, when you download the text of a book, you are creating a new copy, and that does violate 17 USC 106. As there's typically no applicable exception to it that could protect you, you're hosed.
Will video games, or other pieces of software ever be legal to borrow from the local library?
The trick with this is that when you run or install software, copies are typically made in the process. There is an exception at 117, but the way it's written doesn't make it very applicable to that situation. Plus of course, there are numerous questions regarding EULAs that altogether make things too hairy for libraries to risk it.
Are libaries legal only if run by the government?
No -- there are numerous private libraries, some of great distinction.
Are only non-profit libraries legal?
No, but it helps to be a non-profit library. For-profit libraries don't receive the benefit of some exemptions to the law. But they do exist. Movie rental stores are probably the most well known example.
Could I open my OWN library and let people borrow my CDs and books?
Books, yes. CDs, it might depend, when you get into the guts of 109.
Uploading, not downloading (Score:5, Informative)
However, in both these cases - the producers downloading, and the CD-owning user downloading - the person uploading is guilty of copyright infringement, since they do not have distribution rights. Thus, the uploader, provided they aren't the distribution house or the artist, is committing a crime, and it's the uploaders that the RIAA is going after.
Now, it so happens that to prevent leeching, Kazaa, Gnutella, Limewire, etc. all put your downloads into a "shared" folder for uploading... so if you download something, you're uploading it too. The RIAA uses this to publicize that they're going after "downloaders" rather than "uploaders", but the truth is that they can only find uploaders.
To be safe, leech. It's not nice to the rest of the community, but 'no honor among thieves' and whatnot.
Not that I do either.
-T
Re:What about CD owners? (Score:3, Informative)
While I agree that this is subject to some limitations, it's still a very broad, overarching right that is counter to the earlier claim that a single backup copy of damn near anything is legal.
Would anyone care to show an exception to 106 that does permit a single backup copy of damn near anything? And I should caution you that you cannot make valid blanket statements as to what is and is not permitted by 107.
"John Doe" lawsuits aren't more dangerous- SOLs (Score:3, Informative)
In general, a plainitff is allowed to amend a complaint for errors in the complaint, and have those amendmends reach back to the orignal filing date for SOL purpose. Courts (at least in my Circuit), however, have ruled that the practice of naming John Does for unknown defendnats is not an "error", and therefore, ameneding the complaint with the person's name does track back to the filing date for the SOL--See Aslandis v. US Lines Inc or Barrow v. Wehtersfieddl Polic department. (I just had to research this -IANAL, IAA paralegal on his way to law school)
So, you break the law, either by trading copyriighted files or rapig someone. You are i danger of a lawsuit until your SOL expires. Wether they figure out who you are first and sue you, or sue forst and then figure it out, you still have the same exposure to litigation. In these RIAA cases, I'm guessing the RIAA goes ahead and files anyways to make it easier to obtain subpoenas, plus they get publiciity.
How far will the RIAA go to stop music downloads? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sue to discourage swapping, or make money" (Score:2, Informative)
It's not exactly cheap for them to do this. They'd probably be lucky to recover their legal expenses in the cases that they settle (and of course they don't get anything in the cases that they drop or lose).
Lawsuits against individuals (who may have little financial resources) is not a very effective game -- lawsuits are only a good income source if you sue someone who has some money (e.g. a big corporation)
Sue the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
It would be a boon to cutting the RIAA down to size if these artists sued the RIAA.
It would be hilarious to read about the RIAA suing people for stealing music while they would be under litigation for doing the same.
It might just embarrass them enough to stop, but even if they continued in their historical stupidity it would definately poison their public image enough to reduce their influence.
Steve
Re:Why is everyone getting this wrong? (Score:3, Informative)
"Anyways, as for downloading not being illegal, yes and no. If you own the physical CD, it is legal to format shift it onto your computer... Whether that means you stick the CD in your drive and rip it, or download the tracks from Kazaa, both are legal methods of format shifting."
The original Napster tried this argument, as well. It didn't work in their case. Here's an excellent summary [ivanhoffman.com].
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I call bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to listen to a certain song, you currently have several LEGAL options:
A. Buy the album (or single if available) on CD.
Hmm, lets overpay for music, knowing the artist won't get any of the money anyway, and buy 13 songs I don't want to get one I do.
B. Purchase the song from an online distributor like iTunes.
This is overpaying even more than a CD, you pay the same price as a CD costs for the music, but get no CD, booklet, or Case, and you get many more restrictions on use.
C. Listen to it on the radio.
Most of the good music isn't on the radio. thank you Clear Channel and friends.
Now What???
Re:Excellent point (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
The significant fact was that the BBS was not a site that charged any money. There was no law against noncommercial copying of files. After all, the copyright laws were created by Congress to protect one publisher from another in order to encourage publication. There wasn't originally any intention to prevent individuals from sharing publications at no cost. In fact the creation of public libraries was specifically for the purpose of encouraging the spread of copyrighted publications (books, magazines, recordings and eventually video recordings) at no charge except for late fees.
So when technology evolved to the point that people could spread copyrighted material at no significant cost to everyone else why was this a BAD THING (TM)? Are people so short sighted that they believe all literary, musical, scientific activity would come to a halt? These people want to take what is naturally plentiful (copies) and try to make it behave as though it were scarce. And until 10 years ago there wasn't even a law against non-commercial copying.
Our Constitution included the clause about trying to promote the progress of art and science NOT a clause about creating artificial scarcity for the benefit of corporations defending business models that may or may not work as new technologies emerge. Maybe, just maybe, it will no longer be economically viable to create summer blockbuster movies that require hundreds of millions of dollars to create and promote. I would sort of miss them. BUT SO WHAT?
When you have a new law (forbidding non-commercial copying being less than 10 years old) being flouted by tens of millions of people, I think there is a real issue of our legislators being bought by very narrow special interests. Remember all you moral absolutists, it wasn't even illegal 10 years ago. This is questionable legislation being passed by lap dog legislators creating artificial scarcity for the benefit of a few wealthy, powerful corporations.
OK, you may now resume your (making a copy of a digital file = stealing expensive sports cars) nonsense.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Informative)
That's not true. You'll have to file for bankruptcy, and that will make your life difficult down the road (for example, it will severely hurt your credit and can make it harder to get certain jobs).