RIAA File-Sharing Lawsuits Top 10,000 People Sued 490
An anonymous reader writes "While Firefox broke the 50,000,000 barrier today, the RIAA broke a more
dubious barrier this week: It has now sued over
10,000 file sharers for copyright infringement, making it a good time to ask
if the RIAA will ever throw in the towel. Taking an academic look at
what's best for the industry, this
economics article shows the financial upside to P2P file sharing. And
on the flip side, this
legal article argues that file swappers have a constitutional right to pay
much smaller penalties than the millions of dollars they can be liable for under
copyright law, making the RIAA's lawsuits much less profitable."
throw in the towel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't your corner only throw in the towel if you're getting your ass kicked? From what I understand, the RIAA is settling nearly each of these cases out of court for a substantial profit. If that's the case, why would they ever throw in the towel?
The RIAA Will Never Quit (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't really matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, the RIAA can't keep up forever.
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:2, Insightful)
The towel will be tossed (Score:4, Insightful)
However, as time goes on the effects will diminish and they will look even more foolish.
You fund this by buying CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Profits from suing (Score:5, Insightful)
How right you are! Imagine, 10k lawsuits. Let's assume that each one of them settles for an average of $5k (a pittance compared to what they could get by copyright law, and I believe many of these settlements are much higher).
At $5k a pop, 10k of these settlements is worth $50,000,000 dollars.
How long will it be before the profits from lawsuits exceeds that of music licensing for the RIAA? Is it really that far fetched to imagine? Settlements are better business than records ($5k vs. $9)...
Perhaps, like antivirus companies spinning virus out into the wild, the RIAA will begin quietly sponsoring P2P programming efforts in an attempt to expand their new market (defendants)...
These are strange times...
They will stop.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Insightful)
> these cases out of court for a substantial profit. If that's
That is exactly correct. So far one person has stood up and resisted settling out of court.
So a press release saying the RIAA has sued 10,000 people is a complete fabrication. The RIAA has threatened to take people to court for everything they own over IP violations, and the people have backed down and paid multiple-K settlements instead.
They haven't paid the RIAA through judgments, they haven't paid *fines* to the RIAA, they haven't paid legally required fees to the RIAA, they have paid a *settlement* to the RIAA in order for the RIAA to not go ahead with legal action.
Repeat after me: The RIAA have not yet sued anyone. They have applied extortion using the threat of a costly legal battle involving megacorporation vs one individual.
Re:How about trying to 'fix' it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They will stop.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:New business plan... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA Will Never Quit (Score:5, Insightful)
The xxAAs aren't going to stop until ... (Score:3, Insightful)
They're in the business of sueing people until they don't have a reason to do so anymore. That's what they've been doing since the nineteenth century and before.
Every advance from the piano roll to the MP3 has been met with the kind of dogged, to the death, resistance normally encountered in a Pit Bull arena.
When you're stealing other people's creativity and have none of your own, you defend your right to be a parasite with legal anti-piperazine.
Of course, every now and they they go too far and get their wrists slapped, like the last time they were convicted of price fixing in California.
They emptied they warehouses filled with every piece of back catalog crap that time. "We ripped you off. Have this audio dog, uh, wonderful vynil recording of "Milton Freebish sings 'Sony and Cher'" album to make up for it."
You want's to get them to cease and desist, you have to figure out a way that they can keep on collecting money for other people work every second of every day.
That's when they'll shut up. Not before. They're thieves egardless of how they justify it. And YOU are going to have to find them a new pocket to live in.
OK (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted that copyright infringement is against the law and should be pursued more by the government like other crimes that the government has established, I wish the government would rerecognise their belief in a free economy and that no company has any right to profit nor compensation for loss of profit.
I don't do MP3, so I'm free of this, but the core here is not copyright infringement, but rather the price of distribution of a product. This is pretty much exclusively what the RIAA companies make money on. The sale of an aluminum disc impregnated in plastic. However, these guys are getting their music in an inferior format with a different distribution channel at a much lower cost of distribution.
Am I missing something, or is this how supply and demand works? I pay 80+ dollars a month for cable and about 40 for broadband internet that satisfies a good deal of my music concerns. I just paid almost $2,000 for my car stereo in my new car and I buy blank CDs in bulk. In the past week I spent about $150 in concert tickets.
What the fuck else do these people want from me? Its getting to the point that it almost appears more productive to simply go to prison or jail the rest of ones life, but even then your subject to chronic searches and whatnot to make sure your not doing what your "supposed" to do while there.
In summary, fuck you RIAA. Provide at some bare minimum a competing product to p2p downloads, or just go away. Music has lasted before you, and will outlast you. Your relationship with the music industry is entirely up to you. So long as you are providing a valuable product to consumers, you will exist. So long as you sue your customers, your annoying.
RIAA and the long-tail (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, RIAA, I'll wager, is more concerned with preserving blockbuster artists than in promoting obscure ones. It's easier (and more ego-boosting) to ride the back of a Britney Spears than it is to promote a thousand no-name bands. Moreover, its more cost-efficient for music distributors to sell 10 million copies of one album than hassle with selling 15,000 copies of a 1000 artists. Even in a digital age, creating a distribution relationship with 1000 artists is harder (and less sexy) than having a single relationship with a megastar .
Fragmentation of people's musical interests is not in RIAA's best interests even if it expands the total music industry by more effectgively matching content creators to content consumers.
what's wrong with this picture? (Score:1, Insightful)
it looks as though the US Government is trying to place more importance on intellectual property (ip), without regard for individual rights and rights of fair use. first, there is that insane law that's just been passed about getting 3 years for distributing a pre release video. it feels that it will only be a matter of time before the audio version of this come out, and/or all digital content being entirely painted with criminal penalties.
the problem here is that individuals have come up with new ways of distributing content using the internet that the big players do not know how to incorporate into their business models without (they think) losing money. why is that? do they really think that sueing everyone into submission will insure that their content will not be distributed? and even if the US succeeds in 100% preventing ANY file sharing or content ripping, what about the rest of the world? will they extradite all of their 'criminals' so that the US can put them all in jail?
the content creators need to find that fast, easy distribution method that consumers will pay for. the government needs to stop giving away your rights, and finally, the people need to stop giving the politicians the ability to do this. how has this happened?
Other statistics I'm interested in. (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of the suits have gone to court, rather than being extorted... urr... "settled" out of court?
Of those that weren't settled out of court, how many are slated to go to trial?
Of those that have gone to trial, what are the results of the trail? How many traders were found guilty? What evidence has the RIAA presented thus far?
THAT is the information I'm more interested in. They can sue as many people as they want. I want to know what the results of those suits are.
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, not quite right -- in all likelihood, the per-case settlement amount is less than the per-case legal expenses.
Re:Profits from suing (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably $500 investment for a $5,000 profit. Not a bad return on investment. I don't think they will throw in the towel on that rate of return anytime soon.
Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all music translates well to concerts. Not all artists want to or have the health/lifestyle that permits them to tour or play live continuously. Some depend on album money and honestly wouldn't produce any music without it. I believe the current market can sustain casual downloading if it is followed up with enough music purchases, but you can't enforce that and if people were told tomorrow that such an honor system was in effect the industry may very well be bankrupt by the end of the year.
Watch the lifecycle of a BitTorrent stream if you don't believe me. Features like ratio-enforcement and banning appear because if you rely on the goodwill of the masses you'll get screwed over. That doesn't even take money into account -- just bandwidth.
Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
The lure of being in those industries is the money that can be made... now there is a cultural revolution against that business model. The time is right for revolution...so to speak.
We keep talking about what is right and what is wrong, but we seem to skip over the facts. The facts simply stated, are that the law supports an outdated business model. The music and film industries cannot continue to force their ethics on the populace when the populace is revolting. Music and video content is simply not worth what is being charged. The current distribution and licensing practices DO NOT work in the information age. They used to work, but no longer. When anyone with a basement and some cheap electronic technology can duplicate what big industry is charging huge dollars for is common place as it is today, the old business models don't work.
Its time for the music and movie industry to get into the 20th century (yes, I said that right). Its time for them to get with reality. Sure, they deserve to be paid for their work, just like the rest of us, but like the airline industry, they do not deserve to be propped up by government so they can survive. If they cannot survive the changes on their own, so be it. Its time for a change, the old ways are not working.
Still, I have not seen or read any evidence that file sharing has damaged either industry, yet they seem to have the government's permission to harm anyone they feel like. This smacks of conspiracy and business based totalitarianism.
Sure, you can tell me that I'm wrong, that I have not respected the rights of these industries, but I have done something that you did not expect.... I have stated that its time for evolution or revolution. I don't particularly care if they go broke... there are literally millions of artists that want a cheap and easy way to get their art to the masses without having to deal with those big companies and their bias.
Anyone that thinks this is about the law is just kidding themselves... this is about evolution. It is time for thing to change. I'm tired of paying taxes just in case I decide to break a law, I'm tired of being thought to break the law before I actually do, I'm tired of people trying to enact law to prevent me from breaking other exisiting laws.
If business finds that the current laws are unenforcable, they need to look at what they are doing and how they are making their money. Small businesses have to weigh the value of persuing a patent infringement case against larger companies and individuals against what is good for the business. The music and video industries have SO MUCH MONEY that they don't have to worry about it... they just bring the litigation because the cost is a pittance against what they stand to gain. The patent and copyright laws have, in essence, broken the anti-trust laws, in order to protect the very rich and powerful, those that don't need protection.
They have successfully perverted the intent and design of the laws they use to protect their profits.
IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE... EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION
YMMV
Re:Profits from suing (Score:4, Insightful)
How much do the lawyers get?
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Insightful)
The mere fact that the RIAA knows who is doing the file sharing is a result of them filing lawsuits. Judges have limited the scope of the RIAA's legal activities at least twice. The first action required the RIAA to file a John Doe lawsuit, rather than merely requesting customer identities from ISPs under the DMCA. The second action, filed last year, requires the RIAA to file separate lawsuits for every John Doe they wish to challenge.
The RIAA is obviously suing - if they didn't, they wouldn't know where to send the extortion (err, settlement) letters.
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's never been about stopping the P2P flood. It's always been about making money.
Re:You fund this by buying CDs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm betting virtually everyone who is served by the RIAA are counseled by their lawyers to settle. Do the math - pay a settlement that'll be less than your legal fees or face the prospect of a court ordered fine that crushes you financially from now to retirement.
Small wonder people reach settle.
outrage (Score:2, Insightful)
Firstly, 10k sued? I'm not sure if settling out of court counts as a lawsuit. You'd actually have to go to court.
This sensational language and the outright, blatant lies common in recent /. headlines are forcing me to call /. an overblown Internet tabloid, infested with a veritable hive of juveniles and self-absorbed laymen. But that's beside the point.
How about this: stop the rhetoric. Then join the EFF. Convert your BS to something much less so.
Re:Vote with your wallet (Score:3, Insightful)
Any "artist" that signs a deal with the RIAA knows full well that he is making a deal with the Devil before he drops his John Hancock, is morally complicit in the RIAA's legal intimidation tactics, and so far as I'm concerned has no right to any sympathy from me or anyone else. I've felt this way since I first began to research copyright and the music industry back in 1983 or thereabouts
Re:You fund this by buying CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I believe 10,000 lawsuits by the same entity in the span of less than two years indicates that something is broken in the legal system.
Re:ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Go away, you're not 21 (Score:3, Insightful)
then more people would PAY to get into venues where my band is playing.
It's too bad that most bands shut out a lot of potential ticket buyers by playing in bars.
Each year who do you think the wealthiest musicians are? THE ONES WHO ARE TOURING! I've never seen someone make that list just off of CD sales
What does that say about musicians in genres not as conducive to live performance?
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Suing people they have traced infringing their copyrights by downloading RIAA music over P2P sources. Let's look at it from the other side here. The people being sued have (probably) broken the law themselves to get into this position. How exactly is this situation "extortion" if the person broke the law in the first place? I mean, legally the RIAA is entitled to the damages that the law permits them to receive from these law-breakers. It's being lenient to allow these law-breakers to settle for so little.
Yes, it may be unfair if you legitimately didn't do it, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of the people that the RIAA is suing actually broke the laws in question. Chances are, these people have been chronically breaking the law, and there's probably a huge paper trail.
Re:The xxAAs aren't going to stop until ... (Score:1, Insightful)
After the so called 'copyright extension' Sony Bono Act, they decided to pillage billions of copyrighted works ( how many copyrighted works do you think are created in a 20 year period? Billions is IMHO a big understatement ) from the several hundred million people that constitute the public domain in the USA. The dollar value of this heist is nearly incomprehensible even if you impose a mere single dollar per infringement cost, let alone the hundreds or thousands of dollars that the RIAA routinely claims as damage for each work.
I figure the RIAA owes me and everyone else a stinking great amount of money in damages, and see no problem in repossessing this from them via any means possible, including the download their precious 'art'
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's that you, at the time had one. They just want to look at it now. If you didn't have one, you need only say so. But don't lie, since then you start getting into trouble.
You seem to keep trying to lie in order to escape justice. This usually comes out in the end, and it doesn't work well for you.
3) Contempt Of what? RIAA?!? If it's "Of Court", then it is the COURT ordering I turn over the computer, and I'll send it to the court, NOT the RIAA.
If you don't comply with a discovery request, the requestor goes to court to get a court order demanding that you comply with the discovery request. If you still do not do so, you are in contempt of court, and the court may fine or jail you until you turn it over to the party making the request. The court doesn't want to see the computer. Frankly, it likes it when people settle.
Looking at evidence is the job of the parties; they winnow it down to what they cannot agree on. Then, if there is anything they can't agree on, that gets decided in court.
Point is, they don't know what "it all" is. Can't ask for something you don't know exists.
That's why the request is made in a very open-ended fashion. They'll just say something like 'all computer storage devices you had on such and such a date.'
The purpose of discovery after all is to fill in gaps in each side's knowledge.
Besides, do you know I run a business off that computer, and I have my own and other's personal email on it? I'm sure there are some laws that protect my (and other's) privacy, as well as my livelihood.
That just means that they have to be careful in how they conduct their discovery. You can't avoid it, however.
And I have no moral problem lying under oath to those bastards.
Fair enough, but perjury is a crime.
What differentiates a situation where I am UNABLE to comply from a situation where I AM able, but FAIL to comply??
Providing an adequate explaination to the court as to why you are unable to comply, and getting the court to accept it.
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's never been about stopping the P2P flood. It's always been about making money.
Rubbish. The money an organisation the size of the RIAA is doesn't care about the dribs and drabs that they can get out of individuals. It's about (a) stopping the sharing of music that the record labels think is costing them so much and (b) the RIAA capitalising on the record label's belief so that they can justify their existence further and make more money out of the record labels.
Artists no longer need the major labels for distribution and that's what scares them. The lawsuits are just trying to fit the genie back in the bottle.
Re:throw in the towel? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In a small European country... (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal"
-- Adolf Hitler
Re:Profits from suing (Score:3, Insightful)
10.000 people sued (Score:4, Insightful)
A great day for the music industry.
When I grow up, I want to be a music industry lawyer!