RIAA drops 750 lawsuits

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has dropped 750 lawsuits against students from Drexel University, Harvard and the University of Southern California. The trade group representing some of the world's largest record companies including Warner, EMI, Sony BMG and Universal gave no reason for this action. The group has managed to sue 7,000 people so far this year for copyright infringement. It accuses those it sues of illegally sharing copyrighted music owned by its members.

The NPD group has made a claim that illegal file sharing has dropped as much as 11% since the U.S. Supreme Court "Grokster" ruling. However, BigChampagne has contested this figure saying that from its own research it concludes that P2P use has just increased ever since. Whatever way it is the music industry is determined to keep up the legal pressure on users, though even two years later, experts and general consumers alike frown on these tactics and believe the recording industry is doing a terrible job dealing with the problem.

Source:
The Inquirer

Written by: James Delahunty @ 16 Dec 2005 11:45

Advertisement - News comments available below the ad

57 comments

pollution

The parents of those people at those Universities do not work at Mc'Donalds, they are the people with power in this world. That has to have something to do with it, and you have to be smart to get into Harvard in the first place and most likely one or not more of those students were studying law. FANTASTIC!

16.12.2005 11:57 #1

neanes

I agree. These people feared the worst and gave in to make this go away. Truth is, P2P will never stop. If you stop one thing, something else will come out and take it's place. Then what do they come up with next to come after you. They have nothing else to do. Here's a task, Impeach Bush

16.12.2005 16:07 #2

Rikoshay

Being smart and going to Harvard? Hah! That's the best joke I've heard all day! Being a current college student and P2P user who had a mom who worked at McDonald's, I can say that only the rich or drug dealers get into Harvard.

This was never the answer to solving this problem. Creating problems with consumers only creates more problems. Why don't they just realize what the consumers say will more than likely lessen the amount of sharing going on.

16.12.2005 18:43 #3

PirateDan

It's just the first sign that they don't have a strong case.
For those out there don't laydown and get screwed by these Nazis.

16.12.2005 19:08 #4

trrkod

f__k the RIAA simplistic but right.

16.12.2005 19:33 #5

gundam501

lmao screwing with harvard students? not too smart... the things these people do for money.. at least they have the brains to quite while they're ahead

16.12.2005 19:56 #6

dude845

lol trying to screw harvard ppl

16.12.2005 20:49 #7

gangsta_t

Edited By Mod

i can keep goin on but its pointles

17.12.2005 11:15 #8

vurbal

You're right - it's pointless. And if you make another post like that you'll be gone.

DVD Authoring FAQ: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/243219
DVD Authoring Related Links: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/263267
DVD-Video Terms: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/269663
The rules you agreed to - ReadThem!!! - http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487

17.12.2005 16:28 #9

esrever

Quote: The NPD group has made a claim that illegal file sharing has dropped as much as 11% since the U.S. Supreme Court "Grokster" ruling. I wonder how they determined that statistic?

17.12.2005 19:54 #10

llongtheD

@ neanes, what does impeaching an inept president like Bush have to do with the RIAA? No matter who's in office this crap will continue.
On another note, suing the elete should have been more well thought out. I think this exposes their random greed even more clearly. They're not even thinking about it now, just seeing the dollars and filing lawsuits.

17.12.2005 20:29 #11

kleef74

why should it be the little people who get lawsuits
against them we all pay for our internet so shouldnt it be the people we pay this money to they see what we download they could stop it if they wanted

18.12.2005 02:23 #12

pevelius

hmm. so you mean that the service provider is responsible for your illegal actions?

i totally sympathize with file sharers and think that they shouldn�t be made to pay rediculous amounts of money if caught, but still it isn�t even morally right to download, so just cut that bs, please.

18.12.2005 08:10 #13

CEEJAA

Everyone has an argument here, however, even though it is not EXACTLY like stealing a CD from a music shop, the results are the same. The law has been broken. What the problem is on the net is that the a law has not been able to be written to cover all the angles and definitions. BUT we all know right from wrong....cmon. People just get mad because they got caught. hmmmm?

18.12.2005 10:31 #14

gangsta_t

oops!

18.12.2005 10:36 #15

Robk9

Dropping those law suits might have helped everybody else. Once filled they are still a matter of record and if somebody fights their lawsuit and uses this angle that if they dropped others, why not theirs.

I am no lawyer but it is just a thought.

18.12.2005 18:29 #16

llongtheD

@ kleef74, I did not mean only the little people should be sued, or just the middle class, which is what has been happening. I just meant they went after a group of people that they realized could cause them some serious trouble in the courts because of their finacial means.
You see how quickly they dropped the lawsuits don't you?
They want "easy money". They really don't want to go to court. This might have tied them up in a court fight resulting in even more bad publicity.
Its much easier to go to battle against the people with lesser means, thats all I meant.
The rich have been doing this to the poor since the dawn of time, its nothing new.

18.12.2005 18:34 #17

ookami

For Pete's sake... will someone please indict the RIAA for racketeering already?! Geez... their petty thug tactics are remeniscient of the "Protection Rackets" the Mob carried out (and still do in some places)... "Give us money, so we can 'protect' you against hoodlums...."

Same thing basically... "Give us money, so we can 'protect' you against a lawsuit..."

Racketeering, extortion, conspiracy... Put those f'ers away for 50-80 years... and if they're using the postal service to deliver the letters... add Mail Fraud.

19.12.2005 05:41 #18

tin23uk

i agree at the fact that it is illegal to download copyrighted music and if you wanna do it and get caught you shouldnt complain, the on ething that bothers me is that surely the RIAA should be doing more to catch those who make a profit from doing this. most of us who download wouldnt go out and pay for the music movies whatever, we get it cos its free if a movie came out at the cinema that i was interested in watching i would pay to see it instead of downloading a crappy copy. what harm am i doing watching a movie that i would never have paid for in the first place, the people that are doing harm are the people who use a free service like p2p and then go sell copies on a street corner to people that see a bargain and take it. the last time i bought an album was years before i even knew about p2p at the time i was about 11 and realised then that $20 wasnt worth it for the 2 songs on the album that i actually liked.

19.12.2005 08:57 #19

icecold69

well thats 1 more week that has gone by and thats 1 more cd that i did not buy. mpaa are you getting what i'am saying. there not that smart really if you thank about it if you sell 1 cd at 20.00 thats 20.00 - the lawers fee for sueing a 12yr old. but if you sell 3 cds at say 8.00 thats 24.00 4.00 more and leave the 12yr old kid alone see no lawers fee you will make more money this way dumbasses and the 20.00 cd i did not it this week so thats 0.00 + the lawers fee so your lost again. whats your next job working for the state department buying hammers for say 1000.00 dollars a hammer.

19.12.2005 14:04 #20

cracatoa

thats the way using tax payers money!!!havard f...

19.12.2005 20:30 #21

mystic

there comes a time in everyones life where the dission to do something changes you forever.... this was such a case with the RIAA in not procicuting the universitys they opened a mitigation for damages when you compare someone who downloaded 20 songs enought to fill one cd to what collage age kids in genral may download there seems to be an unfair statement. one you go after the most abusers or at least the ones contuning to do so this will be used as a defence for the next case where someone who downloaded maybe 10 -20 songs but the ststement of its got money and power says it all the families of thease children can and will get lawyers who know the loop hole to jump through thats why the poor and uneducated will still be chased and procicuted for minor infractions.... the music industry should only be able to get the going rate for the songs so thats about a dollar each . this would make everyone happy and end this fight over who did what....
we as a country in the USA look like crybabies over this issue when there are children who have no food to eat and we spend thousands on our computers its a shame on all humanity that we dont fix the real problems that face us daily.....
happy holidays

20.12.2005 05:48 #22

dbminter

I think the most interesting, overlooked thing here is that, before, they had instigated 751 lawsuits. Now, they're dropping 750. So, who's the 1 person they chose to leave in? Easily pushed around by the law? A heavy uploader? A heavy downloader? A person dead for the past 15 years? :)

22.12.2005 10:56 #23

dufas

While the RIAA is crying about the loss of money to the artists, EMI is being sued for non-payment of $52,000,000.00 in royalties. They owe this amount to John Lennon's estate, to Paul McCartney, and to several other artists, songwriters, and companies.

I don't see the RIAA jumping in and forcing EMI to pay it's bills...

Now I understand, it is a one way street. The studios can f**k the public, the artists, and other companies but do not dare to mess with the studios......

22.12.2005 14:37 #24

sopcannon

well if the record companys made the cds for cost less then maybe file sharing would go down, as is the same with movies.

seeing as a new movie ticket for one adult is $16 just for the ticket plus a drink and popcorn.

But then again this a theatre at worlds largest mall!

22.12.2005 19:42 #25

vudoo

The only problem I see is that the recording industry is trying to play Daddy and bully about 60 million computer users into believing that copying is stealing. I explained to a child that asked me if Downloading from p2p is stealing and I said no. I explained that if he was at McDonalds and someone stole his French fries and ate them and ran off it would be stealing. But then too if aliens were to take his fries and copy them and then give them back to him and eat the copy it is simply sharing. Sharing and stealing is two different things and never should be confused with the other. The record industry had plenty chances to make cheap and affordable legitimate p2p services that pay the artists. Imesh could possibly become the #1 paid service if the recording industry was not greedy and kept artists such as John Cougar, Creed, Alter Bridge, hell even the Beatles is not available on paid p2p. That says something for the industry who only cares about $$. Second they could make money by Ad Bannar O N L Y supportive p2p without spyware that runs when windows starts. This ad banner support could earn them billions. However they want to try and bully everyone with an iron fist and plant rootkits into people's computers and now virus writers are infecting computers worldwide. The RIAA and MPAA should be held accountable for the users making viruses based upon their copy protection schemes just as they expect LimeWire, Kazaa, Grokster, WinMX and a host of p2p developers to be responsible for its users. Look any smart person with an education could tell you that you can't have it both ways. Hell we tell that to our children all the time. So if they expect to be a so called Daddy dictator, then they better start practicing what they preach and pay up the anti that they owe to 60 million computer users. Until then they better just shut the fuck up and crawl back into the hell hole that they came from. Case closed. If the government can't see that then this country is in bigger trouble than the patriot act ending in January and the media giving out secrets to Osama Bin Ladden

22.12.2005 19:43 #26

duckNrun

"...I agree at the fact that it is illegal to download copyrighted music......most of us who download wouldnt go out and pay for the music movies whatever, we get it cos its free.....interested in watching i would pay to see it instead of downloading a crappy copy. what harm am i doing watching a movie that i would never have paid for in the first place..."

The problem lies in the fact that the incentive to pay is directly connected to the priviledge of use/seeing/listening. I agree that for the most part CONSUMER piracy results mainly from people like you who would not pay to begin with; although I know that there are people who WOULD pay but they PREFER not to and so they steal because they can.

However, I can understand the argument that if you decide that you do not want to pay for something then you forgo the benefit of using it.

Just because I do not want to pay for that Ferrari does that justify me stealing it? Heck, I wouldnt have bought it to begin with so where's the harm? I have no interest in paying for your entertainment system so can I come into your house and take it from you?? I understand that the above examples result in the loss of a physical good whereas d/l still allows the physical CD/DVD to remain untouched on a store shelf but the principles are the same.

On the other hand.... it is legal to copy music played on the radio. It is legal to copy movies played on the tv. So if I could copy the song from the radio why not just cut to the chase, leave out the middle man and grab the song from a friend. Same goes for a movie except substitute appropriately...

These are interesting times that we live in and the world and the world of products is changing more than it has since probably the beginning of the industrial age.

The real problem is that companies must continue to not only advance their biz model to the changing times but must also provide a service/product similiar to/better than what the customer has come to expect. As has been mentioned there are plenty of ways for a record company to embrace this brave new world and remain profitable (if not more so!) unfortunately suing the very customers you depend on and trying to stop the technological advancements via broadcast flags, shuttign down tech [p2p] etc IS NOT the way to retain a viable future......

There always has been music, there always has been entertainment... the question is.... will those companies, who we have gotten use to delivering these products to us, embrace the future and survive or be overtaken by more innovating companies with updated business models...

finally.... all you Americans NEED TO WRITE CALL EMAIL YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND INSIST THEY SUPPORT HR1201 which will give us back the fair use rights that the DMCA took away

22.12.2005 23:12 #27

tin23uk

it all comes dwn to greed i know somewhere along the line the actors producers and movie companys must be losing money due to p2p but this amount is minimal compaired to the money they do make, i meen does an actor that gets paid $20mil really need the other $1mil he could have got if it wasnt for us filthy criminals that like to steal, f**k no he/she doesnt. and people are always going to go to the movies no matter how much it costs, i personnally never go to a cinema but i know many people who download and still go. i think the biggest hit must be in the dvd sales, another problem is that actors are getting worse and using more and more expensive special effects to make up for it.
they may also use the excuse that if it wasnt for us downloaders then movies would become cheaper just like auto insurance companies say that if it wasnt for people that drive around without insurance then insurance would be cheaper, and thats bollocks cos its all about greed if companies know that people will pay for the product no matter what then they will keep jacking up the price *GREED*
and as for copying a movie from tv or a song from radio, yes that too is illegal just not often inforced, if the RIAA thought they coould sue us for humming to the tune of one of their clients songs they would.

by now i think it is about time for the RIAA, mpaa to reasise that they are not going to win by bullying us just like sony didnt gain any popularity by installing rootkits on their customers pc's. they need to take a different approach p2p is still on the rise regardless how many times the RIAA sue, maybe they should try and be our friends and lower the prices of their crap.

23.12.2005 04:57 #28

LeMike

23.12.2005 06:36 #29

dufas

FYI, DuckNrun,

"On the other hand.... it is legal to copy music played on the radio. It is legal to copy movies played on the tv. So if I could copy the song from the radio why not just cut to the chase, leave out the middle man and grab the song from a friend. Same goes for a movie except substitute appropriately..."

Actually, it is illegal to record the radio and TV signal. The Betamax court case stipulated that while recording of the air waves was stealing, personal recording machines had many more uses that were legal so the sale of these machines to the public could proceed. The MPAA tried to outlaw the sale of video recorders to the general public. The MPA tried the same thing years earlier when reel to reel tape recorders came out and the court ruled the same way.

The MPAA and RIAA's latest method to stop recording TV and radio transmissions is a hidden audio pulse that repeats throughout the music or the video. These audio pulses are not audible to the human ear but electronic equiptment can detect the signal. If this signal is detected by the newer recording devices that will be replacing older worn machines such as video recorders, tape recorders, cd and dvd burners and players and even storage devices, the unit will not work for that particular data. The only way one can record these signal protected materials is to use the older equiptment. Even then, anyone that has the newer players will not be able to play the movie/music that the older equiptment recorded. The audio signal will be picked up by the newer player and refuse to play the data. Before anyone thinks that this is a load of crap, do a 'net search for " analog hole ". This is the term that is used by the studios for recording off the air. The term is used because most recording units today are of the analog type. Digital systems can use the same protective signal to keep one from recording or playing anything that is broadcast over the air. It also stops the recording and distribution of camcorded movies from movie theatres.

23.12.2005 07:56 #30

tin23uk

see told you it was illegal didnt know they had started using frequencies to stop the recording of them but it makes sence i guess. ill give it a year before the RIAA use a frequency in songs that once it gets into your head your brain explodes if you try to whistle the tune without owning a copy of the cd , oh no but that wouldnt be good hackers and virus writers would then exploit this brainwash and use it to hide virus's oh no its drm rootkit all over again aghhhhhhhhhhhh.

sorry i know im an idiot before someone else points it out lol.

23.12.2005 08:54 #31

isepiq

I bought my 50"s & 60's collection 3 times.
1. Vinyl (removal of subsonic filter ruined that)
2. 8 Track (players collection became obsolete)
3. Cassette (they 'wear out' over time!!! ugh!)
So... I refuse to pay for them 'again' as cd's.

As for the argument of whether P2P has increased or decreased, you do not have to take anyone's 'word' for it. You can see for yourself.
Just boot up any of the really popular P2P proggies, and somewhere on one of the screens it shows you how many users currently sharing. IT HAS LITERALLY BOOMED!!!
One of them used to be 500,000 to 600,000, and it is now regularly 3 to 5 MILLION depending on day of the week or holidays. The NPD group are, if nothing else, liars.

23.12.2005 12:13 #32

duckNrun

Gee after typing a beautiful response full of links to the truth, I find that afterdawn has timed me out and forced me to re-login; thereby destroying my response. lol

The short of it is this:

Recording radio and tv IN AMERICA is legal. I cannot speak for wherever you people may or may not be that has stated that it is not legal. But if you are in America you are sorely mistaken, been misinformed or have bought into the RIAA and Hollywood's campaign of propaganda.

Links:

The SUPREME COURT's ACTUAL ruling on BetaMax stating that time shifting TV (recording tv shows for later personal non commercial use) IS FAIR USE

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html

The EFF about LEGALLY recording off radio:

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr005=bb9nzv1za1.app6a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=157

Congress dealt with radio in 1971 and again in the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act.

So in summary:

Recording off the TV and RADIO for personal non commercial future use IS legal.

Next time before making ME spend a couple hours finding links to this information (and the truth!) to prove that I am not wrong, will YOU please do a little research yourselves. ok?

lol

23.12.2005 14:12 #33

duckNrun

Also, where on earth did i mention about time shifting/copying for commercial use (re: nursing homes)? I guess you were just trying to cover all the bases.

So to clarify:

PERSONAL NON COMMERCIAL PRIVATE USE

geesh! lol

23.12.2005 14:15 #34

dufas

Gee after typing a beautiful response full of links to the truth, I find that afterdawn has timed me out and forced me to re-login; thereby destroying my response. lol

The short of it is this: ...........

As long as your looking, Google analog hole and see what comes up. While you are correct in recording being legal in the sense that one will not be arrested for the act, the court in it's full decision papers considered it stealing. If you look up analog hole, you'll find that recording off the air is about to be plugged as far as newer equipment is concerned. As long as you can keep the old electronic units going, one can record.....

23.12.2005 14:35 #35

duckNrun

funny I'm just reading an EFF action letter on the Analog Hole and the latest attempt by MPAA to attempt again to force a broadcast flag upon us.

I stand by my origional links provided.

As for the hole being plugged that is yet to be seen. Perhaps if more people stopped whining about the loss of rights and acted upon their beliefs then this too can be averted once again, and hopefully forever.

23.12.2005 14:42 #36

dufas

The MPAA and the RIAA are acting on their beliefs also....Beliefs don't mean anything, it's who has the money and the power that counts. The MPAA, the RIAA, the studios, the entertainers need us more than we, [with few exceptions] need them....

While the EFF is fighting the broadcast flag, there are TV shows and broadcast movies that already have copyright protection. I use ATI to capture straight to DVD quality mpg files from cable. Around half of the videos pop-up a message ststing that the video is copyrighted and the capture program stops recording. I have found a way around this problem but I am not going to advertise it for the MPAA or RIAA to see.

23.12.2005 14:56 #37

Zerg

Chicken shits! They'll never catch everyone. Hide you're IP addresses! Don't download off university servers.

24.12.2005 23:32 #38

Mez

The RIAA are blood suckers. Patents only last for 17 years. Companies spend huge sums to create something tangable. It costs about about a half billion with a B to product a new drug. Drug companies now are into copy cat drugs because they are so much cheeper to create.

These guys do not invest anything in their product except the contracts. Usually, they get a real deal on the contracts as well. Then the copywrite lasts for 100 years. That is because it only hurts the people. We have no clout with the potiticians who screw us overy daily and throw us a few bones around election time.

25.12.2005 09:48 #39

mindgod

It's so funny and creepy how completely dumb the RIAA is. They are sueing the fans that buy and listen to their music. It's self-destruction at its best. Do you know how many people will stop buying music altogether because of this? And you can't blame them, the music is overproduced, overpriced, and overmarketed and nobody is going to buy that shit. And in the end, the artist is going to get screwed not "helped."

25.12.2005 10:04 #40

vudoo

There will always be ways around their copy protections but I feel even better that karma will burn these MPAA and RIAA mobsters in the future as they are going to pull a stunt that will piss off the right or should I say the wrong person who is high up on the government scale so to speak. Just how long will the justice systems around the world accept bribes from these lobbyists who too in turn did not follow a simple court rulling when it came to the Kazaa case. Let us not forget that. This in the future will be a very strong wepon against the lobbyists who don't follow the very rules from athorities that they want to set for us grunts. And the Rootkit incident will be the final straw that will blow the lid off of the "lets copy-protect everything" drum these guys want to play on us. Keep fighting because these guys are desperate and desperate people do stupid shit in which often get them into alot of trouble.

26.12.2005 21:07 #41

linbegone

Also another point that no one has mentioned...What is this "LOSS" that the recording industry is suffering. Well, there isn't any loss; i.e. the recording industry isn't loosing money, they just are not receiving any money for the sharing...but what about all of the sales that are made because of sharing. CD and DVD media, mp3 players and equipment, storage for the media, sales for better readers and burners, software for doing the transfers like Nero and NTI.. Seems to me that the reason that they are headhunting for downloaders is because they are pissed that other companies are profiting off of the p2p and not the RIAA. And, of course the little folk are easier to pick on, lacking the money to fight these fucktards, and end up caving in because they scared of them. Sure hope they don't come after me. I don't sink so easy and I really don't care about their strong arm tatics...I have the supreme court that backs me on the ability to back my media...So.....fuck em.

28.12.2005 16:02 #42

dufas

Sneaking into a walk-in theater or a drive in is about the same as downloading a movie. Does the MPAA plan on suing the 'sneeker' for $600,000.00 and threaten 5 years of jail time ?? One viewed the movie without paying....

When one listens to a track or two in an audio store, does the studio get a royalty payment for the music used??

If the studios have sued 7000 people and collected an average of $3200.00 a suit, that would come to $22,400,000.00 total. Seems to me that they are making a lot of money off of P2P anyway... Where is the loss ??

28.12.2005 17:57 #43

vudoo

You know it seems to me that more electronics creators like iRiver and Creative should be fighting the RIAA and MPAA tooth and nail till death does one of them or should I say a group of them apart. If I were an Mp3 manufacturer I'd want to compete and kill the iPod. What better way than to strongly say on every box "We are the ones fighting for your rights by going against the RIAA. Every dime spent on this player will go towards the EFF fo fight mobster tactics." I think the company would lose for a while, but in the end they'd be the most popular Mp3 player manufacturer in the entire world. And with 60,000,000 people all buying the players to piss off the RIAA they'd make trillions of dollars and could own the RIAA. Something to think about.

16.1.2006 20:54 #44

S2K

The reason why you gus are getting confused is becasue of the first commentor's statement, which was factually irrelevent to this case: he/she said:

"i agree at the fact that it is illegal to download copyrighted music and if you wanna do it and get caught you shouldnt complain"

These people were not sued for downloading. no one has been. they were sued for uploading, ie massively distributing to others.

17.1.2006 05:18 #45

dufas

S2K said..."These people were not sued for downloading. no one has been. they were sued for uploading, ie massively distributing to others."

Tell that to the 12 year old girl that downloaded a kids jingle and the RIAA sued her mother... Tell that to the grandfather that is being sued for $600,000 by the MPAA because his grandson 'downloaded' 3 movies. Tell that to the grandmother that didn't even own a computer or an internet connection that the RIAA started to sue for downloading music. [The RIAA backed off quickly when they realized their mistake..]

The point is that the RIAA and the MPAA are sueing downloaders... They are using the excuse that programs like bittorrent also upload as the program downloads. The studios have no way to find the first seeder so they are suing as many people connected with a file as they can find.

What is ironic is that file sharing has been going on since before the internet went public. Most BBSs had file sections where one could download software, music, and if one was patient, movies. While the internet has made this more easy, it wasn't until the studios {music and movie] started putting out crap and losing customers and money that the MPAA and the RIAA began to use file sharing as an excuse for their own failures.. When Universal, Paramount, Fidelity Records, Imperial Recording Studios, and many others were failing during the 1950s, they tried to blame TV and radio for their problems. Later, it was tape recorders and video recorders.... The entertainment industry is always ready to blame something or someone else for their own failures... When new techknologies emerge, the studios will once again jump in and try to stop it, curtail it or blame it for the crap the studios put out. Things will not change, it is the studio's operating procedure..

17.1.2006 07:11 #46

S2K

dufas said:
"Tell that to the 12 year old girl that downloaded a kids jingle and the RIAA sued her mother"

She UPLOADED it after and distributed it to a potentially infinate numbe ro f others -- that is what she was sued for AND ONLY THATt.

"Tell that to the grandfather that is being sued for $600,000 by the MPAA because his grandson 'downloaded' 3 movies."

Also being sued for UPLOADING and ONLY UPLOADING.

"Tell that to the grandmother that didn't even own a computer or an internet connection that the RIAA started to sue for downloading music."

Also being sued for UPLOADING and ONLY UPLOADING.

"The point is that the RIAA and the MPAA are sueing downloaders."

NO the "point" being they NEVER HAVE. Not once.

There ae 100 ways to download files, there are only a handful of ways whihc require you to upload them back. You can only be sued for UPLOADING.

17.1.2006 16:13 #47

dufas

"Tell that to the grandmother that didn't even own a computer or an internet connection that the RIAA started to sue for downloading music."

Also being sued for UPLOADING and ONLY UPLOADING.

Yep, that dead woman really flooded the internet.....

18.1.2006 06:37 #48

S2K

Y"ep, that dead woman really flooded the internet..."

Well she did distrbute and tha tis the only thing she was sinlged out for. Thousands of individuals have been sued for uplaoding yet not one for downloading.

19.1.2006 07:58 #49

dufas

Meet John Doe
The RIAA runs its lawsuits as a volume business, and sometimes downloaders just gotta settle
by Nick Mamatas
March 7th, 2005 2:05 PM

# Stealing Music Back From the Man
fluxblog.org; coolout.blogspot.com; cocaineblunts.com
By Julian Dibbell
Of the millions of people who illegally download free music using various peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, only about 8,400 have been sued by the recording industry�including, last month, an 83-year-old dead woman from West Virginia. Those odds seem pretty good, until it happens to you. This past October, my former Internet provider alerted me that they had been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on behalf of its member labels with the demand to turn over the names and addresses of 100 "John Does" that the RIAA had detected downloading music. The RIAA is now appealing an 8th Circuit Court decision, which ruled that Internet services providers don't have to reveal names of customers who have not yet been sued.

-------------------------------------snip-------------------------------

12-Year-Old Sued for Music Downloading
Tuesday, September 09, 2003

NEW YORK � The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers � including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun.

Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country.

"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.

"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"

The Recording Industry Association of America (search) � a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits � couldn't answer that question.

"We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss.

Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."

---------------------snip---------------------------------------

Sued for Downloading Music?
Last month, the RIAA announced in this press release that it was serious about taking legal action against individuals who illegally download copyrighted music. The statement immediately set off a firestorm of media coverage featuring provocative illustrations of teenagers in police line-ups and behind bars. The RIAA has already filed suit against many university students, some of whom settled out of court with large fines (read more). Now popular peer-to-peer technology is being upgraded to "block" the RIAA's scans (read more). What will it all come to?

---------------------------snip-----------------------------------

19.1.2006 09:13 #50

chewyer24

how is it possible for them to catch someone who downloads/shares these music files?

8.2.2006 03:35 #51

dufas

Your internet [IP] address is displayed somewhere in most P2P programs for one, another is that anyone with a 'packet sniffer' can feret out the addresses of the sender and the reciever of any data packet that is being sent over the internet................

8.2.2006 06:19 #52

S2K

dufas the reason why other posters are laughing at you is yo simply dont understand the basic terminology.

NO ONE has ever been sued or forced to settle for downloading in the US.

There is NO SUCH offences.

You are quoting articles where people have been sued for uploading

Your internet [IP] address is displayed somewhere in most P2P programs for one, another is that anyone with a 'packet sniffer' can feret out the addresses of the sender and the reciever of any data packet that is being sent over the internet.

Incorrect use of terminology. mu guess is you have no idea what you are talking about.

Packet sniffers for receivers are meaningless and not legal proof in any court.

13.2.2006 15:44 #53

S2K

dufas said:

Actually, it is illegal to record the radio and TV signal. The Betamax court case stipulated that while recording of the air waves was stealing,

not what betamax said.

13.2.2006 15:47 #54

dufas

If you would have used the complete statment, you comment would not have made any sense.

A court's stipulation or an opinian is not the same as a court decision. A decision is what makes up the court's verdict. A stipulation or an opinian is what a judiciary body includes in thier verdicts to explain how they arrive at a particlar decision..

The court's opinion was that recording was the same as stealing but did not do anything about it because the betamax had so many other uses. They equated that opinion to the automobile that is used in bank robberies but since the automobile had many other uses, they would/could not make the use of an automobile illegal..

A more severe case would be in the case of one person killing another. Killing another person is illegal, yet the court can 'stipulate' that the person acted in self defense or it was an accident and therefore render a verdict of not guilty of murder or manslaughter even though the person did in fact kill another person.

13.2.2006 18:18 #55

dufas

S2K................

"dufas the reason why other posters are laughing at you is yo simply dont understand the basic terminology."

.....The only one laughing is you and you do not know what your talking about................

"NO ONE has ever been sued or forced to settle for downloading in the US.

There is NO SUCH offences."

....You had better do some more checking.......

"You are quoting articles where people have been sued for uploading"

...........Someone will have to replace 'downloading' in all those articles with 'uploading' to make you feel better.......

"Your internet [IP] address is displayed somewhere in most P2P programs for one, another is that anyone with a 'packet sniffer' can feret out the addresses of the sender and the reciever of any data packet that is being sent over the internet.

Incorrect use of terminology. mu guess is you have no idea what you are talking about."

...........IP stands for Internet Provider...Most P2P programs will show a list of IP connections. Maybe you haven't checked in the advanced area of your P2P program The RIAA and the MPAA can and has stated that this is one of the areas where they obtain internet addresses. Most of the time, they do not get the exact address of the person 'downloading' a file and that is why they are trying to supeonae the records of internet providers in order to zero in on a suspect............

"Packet sniffers for receivers are meaningless and not legal proof in any court."

......Packet sniffers can show the exact location of someone's internet connection and while it is 'iffy' evidence in a criminal case and up to a judge to decide, the evidence can be used in a law suit which is not so stringent in the type of evidence or how it was aquired....

....You must be a 12 year old kid or an RIAA or MPAA stooge or sleep with one of them...........

14.2.2006 06:18 #56

S2K

Nah Dufas,

Look at yor posts, you keep insisting that people have been sued for downloading when everyone here knows that this is not happening and can't happen. It shows you have skims some material, mostly from the RIAA and MPAA and assume it to be true when it is false.

You also don't understand the basics of the Betamax, Nand are compeltly misunderstanding it.

NOw you accuse me of workign for th eRIAA? how childinsh. You are the one parroting their line that they are suing downloaders, -which is false, and a technical and legal impossiblity.

15.2.2006 01:32 #57

AfterDawn: News