RIAA to Sue Internet Song Swappers

[JesFine]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=582&ncid=582&e=1&u=/nm/20030625/wr_nm/tech_music_dc

The Recording Industry Association of America said it hopes to curb online song-swapping by tracking down the heaviest users of popular "peer to peer" services like Kazaa and suing them for damages that could range up to $150,000 per violation.
...
Starting on Thursday, investigators will track down users who make their digital-music collections available for copying, he said. Those who download songs but do not allow others to copy them will not initially be targeted.

In the past the companies sued the Kazaa's and the Napsters of the world. But this is the first time they will actually sue users and potential customers.

Isn't this a pretty blatant violation of the Constitution? I don't see how they can do this.

Even if we disregard the Constitution (more and more common these days?), this can't help the RIAA's business in the long run.

This bugs me.

 

[Thumper]

What is a violation of the constitution?

The fact that a person posts their music so others can copy it?

 

[svero]

You know it's hard to feel sorry for an industry which has used so many underhanded tactics to maintain it's stranglehold on distribution, and produces little or nothing of value anymore. On top of that they stick us everytime we buy a blank cd or tape with ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hidden taxes that most people don't even know are there. Radio stations are basically just big commercials. Slumping sales? Look at 10 years of acts researched and generated by corporations using looks as a measuring stick instead of musical talent before looking at song swappers. I won't weep for the RIAA when it goes the way of the dodo.

 

[JesFine]

What is a violation of the constitution?

The fact that a person posts their music so others can copy it?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They are using some nebulous "scanning software" to determine the "worst offenders". Who knows what the software scans for, and who knows how they determine who are the worst offenders. That is unreasonable.

Also, there are millions of people who use these file-sharing utilities. Are they going to search millions of people's computers? Also unreasonable.

I agree with svero. This will hurt the RIAA more than it helps.

 

[Cain]

This will hurt the RIAA more than it helps.

The RIAA is a dying cartel. The five or so major corporations that control all our music are less popular than oil companies. They pretending what we think of them long ago.

 

[Thumper]

Ummmmmm...

Correct me if Im wrong, but the constitution only applies to the federal government. Any extension of these constitutional laws must be specified explicitly. (cf Amendment X)

 

[American]

All they have to do to stop song swapping is reveal the names of people who do it and the embarrassing titles that they download.

Like if they ever found an MP3 of Madonna's "Lucky Star" on my computer, I'd probably have to move to Russia before my friends found out. Hypothetically.

 

[John Harrison]

Also, there are millions of people who use these file-sharing utilities. Are they going to search millions of people's computers? Also unreasonable.

Unreasonable? Isn't copyright violation also unreasonable?

You know it's hard to feel sorry for an industry which has used so many underhanded tactics to maintain it's stranglehold on distribution, and produces little or nothing of value anymore.

Doesn't make it right, though. The best way to make them change would be for everyone to not buy any CDs for a few months. Bet they would change real quick.

 

[Boo]

Kazaa rates it users by the number of files they download or share. The more you log on and open your drive to others and swap the better your rating. Kazaa also allows for the swapping of games and software apps. I wonder who else might be a silent party to this and is using RIAA as a front man.



Boo

PS Thanks for the heads up.

 

[svero]

Doesn't make it right, though. The best way to make them change would be for everyone to not buy any CDs for a few months. Bet they would change real quick.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the need for intellectual copyright protection. I do have a slight feeling that to some extent two wrongs make a right though. Consumers have been taking it up the butt from these companies for some time now. I bought a CD recently. Cost me close to 30$ - Totally ridicuous. The thing is, in this case I don't think the RIAA is really looking to protect copyrights or musicians etc... as they claim. What they're looking to protect is essentially the true key to their wealth, which is their monopoly on music distribution, which allows them to screw consumers and charge whatever they want without fear of true competition. Why shouldn't consumers be allowed to fight back to some extent if the govt only protects the record companies and doesn't protect consumers from unfair business practices? If the RIAA were smart they'd realize that their time is up on this thing and try to embrace the new technology rather than fight it. An example of what I mean is when MP3.COM started allowing consumers to download songs they'd actually purchased so they wouldn't have to wait for the CD to arrive. The RIAA put a stop to that as quickly as they could. Why? They were selling the CD's weren't they? It was the distribution mechanism that was threatened.

 

[JesFine]

Ummmmmm...

Correct me if Im wrong, but the constitution only applies to the federal government. Any extension of these constitutional laws must be specified explicitly. (cf Amendment X)

Are you saying I'm only protected from search and seizure if the federal government wants to do it? Private citizens can search and seize me all they want? I think not. The RIAA still can't violate this even if they are not the feds.

Originally posted by Thumper
Unreasonable? Isn't copyright violation also unreasonable?

Yes, but isn't the usual course of action for a copyright violation to issue a cease and desist? Not a full blown lawsuit?

We also don't know how this "snooping software" works. What would happen if I make a bunch of files with fake names "Lucky Star.mp3" (not that anyone would have that one, right American?), etc. and then I get sued? I'll tell you what: I would countersue the living bleep out of the RIAA hand hopefully put them out of business. In fact, that might be good. A little civil disobedience never hurt nobody.

I am not a lawyer, nor a constitutional specialist (whatever that's called), so I don't know if this is legal. I can't imagine it is. I do know that I hate the big brother aspect of this and I do know that this will cause a huge backlash.

 

[John Harrison]

Why shouldn't consumers be allowed to fight back to some extent if the govt only protects the record companies and doesn't protect consumers from unfair business practices?

They can fight back. They can decide to not purchase the product. Complaining that the product is overpriced is no excuse for stealing, especially when it is a luxury item such as entertainment.

If the RIAA were smart they'd realize that their time is up on this thing and try to embrace the new technology rather than fight it.

I agree.

I saw a post by someone on another board last year that captured the situation quite well:

The studios believe that piracy is hurting their sales. And they do have a point. I mean, why would you steal something if you did not want it? If people want it, why are they not buying it? Because it is 'easy' and 'risk free' to steal it? How to combat things then.. but trying to curb those who are stealing.

On the other side is the consumer. Many actually do not like much of the music being produced. Their voice would be much louder if not for the fact that literally millions are actively participating in the illegal distribution of material (including alot of new music). This only reinforces the studio views that they have a valuable product, and that the core solution is to minimize the ease and low-risk aspect of music piracy.

Unfortunately, people who would like to see more great music produced are the losers in this game. The juvenile activities of many who decry the industry while illegally consuming the product reinforce the egocentric view of the studios that their content is not the problem.

The answer? Who knows. But if piracy was not such a rampant force in randomizing any underlying issue, perhaps paying consumers would better be heard and studios would be in a better position to respond.

 

[svero]

They can fight back. They can decide to not purchase the product. Complaining that the product is overpriced is no excuse for stealing, especially when it is a luxury item such as entertainment.

But at the end of the day, with only one choice given, there will always be enough consumers to keep the monopoly going. Controls are put into place and they aren't that easily side-stepped. To me it's a little like Canada where there's one phone company. If I don't like the practices of Bell telephone so I can opt-out right? I can't switch to another phone Co. It's not as much of a luxury item as music is, but I think the same lack of choice and the way music is commercialized reduces it to a similar scenario. Ideologically I get what you're saying, but in practice the way the market is controlled leaves consumers with few choices. Besides, when I buy a blank audio casette do I have a choice to pay or not pay the record companies? No I don't. And that has nothing to do with copyrights. (at least if you listen to me and not them) So they play unfair and consumers play unfair. If they want people to respect their right to property they should have to do likewise.

 

[John Harrison]

Yes, but isn't the usual course of action for a copyright violation to issue a cease and desist? Not a full blown lawsuit?

To be honest I don't know. If you are more familiar with copyright law please set me straight, although I don't see the problem of suing individuals that are violating copyright law.

We also don't know how this "snooping software" works. What would happen if I make a bunch of files with fake names "Lucky Star.mp3" (not that anyone would have that one, right American?), etc. and then I get sued? I'll tell you what: I would countersue the living bleep out of the RIAA hand hopefully put them out of business. In fact, that might be good. A little civil disobedience never hurt nobody.

Lot's of "what if's" and ranting against the man here. The only relevant point is about how the software works. I'm curious as well.

I do know that I hate the big brother aspect of this and I do know that this will cause a huge backlash.

What kind of backlash? Would people start stealing musi... oh wait, they're already doing that.

 

[John Harrison]

But at the end of the day, with only one choice given, there will always be enough consumers to keep the monopoly going.

But that's not one choice. There is still a choice to not buy. Perhaps the issue should be why some people are willing to pay through the nose for CDs.

Ideologically I get what you're saying, but in practice the way the market is controlled leaves consumers with few choices.

Yep. You get 2 => Purchase or Do Not Purchase

A luxury good that is overpriced is no excuse for theft.

As far as expensive blank CDs - Where I live they are practically free. How much do they cost in your neck of the woods?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In the past the companies sued the Kazaa's and the Napsters of the world. But this is the first time they will actually sue users and potential customers.

Isn't this a pretty blatant violation of the Constitution? I don't see how they can do this.

Even if we disregard the Constitution (more and more common these days?), this can't help the RIAA's business in the long run.

This bugs me.

What are you, like 12 years old?

Blatant violation of the Constitution? What, you mean suing people who are breaking the law?

Why does this bug you?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You know it's hard to feel sorry for an industry which has used so many underhanded tactics to maintain it's stranglehold on distribution, and produces little or nothing of value anymore. On top of that they stick us everytime we buy a blank cd or tape with ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hidden taxes that most people don't even know are there. Radio stations are basically just big commercials. Slumping sales? Look at 10 years of acts researched and generated by corporations using looks as a measuring stick instead of musical talent before looking at song swappers. I won't weep for the RIAA when it goes the way of the dodo.

So if their product is such crap, why do you steal it?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I bought a CD recently. Cost me close to 30$ - Totally ridicuous.

So if you feel something is over priced, that gives you the right to steal it? Cool!! I think Ferarri's are over priced. Gonna get me one tomorrow!!

 

[svero]

So if their product is such crap, why do you steal it?

I never said I did although I can see why you'd come to that conclusion. As someone who makes a living selling intellectual property I'm pretty straight and narrow when it comes to how I live my life.

My point wasn't so much that I advocate file swapping, as that I don't particularly feel much sympathy or empathy for the RIAA who IMHO are the last people who should be taking any moral highground. I find their business practices to be dishonest. How badly would you feel for someone that just stole a tv set only to have it robbed from them? Personally I can't shed a tear.

As for the product itself... there's still a few good things here and there, but yeah the quality has pretty much been reduced to a point where it's not worth stealing it. I recently visited a CD shop and the only thing of any value was some old led zepplin recordings they re-released. Stinks of desperation. They have nothing. I actually kind of doubt that file swapping really hurts their sales. I think sales are down because they've mismanaged their businesses. They should get back into the music business some day.

 

[svero]

So if you feel something is over priced, that gives you the right to steal it? Cool!! I think Ferarri's are over priced. Gonna get me one tomorrow!!

What if all cars were 1000% overpriced? Now you have a new choice. Walk 30 miles to work every day or buy one even though you know you're being gouged. That's more akin to the scenario at hand.