Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Another 500+ file sharers SUED!

CipherLock

Feind des Teufels
Platinum
http://p2pnet.net/story/606


RIAA sues 532 file swappers


Any hopes that the Big Five record labels would relax their heavily criticized sue 'em all intimidation campaign against alleged p2p copyright violators were dashed, today, with the news that the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is suing 532 people it says infringed music copyrights.


The RIAA, a trade organ owned by the major record labels, has been licking its wounds since a federal appeals court ruled, last month, that ISPs such as Verizon won't be forced to reveal the identities of Internet subscribers accused of music piracy to the RIAA - or anyone else.


It had been using the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) to get instant subpoenas with which to haul people, including children and senior citizens, into court.


However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in effect decided file sharing wasn't an issue when the 1998 DMCA came into force and therefore wasn't covered under it.


"Our campaign against illegal file sharers is not missing a beat," RIAA president Cary Sherman is quoted as saying in an Associated Press story here.


And, "Some people think the Verizon case means that you can go ahead and get back on a service and trade files," Mitch Glazier, the RIAA's senior vice president for government relations is quoted as saying in a Washington Post story here.


"We're not going to just sit and do no enforcement while the courts are figuring out the Verizon case."


Unlike the lawsuits it filed last fall against individual Internet users, the RIAA filed a handful of "John Doe" lawsuits targeting 532 unique "Internet protocol" numbers of Internet customers believed to be sharing music online, says the report, continuing:


"The RIAA plans to subpoena respective Internet service providers to obtain the names of people using those IP numbers.


"The John Doe lawsuits are less controversial in the eyes of some of the RIAA's adversaries. Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah Deutsch last week encouraged the RIAA to file the lawsuits, saying that they provide defendants with more privacy protection than was offered by the looser administrative subpoena process that the appeals court panel ruled inappropriate in December."


The RIAA has argued in the past that the subpoena power it asserted under the 1998 copyright law were in the best interests of defendants - since it gave the RIAA the opportunity to approach alleged Internet music pirates privately about a settlement.


However, the reverse is true.


"... on Sept 9 or 10, I think it was, I heard about the summons from a reporter and it wasn't until a week later than I actually got it," Lorraine Sullivan, the New York student subpoenaed by the RIAA for file sharing, told p2pnet last year.


"And it's huge - the entire catalog of songs, and then about 10 pages of what they're accusing me of.


"Then attached is a letter saying, and of course I'm paraphrasing, 'If you'd like to settle, call us'. To me it was either deal with this huge, daunting summons and worry about it for months, or 'Pay us and we'll go away'."

While it's an improvement, "that the record industry now has to play by the same rules as everyone else who goes into court, they are still heading in the wrong direction," says EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) legal firector Cindy Cohn.


"The recording industry should be giving America's millions of filesharers the same deal that radio stations have had for decades: pay a fair fee, play whatever you want on whatever software works best for you."


The record labels will have to prove that they have evidence in support of their claims and did a "reasonable investigation" before filing suit, rather than obtaining a subpoena rubber-stamped by a court clerk, which is what the DC Circuit court outlawed in late December.


(Wednesday 21st January 2004)
 
I haven't really much of that since Napster, other than people sharing on a private network at work.
 
the music industry needs to look at the real reasons why album sales have gone down. a lot of the music being put out anymore is just garbage. no one wants to buy it. someone goes on kazaa or whatever, downloads a few songs, realizes that the band has one good song and the rest are horrible, and then doesn't buy the album. albums are also overpriced too.

it's a rare occasion that i go and buy a new CD anymore because there's really not that many good albums out there that i want. for a few years i would buy one new CD a week. then i started running out of good stuff to buy, so i slowed down to maybe once a month. now it's hard for me to find anything good that's new that i want to listen to, so i maybe buy 6 CDs a year. and i'll visit a second-hand store before i go and try to find something for $20 at the mall.

i do find it funny that Metallica was one of the first bands to really throw a fit over P2P networks. they blamed the P2P networks for their slumping album sales. maybe they should've blamed their music, because IMO they havn't released anything worth listening to since And Justice For All.

just my opinion on the whole situation.
 
crak600 said:
..i do find it funny that Metallica was one of the first bands to really throw a fit over P2P networks. they blamed the P2P networks for their slumping album sales. maybe they should've blamed their music, because IMO they havn't released anything worth listening to since And Justice For All.

just my opinion on the whole situation.

It was shameful. Metallica members have already made more money than they could ever spend in ten lifetimes, and they have the nerve to argue that they sued over "a principle," not over money. They should try looking up the term in the dictionary.

As for the latest round of lawsuits, how the hell do you sue an IP address?
 
gymtime said:


It was shameful. Metallica members have already made more money than they could ever spend in ten lifetimes, and they have the nerve to argue that they sued over "a principle," not over money. They should try looking up the term in the dictionary.

As for the latest round of lawsuits, how the hell do you sue an IP address?

well, i'm all for what they were doing really. they busted their asses for many years to get to where they were, then they threw it away with horrible music. but that's the way we work...bust your ass and if the product is good, you get paid well. if the real reason their album sales went down was because of P2P networks, then they'd have a point. unfortunately, they don't.

sueing an IP address? well, it's actually pretty easy. most DSL and Cable companies log your IP address. if you are on a normal connection, you can change your IP address pretty easily (at least as far as i know). for me to reset my IP address, all i have to do is shut my cable modem off and wait 15-20 seconds, then fire it back up again. cable company will assign me a new IP address, and there's a damn good chance that it's all been logged in their database that on such-and-such a time this user was re-assigned an IP address. they know it was me too because they need to have your cable modem MAC number so they can identify you when you hook into the network. so if it was me, i could be tracked down by going through their database. i know the IP address changes because i've had power blinks and my IP has changed when the power came on. i know this because i used to direct IP connect with a buddy to game online and every time i had lost power he'd have to punch in a new IP Address to connect to me.

from what i know, and i may be wrong, but the only time a home user's IP address won't change on cable or DSL is if you have a static connection, but most home users don't have a static conneciton. not sure how it works and the reasons why it would be used.

so while you can't really sue an IP address, you can take the IP address and track someone down through it. it's a virtural paper trail essentially if your provider keeps a log of all of it.
 
crak600 said:


well, i'm all for what they were doing really. they busted their asses for many years to get to where they were, then they threw it away with horrible music. but that's the way we work...bust your ass and if the product is good, you get paid well. if the real reason their album sales went down was because of P2P networks, then they'd have a point. unfortunately, they don't.

suing an IP address? well, it's actually pretty easy. most DSL and Cable companies log your IP address. if you are on a normal connection, you can change your IP address pretty easily (at least as far as i know). for me to reset my IP address, all i have to do is shut my cable modem off and wait 15-20 seconds, then fire it back up again. cable company will assign me a new IP address, and there's a damn good chance that it's all been logged in their database that on such-and-such a time this user was re-assigned an IP address. they know it was me too because they need to have your cable modem MAC number so they can identify you when you hook into the network. so if it was me, i could be tracked down by going through their database. i know the IP address changes because i've had power blinks and my IP has changed when the power came on. i know this because i used to direct IP connect with a buddy to game online and every time i had lost power he'd have to punch in a new IP Address to connect to me.

from what i know, and i may be wrong, but the only time a home user's IP address won't change on cable or DSL is if you have a static connection, but most home users don't have a static conneciton. not sure how it works and the reasons why it would be used.

so while you can't really sue an IP address, you can take the IP address and track someone down through it. it's a virtural paper trail essentially if your provider keeps a log of all of it.

I don't doubt that they worked hard for what they accomplished. But I don't care how much work they put in, NO ONE "earns" obscene amounts of money like that. Once you've been fairly compensated for work you've put in, the rest is frosting. And those guys have more frosting than God. It'd have been much more meaningful if a smaller local band had sued for people "stealing" songs from their first cd. Then I could almost condone it.

Ultimately, these people are doing the litigious equivalant of holding back the tide. The "Age of Information" (still in it's infancy according to many experts) is going to make file sharing as common as making a phone call. It will be up to the already bloated music industry to adapt or fall by the wayside.

As for the IP address thing, I know how one obtains a user's name from an IP address. I'm asking how you can do that from a legal standpoint. The RIAA vs 12.434.34. 985?? So who then becomes responsible for putting names to the addresses? It seems to me that the "offenders" should be identified BEFORE suits are filed. All a bit Orwellian for my taste.
 
Last edited:
Ed the sock (Canadian Much Music) told it straight when reviewing Metallica's video where they filmed it in prison.

they have no problem with hard core criminals, but if you file share you going DOWN! Plus he said something about how they initially rose to popularity by the tape swapping 80's.

food to choke on eh?
 
gymtime - oh yeah, it's all be frosting for them for 10+ years.

what i find kinda funny is that the Grateful Dead allowed free taping of their concerts, and look at how popular and how much money they made?! their albums aren't good really, you've got to hear the songs live. they made their money by doing what musicians should do...go out on tour, bust your ass, and give the fans the best live performances you can. there's a lot of overhead in all of that, but the good bands stay around long enough to profit, while the bad ones, well, they fade and die like they should.
 
crak600 said:
gymtime - oh yeah, it's all be frosting for them for 10+ years.

what i find kinda funny is that the Grateful Dead allowed free taping of their concerts, and look at how popular and how much money they made?! their albums aren't good really, you've got to hear the songs live. they made their money by doing what musicians should do...go out on tour, bust your ass, and give the fans the best live performances you can. there's a lot of overhead in all of that, but the good bands stay around long enough to profit, while the bad ones, well, they fade and die like they should.

Exactly. That's the kind of changes artists, producers and distributors alike will have to make. In other words, they're collectively going to have to grow accustomed to making several hundered million dollars every year as opposed to a few billion. **gasp**
 
The Nature Boy said:
metallica should be paying the poor souls who bought their last album.

i dunno if they could afford to pay out that much, i mean, really, they suck now.

and screw them going on tour too, because all they're going to play is the new crap. sucks that i never got to see them before they went to shit. where have all the good heavy metal bands gone?! :mad:
 
http://p2pnet.net/story/609

Here's how it works: When you log onto a peer-to-peer network, your P2P software has a default setting that automatically informs the network of your user name and the names and sizes of the files on your hard drive that are available for copying.

Because all this information is publicly available to anyone on the network, it's relatively easy to look for-and find-users who are offering to "share" copyrighted music files. The networks could not work if this were not the case. We search the network for infringing files, similar to the way other users search the network.

When we come across a user who is distributing copyrighted music files, we download copyrighted music files (of our member companies) the user is offering, as well as document the date and time that we downloaded those files.

Additional information that is publicly available from these systems allows us to identify the user's Internet Service Provider (ISP). After manually reviewing the information to confirm that infringement has occurred, we can then decide whether it justifies filing a John Doe lawsuit, using the individual's Internet Protocol (IP) address as a placeholder for the person's name.

All that changes is the process by which we obtain the name of the individual engaged in the illegal activity in order to file a lawsuit against that individual.
 
I believe what really kicked it off for Metallica was when thier incomplete and unreleased song for the movie Mission Impossible(2?) showed up all over the internet.

Instead of looking for the real problem...ie, the member of their staff that took the song from the studio and shared it, they rose a stink over the p2p networks themselves.

Typical of a soon-to-be washed up group in it strictly for the money.
 
JOKER47 said:

Typical of a soon-to-be washed up group in it strictly for the money.

soon-to-be washed up? no. they've BEEN washed up for years. sad, really sad. what was even worse was an interview i read with James Hetfeild where he said he wears women's leather pants and he listens to Pink and Madonna with his daughter. now, if you're into Pink and Madonna, that's ok. however, if you're the same guy that wrote blazing songs like Seek and Destroy, 4 Horsemen, Fade to Black, and the album Master of Puppets (their BEST), well, you just can't admit you listen to Pink and Madonna and wear women's leather pants and still claim to be a man......

kinda like when Fred Durst got up on stage with Christina Agholera and then claimed later that he "did it for the nookie...." yeah, just keep trying buddy, we believe you :rolleyes:
 
I'm a coupla years older than most i suppose,but in Metallica's early days it was common for them to allow tape recorders at the soundboard ala grateful dead and openly encourage concert goers to tape concerts and trade the bootlegs with each other as much and as often as possible...to get the music out..then when Lars decided Napster might be taking money out of his pocket.....all of a sudden "doing it for the love of the music" and getting it out there took a far 2nd backseat to being a rich greedy primadonna egotistical prick. ...the very thing they all claimed to be against by encouraging sharing in the first place
 
yeah, they forgot where they came from. for being one of the founding fathers of thrash metal, they've really turned into a bunch of pussies.
 
Let them spend money on lawsuits even as their revenues drop.

Classic signal of a company that can't change with the markets and is looking for government protection.
 
I don't think they will relax. They think they are the gods of self righteousness. All they are going to do is piss off the general public and they will stop buying the cd's and kill that industry. They are just a bunch of lawyers who don't give a crap about freedom of speech, etc. Just how much money can they line their pockets with at the expense of the client and those that they sue.

Metallica comes to mind as one of the biggest cry baby bands that caused napster to collapse. And then they come out with the worst record I have ever heard from any band and no one is buying that crap!

If I were an artist, of course I would want to make money, but I would consider the file sharing as free advertisement.

Rather be noticed for being outstanding than a bunch of whoring brats!
 
Top Bottom