RIAA offers amnesty to downloaders, but you must

[Rooster_Ties]

Can these really be among the WORST 'downloading 'offenders that the RAII is targetting with their suits?? Is this crazy or what???

From: CNN.com

Who's targeted by music swapping suits?

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 Posted: 11:35 AM EDT (1535 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The targets of the first lawsuits against music fans who share songs on the Internet include an elderly man in Texas who rarely uses his computer, a Yale University professor and an unemployed woman in New York who says she didn't know she was breaking the law.

Each faces potentially devastating civil penalties or settlements that could cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

The Recording Industry Association of America launched the next stage of its aggressive anti-piracy campaign Monday, filing 261 federal lawsuits across the country. The action was aimed at what the RIAA described as "major offenders" illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each, but lawyers warned they may ultimately file thousands of similar cases.

The grandfather and the academic

Durwood Pickle, 71, of Richardson, Texas, said his teenage grandchildren downloaded music onto his computer during their visits to his home. He said his grown son had explained the situation in an earlier e-mail to the recording industry association.

"I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible," Pickle said in an interview. "It's been stopped now, I guarantee you that."

Pickle, who was unaware he was being sued until contacted by The Associated Press, said he rarely uses the computer in his home.

"I'm not a computer-type person," Pickle said. "They come in and get on the computer. How do I get out of this?"

Yale University professor Timothy Davis said he will stop sharing music files immediately. He downloaded about 500 songs from others on the Internet before his Internet provider notified him about the music industry's interest in his activities.

"I've been pretending it was going to go away," said Davis, who teaches photography.

Unhappy file sharers

Another defendant, Lisa Schamis of New York, said her Internet provider warned her two months ago that record industry lawyers had asked for her name and address, but she said she had no idea she might be sued. She acknowledged downloading "lots" of music over file-sharing networks.

"This is ridiculous," said Schamis, 26. "I didn't understand it was illegal."

She said the music industry shouldn't have the right to sue.

"It's wrong on their part," she said.

An estimated 60 million Americans participate in file-sharing networks, using software that makes it simple for computer users to locate and retrieve for free virtually any song by any artist within moments. Internet users broadly acknowledge music-trading is illegal, but the practice has flourished in recent years since copyright statutes are among the most popularly flouted laws online.

"Nobody likes playing the heavy," said RIAA President Cary Sherman, who compared illegal music downloads to shoplifting. "There comes a time when you have to stand up and take appropriate action."

Hearings planned

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota, has already promised congressional hearings into how the music industry has identified and tracked the Internet users it's suing.

"They have a legitimate interest that needs to be protected, but are they protecting it in a way that's too broad and overreaching?" Coleman said. "I don't want to make criminals out of 60 million kids, even though kids and grandkids are doing things they shouldn't be doing."

The RIAA did not identify for reporters which Internet users it was suing or where they live. Lawsuits were filed in federal courthouses in New York City, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and elsewhere.

"Get a lawyer," advised Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. "There's no simpler advice than that, whether you intend to fight this or not. You'll need someone to advise you."

With estimates that half of file-sharers are teenagers, all sides braced for the inevitable legal debate surrounding the financial damage to parents or grandparents. The RIAA named as the defendant in each lawsuit the person who paid for the household Internet account.

"That question will come up immediately, whether a minor can have the requisite knowledge to be the right defendant," said Susan Crawford, who teaches law at Yeshiva University's Cardozo law school in New York City. "A very young child who didn't know what they were doing would be a bad defendant for the industry."

Offering amnesty

The RIAA also announced an amnesty program for people who admit they illegally share music, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and pledge to delete the songs off their computers. The offer does not apply to people who already are targets of legal action.

Sherman called the amnesty offer "our version of an olive branch."

Some defense lawyers have objected to the amnesty provisions, warning that song publishers and other organizations not represented by the RIAA won't be constrained by the group's promise not to sue.

U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer.

Edited September 9, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[Guest ariceffron]

is ANYONE going to actually do that. Are they going to get ONE? or 0? What the hell

[Jim Alfredson]

First, I want to say file sharing has damaged all of the music biz, large and small. Bob Koester is convinced he has lost at least 10% a year to downloading. For indies, 10% is the difference between losing money and losing more money.

Not that I don't believe you or Bob, but how does he know this? Personally whenever I've tried to find jazz tracks on Kazaa (and I no longer have a cable modem so I can't download stuff anymore if you're reading this RIAA fucknuts), I can't find anything worth shit from the MAJOR labels, much less stuff from indies.

You say he's "convinced" he lost 10% from downloading. Maybe he's lost 10% of sales from the shitty economy we've got?

[AfricaBrass]

I'm with Aric, I can't believe anyone will sign up for this stupid amnesty program.

This makes me want to buy even FEWER cds. Since Blue Note shafted us, I've barely bought any of their product. I think it's time to enjoy what I already have. Sorry RIAA!

B3-er makes a great point. In this kind of economy, paying $19 for a cd doesn't make a lot of sense, and I've never found any good jazz on Kazaa, etc...

I really wish we could do something to show the RIAA that they're wrong. I'm prepared to not buy ANY cds for the next year from labels that support the RIAA. Maybe if enough people did that then they'd get the message not to kick those who have been their biggest supporters.

[jacman]

the amnesty looks like a wolf in sheeps clothing. not that i would ever do any illegal activity, but if i did, i'd delete all my files in my shared folder, traffic, and search history.

why hasn't the movie industry done anything? i heard about people downloading movies from KaZaA.

[Chuck Nessa]

I think the amnesty is crap, but I have corresponded with people who have downloaded my stuff from somewhere. That is what makes me believe the Koester claim. What percentage would I hear from?

[AfricaBrass]

I've done some downloading here and there. But what happened with me is that if I liked what I downloaded, I usually bought the cd. If I didn't like what I downloaded, I deleted it.

I know I'm not the normal case, but mp3's are inferior to me. I even cancelled my emusic.com subscription because I just don't love mp3's that much. I'd rather have the real thing.

Chuck, I've never downloaded any of your stuff, but someday I hope to buy some. The biggest problem for me is finding it. I like to buy my cds from local merchants, but since Tower is in trouble, they don't have much stock anymore. To me, the threat of mp3's is to record labels that put music out that is so bad, nobody will buy the album for $19.

I blame the slump in sales on: a.) the economy b.) high cd prices c.) fewer outlets to purchase product d.) Clear Channel type radio stations with narrow/rigid playlists e.) after all these things, I could see mp3's being a problem. To me, the biggest problem with music these days is finding it. I have absolutely no idea anymore how to find good music.

I also think that music isn't as relevant as it used to be to younger people. Kids have been growing up listening to cr@p. If I was a kid and had the musical choices that are out there today, I don't think I'd be 1/8 the music lover I am.

It's like the music industry has developed a hate relationship with the consumer. They give us bad music, endless compilations, or like Blue Note did, alienate their biggest supporters. So now they're suing everybody. It makes me want to stop buying cds altogether.

Edited September 10, 2003 by AfricaBrass

[RDK]

Back when Napster was around I downloaded a fair amount of stuff, but even there jazz was virtually non-existent (especially the rare and/or oop stuff I was looking for. I've never been able to get Kaaza or any other peer-to-peer groups to even work - and there seems to be even less jazz on them.

I can say this: the stuff that I did find (and the music that I'm now downloading - legally - from emusic) has caused me to buy more CDs than ever before. The "problem" with being exposed to new artists is that, if you like what you hear, you want to buy more music by those artists.

I think that many of us who like and collect jazz have a hard time understanding the issues that the RIAA has with the general public regarding llegal downloading. Let's face it, the few dozen (even hundreds) who might d/l a Miles Davis album is a drop in the bucket to the hundreds of thousand who might d/l the latest Britney Spears or Radiohead CD.

[Chuck Nessa]

The ultimate problem is not downloads of jazz titles, but the massive downloads of pop "crap". That crap is what currently supports the paradigm the jazz recording business has lived in since 1917. I'm not saying this world is great, but if this system dies, there will be massive losses to all music fans for a long time.

Delmark's loss of (maybe) 10% is nothing compared to the system's destruction and the loss of labels like that.

[Jim Dye]

Oh, I believe it. But, I think it CD burners haver hurt sales more than MP3 downloads.

A LOT of stuff is out there, but not on KaZaA. There are many places to download MP3's that are under the radar.

Edited December 17, 2003 by Jim Dye

[Rooster_Ties]

Wow...

CNN.com

12 year old settles music swap lawsuit

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 Posted: 9:30 PM EDT (0130 GMT)

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A day after being sued for illegally sharing music files through the Internet, a 12-year-old girl has settled with the Recording Industry Association of America.

She's the first of 261 defendants to settle their lawsuits with the association.

Brianna LaHara agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000, or about $2 per song she allegedly shared.

"I am sorry for what I have done," LaHara said. "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service.

The RIAA said it was pleased with the settlement. There are 260 cases still pending.

"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file-sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer. "And as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers."

Monday, RIAA filed lawsuits against 261 individual Internet music file-sharers and announced an amnesty program for most people who admit they illegally shared music files through the Internet. The amnesty would only offer protection for songs represented by the RIAA and not from publishers, musicians or others with rights to songs.

Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, said the civil lawsuits were filed against "major offenders" who made available an average of 1,000 copyright song files.

Record companies blame illegal music file-trading for a 31-percent fall in compact disc sales since mid-2000.

Sherman also announced the Clean Slate Program that grants amnesty to users who voluntarily identify themselves, erase downloaded music files and promise not to share music on the Internet. The RIAA said it will not sue users who sign and have notarized a Clean Slate Program affidavit.

The offer of amnesty will not apply to about 1,600 people targeted by copyright subpoenas from the RIAA. The decision was made a few weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings mandated that Internet providers turn over the names of subscribers believed to be sharing music and movies illegally.

Until now, the only music file-swapping lawsuits filed by the RIAA were against four college students accused of making thousands of songs available on campus networks. Those cases were settled for $12,500 to $17,000 each.

Sherman said Monday that the RIAA had negotiated settlements in the range of $3,000 with a "handful" of Internet users who had learned from their Internet service providers that they were being targeted for lawsuits. The industry is also pursuing subpoenas at universities around the country seeking to identify music file traders.

[Noj]

Can there really be justice in raiding a 12-year-old's piggy bank?

[Rooster_Ties]

Students angry over music piracy suits

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 Posted: 1:41 PM EDT (1741 GMT)

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Anger, defiance and fear were the main reactions of college students on Tuesday after the music industry said it was suing 261 individuals for swapping illegal copies of songs over the Internet.

The Recording Industry Association of America said on Monday it sued individuals across the United States for as much as $150,000 per song distributed online, targeting the biggest users, those with large libraries of pirated music.

"If kids start getting arrested and dragged out of dorms and fined, other kids will definitely think twice before doing it," Eric Cioe, a biology student at New York University, said outside the university's library.

Focusing on individuals

But other students at NYU, located in the city where 70 of the 261 lawsuits were filed, were outraged.

Many college students upload music and make it available to others on the Internet through file-sharing programs such as Kazaa and iMesh. The new lawsuits switch the record industry's focus from those file-sharing companies to the users of file-sharing programs instead.

"This is insane, they can't just hack into our systems and track our activities. It's our property," said Lucy Chen, a sociology student who thinks downloading free music is fair because compact discs are overpriced.

RIAA members include the "Big Six" record companies: Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group; Sony Corp.'s Sony Music; Bertelsmann AG's BMG; EMI Group Plc.; and Warner Music, part of CNN's parent company AOL Time Warner.

The companies have promised to file thousands more lawsuits in the coming months against individuals who swap music. The industry believes minimizing file-sharing will stem the three-year decline in global recorded music sales.

Some students settle

Music companies and national trade bodies are pursuing individual lawsuits in Denmark, Germany, Italy and elsewhere. But the blanket region-wide lawsuit strategy, for now, will play out only in the United States where the music industry estimates roughly 90 percent of all file-sharers reside.

"I'm very worried about my brother at Johns Hopkins University. He's very involved in file-sharing and would have to get a lawyer if he gets into trouble," said one pre-law student at NYU.

Four university students who were sued earlier this year for operating campuswide music-sharing programs reached settlements under which they will pay between $12,000 and $17,500 to the recording industry.

College students have access to "peer-to-peer" networks on university computer systems which enable them to swap music with thousands of people.

"When we want to check our e-mail, we can barely connect because people are using up bandwidth to share music with 15,000 people. It's annoying," Cioe said.

Erasing tracks

Another student who refused to be identified said he uploads music and shares files, but is not concerned by the new lawsuits. "I consider myself technologically savvy, and I know how to erase my tracks," he said.

RIAA also unveiled an amnesty program for individuals not currently under investigation which would remove the threat of prosecution from those who promise to refrain from such activity in the future and erase all copyrighted music they have downloaded.

Still, law student Erica Olsen said downloading music is her best option. "Often, I just want one song from a CD, and I don't want to pay 22 bucks for it. I don't think any amount of legislation is going to force us to buy CDs."

[Jim Alfredson]

I found used copies of Air Time and Air Mail on Black Saint at local chain store here for 5 bucks a piece!! How is ordering something online more fun than a find like that?

And how is this any better or worse than downloading the music? The CD has already been bought from the record company by someone, or in many cases it's a promo copy and was given to someone (I buy a lot of those). Buying it used puts nothing into the record company's pockets. It only puts money into the used CD store.

And how is downloading a song any different than what I did as a kid, before I had a job and thus money to buy a CD or tape, which was listen to the radio and tape all my favorite songs when they came on? I had tapes upon tapes upon tapes of songs and never bought a record until I was about 16.

Anyone who truly cares about music will buy the disc. I love having a physical disc with the packaging and the liner notes and the "real" CD and the whole shebang. And AfricaBrass is right, mp3s suck sonically.

But I buy a lot of stuff at the used store. In fact, I bought the Yaya3 record, Larry Golding's new record, Charlie Hunter's new record, and Elastic all from the used CD store about a week after they were released. How is that helping the record companies?

Suing a 12 year old is really heartless. She's doing nothing worse than what I did as a kid with my tape recorder.

I'll say it again. Fuck the RIAA.

[Jim Alfredson]

From a website I found:

The brilliant Moby has posted some very wise advice on his site about the changes needed in the music industry. Key points:

1 - An online store should offer digital downloads of music under these criteria:] a-the price needs to come down b-the value needs to increase c-the product has to be easy to acquire.

2-sell cd's at two retail prices ... sell your basic cd for $5 or $6 with very minimal packaging, and sell an enhanced cd package for $15 that would include bonus discs and posters and free access to on-line material and discounts on concert tickets, etc.

3-stop spending insane amounts of money making records and videos. ...

4-stop putting out shitty records. ...

5-stop persecuting people who are music fans. people who engage in file-sharing are people who like music. you can't make people feel guilty about loving and listening to music. the record companies need to see people who engage in file-sharing as music fans and not as criminals. and then they need to try to convince people to spend a little bit of money for music (with added value) rather than downloading it for free.

record companies and rich musicians complaining about file-sharing rings terribly false with most people. i mean, how can a 14 year old who has an allowance of $5 a week feel bad about downloading music produced by multi-millionaire musicians and greedy record companies?

[Claude]

Music piracy suits could bring backlash

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/1...c.ap/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) --The recording industry has taken its piracy fight directly to music fans, suing more than 200 people this week alone. Now comes the hard part: Persuading the very people it has threatened with legal action to revisit music stores or sample legal downloading services.

That might prove difficult, some observers say, because the industry's lawsuit campaign could spark a consumer backlash spurred by the discontent many music fans already feel over soaring CD prices and the shrinking number of retailers offering varied music titles.

"The real hope here is that people will return to the record store," said Eric Garland, CEO of BigCampagne LLC, which tracks peer-to-peer Internet trends. "The biggest question is whether singling out a handful of copyright infringers will invigorate business or drive file-sharing further underground, further out of reach."

Scaring music sharers

Jason Rich, of Watervliet, New York, said the record companies' campaign prompted him to stop downloading music from file-sharing networks, but he called the issue "disconcerting."

"I think it's kind of silly to go after individuals," said Rich, 26. "There are so many Web sites out there, people don't know necessarily they're doing anything wrong."

Some of the music fans caught in the piracy net cast by the recording industry took steps Tuesday toward settling the copyright infringement lawsuits levied against them for sharing song files over the Internet.

Settling suits

The industry sued 261 people on Monday and has promised to sue hundreds more in coming weeks as it strives to stamp out music piracy it blames for a three-year slump in CD sales.

The Recording Industry Association of America settled the first of the suits Tuesday for $2,000 -- with the mother of a 12-year-old defendant, Brianna LaHara of New York. Brianna was accused of downloading more than 1,000 songs using Kazaa.

RIAA Vice President Matt Oppenheim said he was not surprised to see young and old alike caught in the industry's snare.

"We know that there are a lot of young people who are using these services and we totally expected that we would end up targeting them," Oppenheim said. "As we have said from the beginning ... there is no free pass to engage in music piracy just because you haven't come of age. We're not surprised and we're not deterred."

Consumers already think so little of the music companies, that the lawsuits likely won't make much difference, said Josh Bernoff, an analyst with Forrester Research, Inc.

"The industry has been backed into a corner, and their image is so bad, the lawsuits are not going to be much of a problem," he said.

The industry opted to target individuals earlier this year, figuring music fans who prefer to get their music online now are beginning to have viable options to do so legally through for-pay music download services like Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store and Buy.com's BuyMusic.com.

But while iTunes has sold more than 10 million song downloads since its April launch, no service has emerged for the large majority of computer users on the Window platform.

Less file-sharing

There are signs some people have stopped file-sharing since June, when the RIAA announced its lawsuit campaign, and also have moved to other file-swapping networks perceived to be safer than the market leader, Kazaa.

Traffic on the FastTrack network, the conduit for Kazaa and Grokster users, declined over the summer and climbed again last month, as has the number of people using less popular file-sharing software like eDonkey, Garland said.

At the same time, a decline in CD sales worsened. Between June 15 and August 3, the decline in CD sales accelerated 54 percent. And as of August 3, CD sales were down 9.4 percent over the same period in 2002, according to the Yankee Group.

[Joe G]

Moby's cool. Re: the insane amounts of money producing records, I heard that Green Day's "Dookie" had a budget of something close to $100,000. WTF?!? It's a three chord punk band fer Godsakes!

[Rooster_Ties]

Wasn't the most recent White Stripes album produced for something like about $8,000???

The AMG review doesn't mention anything about the cost to record the album, but I know I heard or read that somewhere.

[Jim Dye]

I found used copies of Air Time and Air Mail on Black Saint at local chain store here for 5 bucks a piece!! How is ordering something online more fun than a find like that?

And how is this any better or worse than downloading the music? The CD has already been bought from the record company by someone, or in many cases it's a promo copy and was given to someone (I buy a lot of those). Buying it used puts nothing into the record company's pockets. It only puts money into the used CD store.

And how is downloading a song any different than what I did as a kid, before I had a job and thus money to buy a CD or tape, which was listen to the radio and tape all my favorite songs when they came on? I had tapes upon tapes upon tapes of songs and never bought a record until I was about 16.

Anyone who truly cares about music will buy the disc. I love having a physical disc with the packaging and the liner notes and the "real" CD and the whole shebang. And AfricaBrass is right, mp3s suck sonically.

But I buy a lot of stuff at the used store. In fact, I bought the Yaya3 record, Larry Golding's new record, Charlie Hunter's new record, and Elastic all from the used CD store about a week after they were released. How is that helping the record companies?

Suing a 12 year old is really heartless. She's doing nothing worse than what I did as a kid with my tape recorder.

I'll say it again. Fuck the RIAA.

You would have a point, if it was a promo. In that case, no one gets paid.

But with a used legitimate copy, the artist and record company should have been paid with the original sale. With a download, NO ONE gets paid because they are not legitimate copies.

I may not be helping record companies by buying some things used, but I am not hurting them by making a copy either.

[mgraham333]

RIAA sued for amnesty offer

By Stefanie Olsen

Staff Writer, CNET News.com

September 10, 2003, 9:04 AM PT

update A day after the Recording Industry Association of America filed a slew of lawsuits against alleged illegal song swappers, it became the target of legal action over its own "amnesty" program.

California resident Eric Parke, on behalf of the general public of the state, filed a suit Tuesday against the trade association because of its amnesty, or "Clean Slate," program, a provisional shield it introduced Monday that allows people to avoid legal action by stepping forward and forfeiting any illegally traded songs. The suit, filed in the Marin Superior Court of California, charges that the RIAA's program is a deceptive and fraudulent business practice.

It is "designed to induce members of the general public...to incriminate themselves and provide the RIAA and others with actionable admissions of wrongdoing under penalty of perjury while (receiving)...no legally binding release of claims...in return," according to the complaint.

"This lawsuit seeks a remedy to stop the RIAA from engaging in unlawful, misleading and fraudulent business practices," the suit reads.

The RIAA responded to the suit with a maxim: "No good deed goes unpunished, apparently."

"It's also unfortunate that a lawyer would try to prevent others from getting the assurances they want that they will not be sued," an RIAA representative wrote in an e-mail.

The complaint is the first legal retaliation to the RIAA's lawsuit campaign against individual file swappers. The trade group filed 261 lawsuits against computer users it said were exclusively "egregious" file swappers, marking the first time copyright laws have been used on a mass scale against individual Net users. The barrage of lawsuits signaled a turning point in the industry's three-year fight against online song-trading services such as Kazaa and the now-defunct Napster and one of the most controversial moments in the recording industry's digital history.

On Tuesday, the RIAA settled its first case with Brianna Lahara, a 12-year-old New York resident. The recording industry agreed to drop its case against the preteen in exchange for $2,000, a sum considerably lower than previous settlement arrangements. Legal actions by the RIAA had been taken on a sporadic basis against operators of pirate servers or sites, but ordinary computer users have never before been at serious risk of liability for widespread behavior.

After long years of avoiding direct conflict with file swappers who might also be music buyers, industry executives said they have lost patience. Monday's lawsuits are just the first wave of what the group said ultimately could be "thousands more" lawsuits filed over the next few months.

Under the RIAA's "Clean Slate" program, file swappers must destroy any copies of copyrighted works they have downloaded from services such as Kazaa and sign a notarized affidavit pledging never to trade copyrighted works online again.

But Ira Rothken, legal counsel for Parke, said after reviewing the RIAA's legal documents that the trade group provides no real amnesty for such file swappers. With the legalese, the trade group does not agree to destroy data or promise to protect users from further suits, Rothken said.

"The legal documents only give one thing to people in return: that the RIAA won't cooperate," Rothken said. "The RIAA's legal document does not even prevent RIAA members from suing."

The suit asks the court to enjoin the RIAA from falsely advertising its program.

Source: CNET

[shawn·m]

"If kids start getting arrested and dragged out of dorms and fined, other kids will definitely think twice before doing it," Eric Cioe, a biology student at New York University, said outside the university's library.

NYU being rousted by elite MP3 SWAT teams will make for great TV. Think I’ll even record it!

[Jim Alfredson]

But with a used legitimate copy, the artist and record company should have been paid with the original sale. With a download, NO ONE gets paid because they are not legitimate copies.

That original copy has to come from somewhere. Someone bought the CD, converted it to MP3 and then put it up to be shared. That means, just like a used CD, the music has been purchased.

If you've ever done file-sharing, you'll notice that with one song you'll find many many different files. All the same song, but the bit rates of the mp3 compression may be slightly different, or the song length is slightly different, or the name is typed differently. This means that they are most likely NOT from the same source. Which means many people bought the CD, compressed the track, and then uploaded. So the record company is still making money.

[mgraham333]

That original copy has to come from somewhere.  Someone bought the CD, converted it to MP3 and then put it up to be shared.  That means, just like a used CD, the music has been purchased.

If you've ever done file-sharing, you'll notice that with one song you'll find many many different files.  All the same song, but the bit rates of the mp3 compression may be slightly different, or the song length is slightly different, or the name is typed differently.  This means that they are most likely NOT from the same source.  Which means many people bought the CD, compressed the track, and then uploaded.  So the record company is still making money.

b3-er:

I cannot decide whose point that makes... (industry vs. consumers)

Many people bought the CD.....but then offered it up for illegal sharing....

Edited September 11, 2003 by mgraham333

[Christiern]

Consumers strike back, sue RIAA

By Liane Cassavoy, PC World.com

September 12, 2003 9:35 am ET

After taking its antipiracy campaign to court, the music industry is finding itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit that challenges its purported amnesty program as a fraudulent business practice.

The Recording Industry Association of America Inc. announced its Clean Slate program Monday, when it filed suit against 261 people for copyright infringement as a result of excessive use of peer-to-peer services. The Clean Slate program purports to offer amnesty to repentant file-swappers who promise to stop using peer-to-peer services to illegally download copyrighted works and to destroy any copies of downloaded audio files.

To qualify for the amnesty program, applicants must fill out a sworn affidavit that requires a full name, address, telephone number and e-mail address, have it notarized, and send it to the RIAA. In turn, the RIAA agrees not to "support or assist in any copyright infringement suits based on past conduct," according to the organization.

But the offer is neither clean nor a sweep, says Ira Rothken, the Marin County attorney who filed the consumer lawsuit Tuesday in California Superior Court.

Not the RIAA's Call?
The RIAA claims the amnesty program "would provide people with a clean slate, but after a further reading of the legal documents, it became apparent that this Clean Slate program didn't provide any such thing," Rothken says.

"The legal document provides no release of claims, no promise not to sue you. It offers no promise to actually clean the slate by destroying the data that these people provide," he adds. "All it says is that the RIAA simply will not cooperate in any lawsuit brought against you. That on its face is a deceptive business practice."

And the offer is deceptive because the RIAA does not own the copyrights in question, Rothken says. The music labels -- RIAA members -- are the plaintiffs, he says. But because the RIAA is leading the charge, people think the RIAA has the power to promise not to sue them, when it doesn't, Rothken says.

"Any of the RIAA's members could file suit against these individuals who have participated in the Clean Slate program, and subpoena the information they need from the RIAA about this person's guilt," Rothken says. "So, in the end, the person who supplies all this information to the Clean Slate program will have a dirtier slate than they would have if they never participated."

RIAA Stands Firm
The RIAA disputes this interpretation, saying the affidavit form, which is available on MusicUnited, is not deceptive.

"Read the form, it's pretty clear what's being offered and who's offering it," says Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesperson.

"Apparently no good deed goes unpunished," Lamy adds of the criticism. "It's also unfortunate and ironic that some lawyer would try to prevent others from getting the assurance that they want, that they won't be sued."

Rothken's law firm is not the first organization to warn people about potential danger in the RIAA's amnesty program. Last week, before the RIAA formally announced its plan, the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation warned users against accepting the RIAA's amnesty offer.

"Stepping into the spotlight to admit your guilt is probably not a sensible course for most people sharing music files online, especially since the RIAA doesn't control many potential sources of lawsuits," Wendy Seltzer, EFF staff attorney, said in a statement last week.

Murky Music
Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president, addressed these concerns Monday when announcing the copyright crackdown and amnesty deal. He rebutted suggestions that participating in the Clean Slate program could prove costly.

"We have pledged to keep this information solely for our use, for our records of people who should not be sued," Sherman said. He said the RIAA would not release the data to copyright holders who might intend to sue.

Unconvinced, Rothken went a step further than simply warning consumers about the program's potential pitfalls and filed a complaint under the California Business and Professions Code. His lawsuit asks the court to end the RIAA's program as "unlawful, unfair, and deceptive." The RIAA's "guarantee not to sue file sharers" is designed to mislead the public into incriminating themselves by giving the RIAA "admissions of wrong-doing."

The RIAA's intentions remain unclear, says Deborah Peckham, a partner in the Patent and Intellectual Property Practice Group at Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault in Boston.

"It's really too soon to say whether these people are putting themselves at risk by participating in this program, but the allegations made in (Rothken's lawsuit) are not without some merit," Peckham says. "In essence, what the RIAA is doing apparently is collecting these affidavits and storing the information somewhere. The concern is that that information is going to be spread among the music companies, and there's nothing in the agreement that would bar those companies from suing the users."

Peckham has reviewed some of the suits filed Monday, and confirms that the RIAA is not named as plaintiff in any she has seen.

California's Standards
Rothken's complaint cites California law that says fraud may exist not only if a consumer is injured by the business practice in question, but if there is the potential for injury.

"The only standard is that the business practice in question is likely to deceive reasonable members of the general public," Rothken says.

This law also allows one citizen to be named as a plaintiff to represent the general population. In this lawsuit, that citizen is Eric Parke, a former paralegal who has not used peer-to-peer networks to download music illegally, according to Rothken.

"In California, our law allows people who are unaffected by the business practice in question, people who would not have traditional standing to sue, to serve as the plaintiff," he says. One reason for this, Rothken says, is that people who stand up against large organizations could be retaliated against, and may be unwilling to come forward.

The lawsuit now goes to the California Superior Court, but Rothken cannot guess when the case might be heard. He does expect the court will insist that the RIAA make good any amnesty offer.

"The court will likely tell the RIAA that if they're going to promise amnesty and a clean slate, then you have to do something that delivers on that promise; for example, you have to offer a release of all claims. Or, if you can't do that, you have to stop the promise, don't call it amnesty," Rothken says. "It's likely the RIAA will have to admit that they don't have the authority to release all claims, because they don't have the power to stop these lawsuits, because they don't own the copyrights."

[Guest Chaney]

File-Sharing Battle Leaves Musicians Caught in Middle

By NEIL STRAUSS - The New York Times

September 14, 2003

Since the Recording Industry Association of America began its campaign against file-sharing services and unauthorized song swapping online in 1999, it has offered one chief justification for its actions: downloading songs is stealing money from the pockets of musicians.

But the musicians themselves have conflicted responses to file sharing and the tactics of the association, a trade group that represents record labels, not the musicians themselves, who have no organization that wields equal power.

So, many musicians have found themselves watching helplessly from the sidelines as the recording industry has begun suing people who are their fans, their audience and their consumers — who also share music online without authorization. Last week, 261 lawsuits were filed, the first battle in what the association says will be a long campaign of litigation against the most active music fans sharing songs on services like KaZaA.

"On one hand, the whole thing is pretty sick," said John McCrea, a singer and songwriter in the rock band Cake. "On the other hand, I think it'll probably work."

Many musicians privately wish file sharing would go away, though they are reluctant to admit it, because they do not want to seem unfriendly to their fans. So they have been happy to have the industry group play the role of bad cop. But with the escalation of the battle last week (with lawsuits filed against, among others, a 71-year-old grandfather and a 12-year-old girl), some musicians say they are beginning to wonder if the actions being taken in their name are a little extreme.This is especially true because, regardless of file sharing, they rarely see royalties.

"It would be nice if record companies would include artists on these decisions," said Deborah Harry of Blondie, adding that when a grandfather is sued because, unbeknownst to him, his grandchildren are downloading songs on his computer, "it's embarrassing."

The artist Moby, on his Web site, offered a similar opinion, suggesting that the music companies treat users of file-sharing services like fans instead of criminals. "How can a 14-year-old who has an allowance of $5 a week feel bad about downloading music produced by multimillionaire musicians and greedy record companies," he wrote. "The record companies should approach that 14-year-old and say: `Hey, it's great that you love music. Instead of downloading music for free, why don't you try this very inexpensive service that will enable you to listen to a lot of music and also have access to unreleased tracks and ticket discounts and free merchandise?' "

A few artists, like Metallica and Loudon Wainwright III, have come out strongly in favor of the record industry's crackdown. It could be seen as a gutsy move, considering the criticism Metallica faced from music fans when it campaigned against the file-sharing service Napster, which was declared illegal.

In a new song, "Something for Nothing," Mr. Wainwright makes fun of the mentality of file sharers, singing: "It's O.K. to steal, cuz it's so nice to share." As for the lawsuits, he said that he was not surprised. "If you're going to break the law, the hammer is going to come down," he said.

At the same time, other influential musicians and groups — like Moby, System of a Down, Public Enemy, and the Dead — contend that the record industry's efforts are misguided and that it must work with the new technology instead of against it.

But most seem ambivalent, or confused.

"I see both sides," said Rodney Crowell, a country music singer and songwriter. "In some ways, I think the record companies have it coming, but at the same time, being a writer and therefore in the business of copyright, they're saying it's impacting our business by 30 percent or more, so we have to do something."

The Recording Industry Association says there has been a 31 percent drop in sales of recorded music since file sharing became popular more than three years ago, but statistics from Forrester Research show that the sales decline since 2000 has been half that, or 15 percent, and that 35 percent of that amount is because of unauthorized downloading.

The situation has become so thorny that many top-selling artists, even those who have been outspoken about embracing new technology, declined to comment on the lawsuits on the record, for fear of upsetting their labels. In interviews, some musicians and their representatives said that their labels had asked them not to talk. And in a dozen cases, record labels did not grant interviews with musicians on the subject.

"I don't think anyone really understands the impact of what's happening, and they don't want to make a mistake," said Allen Kovac, who runs 10th Street Entertainment, an artist management company in Los Angeles. "The impact of lawsuits on fans is a double-edged sword. If you're a record company, do you want record company acts being persona non grata at every college campus in America?"

Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review. (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has earned back the money it has spent on them.)

Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the 1990's, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management said.

"I don't have sympathy for the record companies," said Mickey Melchiondo of the rock duo Ween. "They haven't been paying me royalties anyway."

Musicians tend to make more money from sales of concert tickets and merchandise than from CD sales. In fact, many musicians offer free downloads of their songs on their Web sites to market themselves.

For some of them, the problem with file sharing is control. Before a CD is released, early versions of the songs often end up on file-sharing services, where fans download the music under the misconception that it is the finished product. Other times, songs online by one act are credited to another act. And fans exchange studio outtakes, unreleased songs, and live performances that some artists would prefer remain unheard.

Serj Tankian of the hard-rock band System of a Down, for example, said he thought that the free exchange of songs by his band and others online was healthy for music fans, but objected when that free exchange included unfinished studio recordings.

Ween, which recently left a major record label, Elektra, to release its records independently, has found a way to coexist with file sharing, which the band actually supports by encouraging fans to record and trade shows.

At the same time, Ween fans police eBay for people who are selling live recordings and KaZaA for people who are leaking songs before an album is released. "Before `Quebec,' came out," Mr. Melchiondo said, referring to Ween's latest CD, "our fans would message people on KaZaA who were sharing tracks and ask them to take the music down. And they also mounted a campaign where they put up fake copies of our record to throw people off."

Mr. Melchiondo said that Ween's fans acted out of respect for the band, not because of intimidation from the record industry or sympathy with it. "We never asked them to do this," he said. "They just took it upon themselves."