RIAA offers amnesty to downloaders, but you must

[shawn·m]

“Every year, by assisting in criminal trials and initiating civil litigation, RIAA wins hundreds of guilty pleas from, or convictions of, music pirates, plus scores of settlements and judgments. RIAA is also pioneering copyright enforcement on the Internet. Since 1998, RIAA has settled five lawsuits against Internet music pirates that violated federal copyright laws by reproducing and distributing copyrighted sound recordings.” --RIAA

During the years mentioned above, I think the war on drugs was more successful. I wonder if the RIAA is entering a world of pain? Yes, it has the law on it’s side (in the case of some amnesty provisions, maybe not), but from what I gather, pirating is so inexpensive, easy and widespread that the RIAA could be caught in its own version of Viet-fuckin’-nam. Then too, the prosecution of file-sharing copyright infringement seems to generate such paltry winnings that serious effort on RIAA’s part must be financially impractical. The RIAA is now in a far-reaching, high-profile battle and an overall loss could damage its credibility and clout from which it could take a long time, if ever, to recover.

Well, maybe if the RIAA could make a dent if it forced internet ISPs to block sites in a timely manor. But I’m not sure even this would do the job.

[Use3D]

Bah, they're just pissed because most music these days is shit and they know it. They also know people are mostly too smart to pay for that canned rat puke called music nowdays. So they start spouting off how filesharing is destoying the business. A theory I think is bullocks.

Thanks to file sharing I have experienced music I'd never have the chance to hear or try out, and as a result have purchased more CDs then I even thought I would. Most people on the 'net I know (and I know alot of them) sample a few choice tracks of bands they might want to know more about, and then buy the disc if it strikes them. Otherwise no further files are downloaded and they go about their merry way. Really it's no different from having a 24 hour radio station where you get to pick the music you want to hear. I can record music off public radio can't I? And distribute the tapes to my friends? Is that worth a lawsuit or two? Fuck no. The RIAA is a bunch of goddamned morons who can't stop this runaway train, so they're trying to scare more people.

[Rooster_Ties]

SOURCE

By TED BRIDIS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recording industry has filed 41 more lawsuits against computer users in at least 11 states it said were caught illegally distributing songs over the Internet, continuing its aggressive campaign against online music piracy.

The latest copyright suits this week bring to 382 filed since the Washington-based Recording Industry Association of America announced its legal campaign nearly six months ago.

The group's president, Cary Sherman, said the group has no plans to cut back, even as media coverage over the continuing lawsuits wanes.

"People who engage in illegal file-sharing should be aware, whether or not they hear about it this month, that doesn't mean the enforcement program has been reduced in any way," Sherman said. "If anything it will be increased."

The recording industry is monitoring popular Internet services where computer users can download song files, searching for people illegally distributing the largest music collections. Court-issued subpoenas compel Internet providers to identify their customers linked to the online accounts used to download songs.

Among the RIAA's recent targets is retiree Ernest Brenot, 79 [that's age 79!!! - Rooster], of Ridgefield, Wash., who wrote in a handwritten note to a federal judge that he does not own a computer nor can he operate one.

Brenot was accused of illegally offering for download 774 songs by artists including Vanilla Ice, U2, Creed, Linkin Park and Guns N' Roses.

Brenot's wife, Dorothy, said she and her husband were stunned by the claims, offended at the suggestion they listened to such music. Brenot was targeted in the previous round of 80 suits the recording organization filed late in October.

Brenot and her husband said their son-in-law briefly added Internet service to their own cable television account while living with the couple because Comcast Cable Communications Inc. said it would add a surcharge to send separate bills to the same mailing address.

"There's a mistake in this case," Dorothy Brenot said. "We're innocent in all of this, but I don't know how we're going to prove it."

The 41 most recent suits were filed against Internet users in Massachusetts, Colorado, Arizona, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Illinois and Washington.

The recording industry also said Wednesday that it has reached financial settlements against at least 220 computer users. Defense lawyers familiar with some of the cases have said penalties ranged from $2,500 to $7,500 each.

Edited December 4, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[Jim Alfredson]

Fuckin' losers. That's it. I'm ordering that T-shirt.

DOWN WITH THE RIAA, the greedy motherfuckers!

[Jazzmoose]

Brenot was accused of illegally offering for download 774 songs by artists including Vanilla Ice, U2, Creed, Linkin Park and Guns N' Roses.

Brenot's wife, Dorothy, said she and her husband were stunned by the claims, offended at the suggestion they listened to such music.

Man, I can understand how he feels. If some scuzzball lawyer accused me of listening to Vanilla Ice, I'd go fucking ballistic!

[Rooster_Ties]

from CNN...

U.S. court nixes Net music subpoenas

Friday, December 19, 2003 Posted: 11:05 AM EST (1605 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- In a surprise setback for the recording industry, a U.S. appeals court said Friday its methods for tracking down those who copy its music over the Internet are NOT authorized by law.

The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group, has sought to force Verizon Communications and other Internet service providers to reveal the names of customers it suspects may be copying music without permission.

The recording industry says the widespread copying of music over the Internet is partially to blame for falling CD sales.

Verizon has argued that existing copyright law does not give the recording industry such authority and its customers' privacy was being violated.

A lower court earlier this year upheld the recording industry's tactics, which have served as the basis for hundreds of lawsuits filed against individual Internet users.

But in a strongly worded ruling, the appeals court sided with Verizon, saying a 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit.

"In sum, we agree with Verizon that (the law) does not by its terms authorize the subpoenas issued here," Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote.

Neither Verizon nor the RIAA was immediately available for comment.