RIAA questioned on student attacks
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- There’s no two ways about it:
Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG and their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) are knowingly and deliberately using laws meant to protect people and companies from profiteering, to profiteer.
They’re using legal systems around the world to improperly coerce men, women and even children who don’t know any better into buying shabby and exorbitantly over-priced corporate ‘product’.
Their current victims of choice American students.
But if something works in America, it’ll be reapplied in other countries around the world.
Count on it.
No one has been found guilty of anything ….
The Big 4 come up with one tactic after another designed to keep the ball rolling and their latest is to accuse universities of being responsible for RIAA lawsuits.
But interestingly, in exactly the same way not one of the 30,000 or so people accused of being illegal online distributors of copyrighted music has so far been convicted by a civil court or jury, no student has yet been found guilty of anything, let alone the non-existent crime of file sharing.
Last Friday, “an RIAA ‘press release’ says ‘unsettled cases’ were, ‘either because the university failed to forward a pre-litigation letter to the student or because the record industry’s initial settlement offer of a discounted settlement was ignored’,” p2pnet reported.
The quote came in a story pointing out the Big 4 enforcement unit is, “after 16 Philadelphia students, completely ignoring mounting universal outrage against the ongoing harassment”.
In the firing line are Philadelphia’s Drexel University and the University of Oregon, among others.
Why so much?
The Oregon Daily Emerald was the first to report the attack on UO and it’s now carrying a Q&A with an unnamed RIAA spinperson which makes extremely interesting reading.
The labels pay expert fact realignment specialists such as RIAA president Carry Sherman huge salaries to spread a mis- and disinformation and disingenuous ‘press releases’ which are then parroted faithfully as accurate representations of reality by the mainstream media.
The Q&S, republished below with permission from Oregon Daily Emerald, is a perfect example of the art of spin and how Sherman and others of his ilk do what they do.
Q: Where were the lawsuits formally filed? Did that happen today?
A: The lawsuits were filed in the closest federal district court to the internet service provider yesterday, August 8, 2007.
Q: How much was the offer for original settlement? One student paper reported the amount was as high as $5,000. Why so much?
A: Because these are private settlement agreements, we will decline – as we have always done – to disclose such figures. Suffice to say, though, as a general rule, the earlier an individual settles in the process, the better the proposed settlement. The later someone settles – for example, after we have filed a “Doe” suit or the next step – against the individual as a named defendant – the settlement offers incrementally increase. However, keep in mind that this amount is still far, far less than what the law allows.
Q: There were 17 UO students originally notified of pending litigation, and the new release says 17 UO network users are subject to the lawsuit filed today. Did any of the students attempt to contact you?
A: We do not publicly release that information. However, while we request that universities forward our pre-litigation letters to their students and strongly encourage schools to do so, it is up to school officials to determine their compliance.
Q: Is RIAA hoping all those involved in the lawsuits will just settle out of court?
A: The pre-settlement letters that we send to universities with the request that they will forward them on to the appropriate network user allow students the opportunity to settle at a substantially discounted rate, while also avoiding a mark on their public record. As always, we encourage anyone who faces a suit to seek legal advice. We created the website www.p2plawsuits.com to serve as an informational tool for the recipients of our letters. On the site you can see a list of some of the most frequently asked questions posed by those involved in a copyright infringement suit and our answers. You can also find settlement information.
Taking a step back… During the past 6 years, the industry has experienced a dramatic decline due in part to music theft. That has translated into thousands of layoffs and closings. Fewer bands signed and many dropped from label rosters. The theft of music has comprised the industry’s ability to invest in the new bands of tomorrow. We are trying to do all we can – most important, offer exciting legal options – to encourage fans to enjoy music legally. It’s ultimately about creating a level playing field for the online marketplace. Piracy will never go away but we need to bring it under sufficient control where the legal services can reach their full potential and the industry can invest in the new bands of tomorrow.
Additionally, the problem of illegal file-sharing is most acute amongst the college demographic. In fact, a 2006 survey by Student Monitor found that more than half of college students download music and movies illegally, and according to market research firm NPD, college students alone accounted for more than 1.3 billion illegal music downloads in 2006. Additionally, every student in the country has access to affordable, legal music through innovative music industry-supported models like that offered through Ruckus.
Q: What about federal privacy protections for students under the FERPA law? Will RIAA extend any understanding to students if they were not notified due to the fact information cannot be released until a subpoena is received?
A: Again, we encourage universities to forward the letters to the appropriate users so that the individuals can take full advantage of a discounted offer and avoid a lawsuit. Schools that do not forward the letters are essentially depriving their students of this opportunity to settle the matter at a lesser rate.
We do not request any user information from a school until a subpoena has been filed. It is important to note that after we subpoena the school for the individual’s identity, we send another letter to the individual directly, offering a second opportunity to settle before a lawsuit is filed in their name. As previously mentioned, this second settlement offer is not as discounted as the first, but still represents a sum substantially less than what copyright law allows.
Stay tuned.
Also See:
firing line – RIAA blames universities for lawsuits
RIAA spinperson – RIAA response regarding copyright infringement lawsuits, August 13, 2007
being responsible – RIAA blames universities for lawsuits, August 10, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
They (the RIAA) actually believe this crap?
“offer exciting legal options” (LOL)
“www.p2plawsuits.com… frequently asked questions posed… and our answers.”: PAY
August 15th, 2007 at 12:09 am
If I steal, cause damage, or otherwise deprive another person of $1,000, that person isn’t going to ask me for $100 or $200 in order to avoid court.
These widespread discount settlement offers, offered on the initial contact between the allegedly wronged and the alleged wrong-doer, says something is nefarious about the nature of the claims themselves.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
If you are bother by the RIAA:
DO NOT PAY!
Wether you downloaded or not Never pay! Never settle! Fight them instead by any mean! Consult a lawer if you can if you can not do it yourself. Never admit anything. IP Address is not equal one person. Multiple person can use the same computer. Multiple computers can use the same IP address at any given time. Assigned IP address changes constantly since basically all the IP network setting thes days are dynamic not static.
My router for example is setup to request a new IP address every hour from the DHSP server. many time the server reasign the same IP address but I have a new IP address on an average every 6 hours this mess-up the potential hackers.
So legaly the IP address mean shit. This explain why the RIAA dogs got it so obviously wrong so often. Suing the grandmother, suing the decease, suing the few month old babies. . .
Ok worst case scenario they win (Very unlikly!)
If they got a default judgement contest it!
DO NOT PAY! NEVER PAY!
Nobody in the word can force you to pay. Why? Because you have no asset!
If you have assets just bankrupt chapter 7 with a lawer.(cost about $1000)
It is not as bad as you think.