p2pnet - rss feed: RIAA sues another 784 people
p2pnet.net News:- Only three days after the Supreme Court handed down its decision on Grokster v MGM, the record label cartel’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has launched another 784 lawsuits against men, women and children in California, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, DC.
“Suits specifically target people who are ‘illegally distributing copyrighted music on the Internet via unauthorized peer-to-peer services such as Kazaa, LimeWire and Grokster,’ says the RIAA, according to Variety.
“The RIAA said it launched fresh suits ‘as part of its continued efforts to promote legal online services, educate fans about the right and wrong way to enjoy digital music and enforce its rights through the legal system’.”
This brings the number of people sued in the US to just under 11,000.
The RIAA claims, incorrectly, that file sharing is damaging its sales. This has never been proved.
File sharing is not a crime and it does not involve the exchange of money.
None of the RIAA victims has ever been before a court and, therefore, not one of them has been found guilty of anything, let alone of file sharing, which isn’t an offence of any kind to begin with.
The RIAA makes its victims, all ordinary people with very liimited resources, a Godfather-like offer they can’t refuse: Pay us and we’ll go away. So the victims always ’settle,’ as RIAA don Mitch Bainwol (upper right) likes to point out at every opportunity.
However, the fact it’s issued subpoenas is enough to allow the RIAA to release carefully worded, deliberately misleading press statements which imply it’s successfully sued thousands of people
Moreover, contrary to the cartel’s claims that its lawsuits are halting the practice file sharing, it’s increasing, and rapidly, as numerous reports continue to prove.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Variety - RIAA files more suits, June 30, 2005
June 30th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
http://www.variety.com/VR1117925317.html
What’s the actual number?
June 30th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
You can buy insurance against everything from dying to losing your beauty. Even now, some insurance against being the subject of litigation is available. So how long before some enterprising insurance company offers insurance against being sued for downloading, uploading, ripping, or otherwise diddling with binary files? Maybe it could be part of a blanket identity theft policy.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
That could be correct, although it may take in European subpoenas as well.
The last number I was reasonably certain about came in May when it was 10,037. [http://p2pnet.net/story/4702] Or have I forgotten one? It’s hard to keep track.
But 11,000 or 12,575, the suits aren’t even a drop in the bucket. The chances of an individual US citizen becoming a victim are in the order of him or her being struck by lightning.
Cheers!
June 30th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
yeah but such insurance would ‘induce’ you to dl music therefore it would be deemed illegal.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
of course having the insurance industry fighting the cartel….both with so much money and used to getting their own way. That could be good. Of course the customers… (opps sorry cartels I really did mean consumers really) would foot the bill.
June 30th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
> So how long before some enterprising insurance company offers
> insurance against being sued for downloading…
what are you talking about? haven’t you seen www.p2pfund.com?
June 30th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
“the record label cartel’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has launched another 784 lawsuits against men, women and children”
No cyborgs or monkeys?
I would think everyone knows that file swapping by T2 and Bobo represent some of the largest financial drains to the RIAA, MPAA, and the artists.
June 30th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
I don’t understand why people won’t stop buying cd’s, etc. for a period of time to send a clear message to the RIAA.
For just 1 month, stop buying cd’s. If you have any music files on your system then move them to a directory that isn’t shared. Don’t download files. Don’t give the RIAA means to make money during the time that no cd’s are purchased.
There has to be a better way and unless the RIAA gets a “slap in the face” to wake up and change its ways then this crap will just continue.
June 30th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
thanks!
that’s a great idea. but it’s not up and running yet. you can pre-register, though.
June 30th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
I just can’t get into this month thing. It doesn’t show commitment to being real about it. I realize that saying a month might make it more compatible to those that haven’t tried it and that they might just pickup the cause through that but it just doesn’t send the right message. For mega-corporations that see a one month fluke, they will explain it in any number of ways that just says, “Oh well, they had their fun, now back to business.”
I haven’t purchased any music since they started with the massive sue ‘em all campaign. The MPAA joined that list when they commenced with the same actions. This may well be a lifetime thing for me, I don’t see them slowing down on the suing people and I for one refuse to support economic terrorism that is being hoisted off as “deterrence”, “educational”, and the standard “For the artist” lines. I can’t see any of those ideas applying to the grandmother of a child who winds up paying for the child’s actions in the form of a payoff.
June 30th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
So, this whole thread is about putting money back into the pockets of RIAA lawyers? Why not just go out and buy the CD then? Let’s see, insurance money would be used to settle out of court.. P2PFund claims to do the same.. geeze.. yes, let’s reward the oligopoly for its suits and pay it even more money than before. Good ideas, all around.
June 30th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
I posted something on this before, then looked up a reference. If someone is prosecuted in California for file sharing, they should try to find out if that prosecutor’s office was given any financial aid by the RIAA.
There is a precedent setting case in California Law, People v. Eubanks, which stated that if a person wanting a prosecution, (RIAA) gives money to a prosecutor’s office, the defendant can have that prosecutor disqualitified from a later case.
This problem, which RIAA and MPAA made for themselves, is that most of the prosecutors were paid off by them, and now have big conflicts of interest, and can’t prosecute.
So, they have to go with civil lawsuits now. They made their own bed, I am glad they have to lie in it.
July 1st, 2005 at 5:56 am
Damn it Bobo, you were messing with my computer again, weren’t you?!?! The MP3 Police are at the door!
July 1st, 2005 at 6:00 am
The last CD I bought was when I heard that first Evanescence song on the radio. It was good, one or two of the other songs on the disc appealed to me…and nothing else. Great value in that product. I’d rather buy a family-size pack of ground beef, some vegetables, and beverages with $16, than a maximum of three decent songs amongst 12 so-so or lame ones. At my pay rate, where $1 equals ten minutes of my life gone, I can’t afford that crap.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:07 pm
When the RIAA started this mess, I quit buying and started downloading. Now that the MPAA is involved, I no longer buy or rent movies. It is the same story here as well.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Why only a month? That’s nothing to these mega-buck corporations. To send a good message, everyone needs to stop buying for ONE YEAR. That’s right a whole year. That will give them a big message to stop screwing with people.
They need to bring prices down to a harmonious level with current technology. The old days are gone and no number of law suits will bring them back. It’s a lost cause and they’re (RIAA, MPAA) too stupid to realize it. They’re lawyers are making good money in the process aren’t they? Lawyers always get their $$$.
One year I say.
Many have already done this.
Lets do it.
August 1, 2005 to August 1, 2006.
Let them know it’s coming. Here’s their wake-up call.
July 1st, 2005 at 2:18 pm
Abiut the thieves….
My father was a rather good composer (http://www.gvenegas.com). After he passed away in 1993 we have discovered many (possibly over 100) of his great songs because music collectors had tapes of them. The collectors had made (and exchanged among themselves) cassette recordings of old 78 and 33 rpm records which are mosly not currently available in CD format.
Almost all the recordings were originally made by record companies that no longer exists.
It is fortunate that the music collectors make and exchange copies of old recordings.
Many of the songs we discovered have already been copyright registered by us heirs. The music collectors saved the music.
Sure, the taping of songs and their exchange among collectors may be technically illegal, but had it not ocurred, the songs would have been lost forever and we would not have any copyrights at all for these collector saved songs.
Surely as copyright owners of our father’s music we could feel threatened by p2p and cd burning, but we must ask ourselves, what is more important, profiting from our father’s music or saving the music? Clearly the latter is more important.
My thanks to the Puerto Rico Music Collector Society. These people, who are labeled as thiefs by the cartels, are heroes that are saving the music of Puerto Rico, that of my father and that of many other composers and performers. I am sure the saving are happening in all countries.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
July 1st, 2005 at 6:46 pm
A mass boycott is a good idea but it would take more work than just setting a date. I would participate either way, but it must done proffessionaly for it to make a difference.
July 1st, 2005 at 6:47 pm
A mass boycott is a good idea but it would take more work than just setting a date. I would participate either way, but it must done proffessionaly for it to make a difference.
July 3rd, 2005 at 9:03 pm
Sounds like a good reason for Puerto Rico to remove itself from the USA rule of law, and maybe strike out on an independant track?
Wouldn’t that be something? RIAA helps break up America… heheheeh
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:08 pm
As much as I’ve looked for them I can never seem to find any email addresses for the RIAA or Mitchy B. It would be incredible if somehow we were able to find one. Imagine hundreds of thousands of complaint emails flooding into those mailboxes! I’ll get to looking…
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:45 pm
While I was unable to find an email address for him, I did manage to find a number for the RIAA, which when called allows you to use the directory to search by last name. Don’t have great phone service but I did get it ringing for Mitch when I tried calling.
Here’s the number: 202-775-0101
Please note, I’m not encouraging threatening calls; however, it would be fitting for the man at the helm of the RIAA, who has gone to such lengthts to avoid any contact with the consumers to hear directly from them. Imagine the look on his face with his phone ringing off the hook for days!!!
Happy Calling,
Nev
July 4th, 2005 at 1:22 am
Civil lawsuits would actually be worse in that they require a lesser degree of evidence and proof for a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.