RIAA sues 765 in new attack
p2pnet.net News- Using its RIAA as weapon, the Big Four record label cartel has struck again, attacking another 765 men, women and children in its relentless sue ‘em all sales campaign under which it’s trying to prosecute people into buying its over-priced product.
In addition to the 765, “John Doe” lawsuits filed today, the labels filed 176 named people in federal district courts in Little Rock, Arkansas; Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Ana, California; Denver, Colorado; Wilmington, Delaware; Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, Panama City, Pensacola, and West Palm Beach, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; Honolulu, Hawaii; Des Moines, Iowa; Chicago, Illinois; Kansas City, Kansas; Paducah, Kentucky; Houma, Lafayette, Monroe, New Orleans, and Shreveport, Louisiana; Baltimore, Maryland; Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri; Aberdeen, Greenville, and Jackson, Mississippi; Asheville, Durham, Greensboro, Raleigh, and Statesville, North Carolina; Camden, Newark, and Trenton, New Jersey; Reno, Nevada; Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Utica, New York; Cincinnati, Ohio; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Eugene, Oregon; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Jackson, Memphis, Nashville, and Winchester, Tennessee; Beaumont, Corpus Christi, El Paso, Galveston, Houston, Laredo, Marshall, Midland, San Antonio, Sherman, and Waco, Texas; Bluefield, Charleston, and Clarksburg, West Virginia; and Tacoma, Washington.
“The names of these individuals, whose Internet Protocol (IP) addresses were previously identified in “John Doe” lawsuits, had been subpoenaed from their respective Internet Service Provider (ISP),” says the RIAA.
“With broadband penetration skyrocketing, use of legitimate services continues to surge, while the wildfire-like growth of illicit services has been arrested,” says RIAA president Cary Sherman in what can only be described as an outright lie.
In fact, the labels are hemorrhaging customers in ever-increasing numbers as music lovers continue to turn to the p2p networks and independent sites.
The Big Four record labels say some 300 corporate ’services’ are dispensing tracks for $1 or more each.
In fact, there’s only one viable Big Music supported site, and that’s Apple’s iTunes. The other 299 don’t figure in the equation.
And when you stack Apple’s sales – some 500 million since 2003 – against the billion or more files shared every month, iTunes, too, fades into total insignificance.
P2p file sharers would willingly pay any reasonable amount for downloads. But the present $1 per (and the labels want to boost even this) is forcing people to look elsewhere in ever-increasing numbers.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
July 29th, 2005 at 12:02 am
Is there a list of these lawsuit targets somewhere?
July 29th, 2005 at 12:54 am
They won’t be listed till they have been identified. For now they are John Doe ip requests to identify who from ip numbers.
As has been mentioned in another article recently, they are sueing those most likely to buy and buy more than other people with the p2p infringement cases. In otherwords they are sueing their most ardent music lovers. Those most likely to go for several albums and not just one song or two. The ever greedy are undercutting their own best customers in an effort to stem the tide of this p2p because they are not getting every penny. Expect later to hear how poorly the industry is doing, once again because of piracy. Never expect them to own up that their own business practices are taking them down the drain.
For now they are proudly trumpeting that they have x amount of “legal sites” to buy music from. However they are not telling you how many are turning from those same sites because the product those customers are buying in the end lead to sever customer dissatisfaction with the limiting of what they can do with those purchases. I suspect it is also a way they are attempting to remove some of the heat over the latest round with payolla scandle. Of course they will tell you it is the end of the month and it is time for a new round of law suits to come out. The timing of this one is most suspicious…
July 29th, 2005 at 8:25 am
“P2p file sharers would willingly pay any reasonable amount for downloads. But the present $1 per (and the labels want to boost even this) is forcing people to look elsewhere in ever-increasing numbers.”
Actually I don’t engage in filesharing for economic reasons, but because I enjoy sharing my music with my peers.
July 29th, 2005 at 9:08 am
I was explaining this issue to my friend WHO FILE SHARES, yet he ASTUTELY remains ADAMANT that “file sharing” is EQUIVALENT to “stealing.” Without getting into the nitty gritty, basically “theft” implies several things: (1) To take without permission something from another person, and (2) that idividual LOSES the object.
But semantics aside, we started talking about something interesting. I was telling him that movie trailers were “cunningly” deceptive in their protrayal of the movie plot and its contents.
We all agreed that deceiving the public in commercial operations is illegal, yet the RIAA / MPAA still do it. Then we started thinking —- they do it BECAUSE THEY CAN. So then we saw a startling similarity, people file share BECAUSE THEY CAN.
So it all boils down to have the ‘ability / power’ to do what you want. Hence, we see THE RECENT BASH of LAWS BEING REWRITTEN and POLICE NOT PERFORMING THEIR DUTY, but working for the MPAA / RIAA (on Taxpayers money) —- all in the attempt to increase their “power.”
It’s really simple what is happening if you take the time to think.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
I think this is one of the things about the way things should be, and hopefully are, going.
There are plenty of really talented people out there who make music because they enjoy it, not because they want to make money from it. However, the internet provides a good opportunity for them to make money anyway. Those willing to pay probably will pay (if they have the opportunity), those who aren’t won’t.
I think what needs to happen is the removal of record labels from the music scene.
Many of my friends are in bands and often they are managing their own finances, finding their own places to record, doing their own distribution, doing their own promotion, organising their own gigs, etc. Since the internet allows for promotion to be done for no cost at all (other than the cost of an internet connection), there wouldn’t be any need for a label to do any of this.
In theory…
July 30th, 2005 at 8:46 am
NICE!!!
I’m a musician too! I’m putting together an album, and SELF-PROMOTING IT.
I’m working on a website… Still in the works. I’ll let P2PNET.NET know when it’s ready. It should be real SWEET!
Anyhow, back to practicing and recording…
July 30th, 2005 at 11:39 am
“I’m working on a website… Still in the works.”
Me too!
Have a look: http://www.soundnet.co.uk
Its a .uk because many of the features I’m hoping to provide will be more aimed at U.K. artists but anyone is welcome to join in.
I’m actually looking for a graphic designer and someone who can help me with getting my privacy policy and ToS sorted out. If you can help, please get in touch. My email address is on the site.