p2pnet - rss feed: Seasons’ Greetings: RIAA
p2p news / p2pnet: It’s that time of year again – the time you suddenly realise you’ve forgotten to buy Christmas prezzies for Auntie Jane and Uncle John, not to mention Jim and June over at work.
What to do? What to DO?
How about a music CD for each? The perfect gift!
While you’re podering that, below is the full, unexpurgated December 15 RIAA release on the last 751 law suits launched against people such as yourself who, the RIAA’s owners, Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI earnestly hope, will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on CDs as Christmas gifts.
If you want to know who not to buy from, this year, go here.
Meanwhile >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RIAA Brings New Round Of Lawsuits Against 751 Online Music Thieves
By Mitch Bainwol and Cary Sherman - RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America)
As part of its ongoing effort to level the playing field for legal online music services and protect the record industry’s ability to invest in new music, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), on behalf of its member companies, announced a new round of copyright infringement lawsuits today against 751 new individuals, including students at the college campuses of Drexel University, Harvard University, and the University of Southern California.
The “John Doe” lawsuits filed today cite individuals for illegally distributing copyrighted music on the Internet via unauthorized peer-to-peer services such as LimeWire and Kazaa, In addition to the “John Doe” litigations, the major music companies filed lawsuits against 105 named defendants. Named defendant suits were filed today in Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Wisconsin (specific cities below).
“The end of the year is an especially important time for the music community, and an especially fortunate time for music fans, with a great slate of new releases in stores,” said Cary Sherman, President, RIAA. “We must do everything to protect the integrity of the marketplace. That means educating fans about steering clear of pirated product and continuing to enforce our rights to send a clear message that stealing music will bring consequences. At stake is the music industry’s ability to invest in the next generation of music and a chance for legal online music services to flourish.”
Specifically, lawsuits with named defendants were filed in: Phoenix, Arizona; Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut; Columbus and Macon, Georgia; Chicago, Rock Island, Springfield, Illinois; Boston and Springfield, Massachusetts; Bay City, Detroit, and Flint, Michigan; Asheville, Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, Statesville, and Winston Salem, North Carolina; Omaha, Nebraska; Newark and Trenton, New Jersey; Brooklyn, New York; Abilene, Amarillo, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Lubbock, and San Angelo, Texas; Green Bay and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. as a stocking stuffer or anything else over Christmas. Do bug your local political representatives. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
So, where can we read the court papers or find out who the defendants are?
December 19th, 2005 at 12:31 am
The law no longer becomes relevant when it starts persecuting the people it’s designed to protect.
December 19th, 2005 at 1:12 am
It is time the music industry woke up and really looked for the next generation of ways to keep the consumer intersted in their product.
I have migrated to online music that I can play on any device I choose in the comfort of my home, car or mp3 player.
The continuing spat of lawsuits will only prolong the death rattle of an archiac industry that is too entrenched to envision change. I hope the video industry wises up before it too follows the same road.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Again another fluff peice full of BS and of course it will be echoed by lamescream.
“…level the playing field…”
Please, when has the music cartels EVER been interested in leveling the playing field? Ask any indie group how level that playing field is. Or think, when was the last time you heard an indie on the local commercial radio station? It’s sort of like chicken teeth, they don’t exist.
“…including students at the college campuses…”
This isn’t random law suits. This is the purposeful targeting of what the RIAA believes is the highest class of infringers with the secondary objective to scare the crap out of students that they KNOW beyond a doubt won’t have the money to fend for themselves at this point in their life. It is my hope that those same individuals will remember this the rest of their lives and encourage all around each and everyone of them to not buy the cartels offerings. Without the feeding of the beast to the diet of money, they will surely starve to the death they most richly deserve.
“The end of the year is an especially important time for the music community, and an especially fortunate time for music fans, with a great slate of new releases in stores,”
Yes, it is important to the music industry. 40% of their annual sales from the year come from this point in time. It is so important that Sony, who has a “slight problem” by their own statements with the xcp rootkit, hasn’t pulled the problem from store shelves anywhere but in the US where they are being sued after announcing a recall that isn’t happening except in the news. Wonder why that is, Sony?
As far as the slate of new releases, who wants them? What, rehashes of 20 to 40 year old songs at new song prices? Or entertainers (I surely can’t call someone who can’t play instruments at professional level an artist.) that can barely pull of a live preformance without the help of the modern technology assisted studio? The same performers that pretty much play at everything they know of in the first live concert doesn’t stike me as a qualification as a slate of great new releases. Pray tell, why is it that the music industry has failed this year (or last year) to have sustainable long term #1 hits? Is it that inspite of all the money being thrown to influance what should be a hit, that the customers aren’t buying it anymore? Could it be that the music industry has lost touch with what the customer wants and that all the computer programs in the world can’t really be that successful in predicting which one will actually be a hit? After all, garbage in equals garbage out when it comes to a program.
“We must do everything to protect the integrity of the marketplace….”
The only intergrity that the cartels are interested in, is the one of no competion. One where the customer pays top dollar for junk. Surely that is what we are seeing with the DRM protected offerings of product now on the shelves today. Accountants have never been able to determine the worth of art, simply it doesn’t compute in the world of figures.
“…That means educating fans about steering clear of pirated product and continuing to enforce our rights to send a clear message that stealing music will bring consequences…”
Well I’ve heard it called many things, this educating, that includes it being called finacial terrorism. No need to go into the defination of theivery, I suspect everyone but the music industry already knows that one. But where do “our rights” end? Some next century when we are all dead or is this just the latest scheme until the next petition to yet expand the length of copyright again?
“…At stake is the music industry’s ability to invest in the next generation of music and a chance for legal online music services to flourish.”
The music industry’s ability to produce next generations is already suspect with far less and less new stuff coming out that is not in touch with the customer. What good does it do to attempt to sell what the customer isn’t interested in? No amount of forcing is going to get the customer to part with money over what he is not interested in. I do have another question though, why is it that movies cost more than a music cd when it costs far more to make a movie? Why is it that those customers that buy a product from you are having more problems after the purchase with your product than it is worth? Do you as an industry think that making it harder for the customer to use his purchase as he sees fit is actually winning you more customers? Intelligent people want to know…
December 19th, 2005 at 5:43 am
There are tons of other ways to get music….those file sharing places they hawk for victims are no longer the major sources of stuff anyhow. RIP RIAA…..I hope all the record lables dry up and go away. You’re no longer needed and you know it.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:17 am
This release says :- The “John Doe” lawsuits filed today cite individuals for illegally distributing copyrighted music on the Internet via unauthorized peer-to-peer services such as LimeWire and Kazaa
But Cecilia Gonzalez was fined $750 for each of 30 MP3s that she had downloaded and then kept. The crux of *that* case was that of the 1000 Mp3s all but 30 were from CDs she owned. Even though all 1000 were allegedly available for upload.
So which is it? Is downloading illegal? Or uploading? Or making available for uploading? And if it’s downloading, is it only downloading from well known P2P programs or is downloading from other sources ok? Which other sources? What about commercial operations in other countries?
yours, confused.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Good question. What people do not seem to realize is that downloading is all fine and dandy. Download all you want…download songs and pics and vids, and have fun!
The clincher is as follows…
As soon as you make them available to other parties, then you’ve stepped over into the ‘illegal’ side of things.
You might argue that “Hey! I Already own that on CD!”
But hey, you just gave that away for free to whoever is passing by.
Just like you’re not really supposed to make copies of cd’s for friends (though, like, duh!).
Back in the old days, making a ‘tape’ was the thing to do. My mix, my songs, my order…..my damn music!
If the record companies had the technology where they could actually ‘read’ what was on those cassettes, the suing and the fining and the harrassments would have started way way back in the seventies.
So why are they doing it now? Because they can. Digital age has brought with it Big Brother. If they can ’see’ what they don’t like you to do, they’ll attempt to end it. If that means suing the skirt off of some old grandma…they will. Fine a highschool sweetheart, create havoc in families, make life hell for the random few….yep, they will.
Because they can, nowadays.
Your basic ’sharing’ of music has been around forever. There was never any harm done back then, and nothing has changed.
The only change has been in the technology. Now the record companies have little robots that scour their actual customers for what they deem ‘infringments’.
That is a sad state of things….they couldn’t get their rich overstuffed paws on my tapedeck…they access my computer instead.
To finish up….best not to share. Download all you want, and put it all in your unshared music folder.
You maybe thinking to yourself that you’re ‘leaching’ (taking, not giving)…
There are still enough countries and people in the world and plenty of files. Best be safe than sorry.
David O’Hare
December 19th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
The best way to send the **sholes a message is NOT to buy and music this Christmas season. Put it off if you have to until next year.
This would be a really NICE preasant to give the RIAA this year.
Many people will simply copy a CD and pass it on to their friends.
There’s no tracing that one with bots.
Hold out this Christmas and send them a loud message!
December 19th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Thanks for the explanation Dave, that’s what I thought but I wasn’t absolutely sure. Do you happen to know what law (US) this is covered in, or is it one of those vague areas that isn’t really covered. I have had some difficultly trying to find a good site that deals with file sharing issues in the law, the eff and others I have looked at mostly cover the broader issue of general internet rights.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:36 am
Illegal : A definition.
Anything that you do which could in some conceivable manner deprive a large corporation an opportunity to make you pay for something you don’t want or need.
Maybe not yet, but i’m sure it won’t be long now.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Better is pirating than boycotting
December 21st, 2005 at 3:55 am
Even better, go into the music shop and copy all their CDs onto a laptop, then give copies of the CDs to people for Christmas. Oh, and don’t forget to put the contents up on as many filesharing networks as you can.