there goes my downloading days.

[blitzgsr97]

well if you people haven't heard yet kaaza users are going to be sued.
RIAA Targets Individual Music File Swappers
Wed Jun 25, 7:00 PM ET

Paul Roberts, IDG News Service

The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) Inc. (RIAA) will soon begin gathering evidence for use in what could be "thousands of lawsuits" against individual music file swappers, the organization said Wednesday.


• Piracy an Old Problem for Hollywood
• DVD Copying Software Gets Update
• Senator Softens Threat Against Pirates
• Should Web Be a Copyright-Free Zone?
• Napster's Legacy: Another Lawsuit





Missed Tech Tuesday?
Arm yourself and can spam for good.





In a statement, the RIAA cited its efforts to educate the public about the illegality of file swapping and the easy availability of extensive legal downloading services as precursors to its new effort to target individual file swappers who, it contends, are engaged in piracy.


"We cannot stand by while piracy takes a devastating toll on artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers, and everyone in the music industry," the RIAA said in its statement.

Seeking Out Swappers

The industry association will use software that can scan peer-to-peer networks for copyrighted material and download the suspect files while also capturing the date and time of the download as evidence. Additional information obtained from the systems hosting the files will lead the RIAA to the Internet service provider (ISP) of the file swapper.


Those ISPs will then be served with subpoenas under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites) (DMCA), requiring them to divulge the name and address of the individual hosting the files, the RIAA said.


Individuals who are found to be swapping copyrighted material could face legal action from the RIAA in the form of civil lawsuits or even criminal prosecution, according to a statement attributed to RIAA president Cary Sherman.


The decision to pursue legal action against individuals is just the latest move by the RIAA to turn up the heat on file swappers on peer-to-peer networks such as Kazaa and Grokster.


In April, the group won a court case forcing Verizon Internet Services to turn over the names of customers who downloaded hundreds of songs over a P-to-P network. The company later turned over the names of four alleged music downloaders.


Given the group's focus on online music swapping, the threat of mass lawsuits shouldn't be surprising, according to one legal expert.


"It's a time-honored American tradition to threaten to sue someone," said Jonathan Zittrain, of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.


The recent court ruling against Verizon will embolden the RIAA to seek customer information from other ISPs, he said.

Threats or Promises?

The RIAA may seek out swappers, but Zittrain said that he considers the prospect thousands of lawsuits unlikely.


"We're probably talking about thousands of threats [of lawsuits]," Zittrain said.


Given the "con" of getting sued and the intangible "pro" of sharing files on line, however, many Internet users may eventually decide to avoid P-to-P networks, he said.


The recording industry sees the current fight, coupled with such tentative efforts at online distribution as Apple Computers' popular ITunes Music Store, as key to its survival, Zittrain said.


"They are against the wall. I think they really believe that if they don't play a strong hand, with defensive moves like [the lawsuits] and offensive moves like ITunes, they're gone," he said.

[blitzgsr97]

Furthe more 4 people where sued already peep this :Verizon Divulges Customer Names

ISP loses bid to protect file sharers from music labels.

Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Thursday, June 05, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Verizon Internet Services has released the names of four alleged music downloaders to the Recording Industry Association of America, but the music label group--which sued to get the names--isn't sure what it will do with them.


Advertisement




Verizon turned over the names after an appeals court denied the company's request for a stay to challenge a law that allows the music industry to subpoena such information.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on Wednesday. Verizon filed the appeal after a U.S. district judge ordered the ISP to turn over the names of two Verizon customers who had allegedly downloaded hundreds of songs through a peer-to-peer file-swapping service.

An RIAA spokesperson says the industry group is weighing its options on what do with the names of the alleged downloaders. "In the next several days, we will evaluate how this ruling can best be incorporated into our overall enforcement program," the representative says.

Harm Cited
Verizon "has not shown so great a likelihood of success on the merits as to outweigh the clearly greater harm that would accrue to the [RIAA] if the stay were granted," three appeals court judges wrote in the one-page decision.

The RIAA has sought from Verizon the names of two other alleged downloaders, but those two haven't been part of the previous court rulings.

The appeals court decision confirms the RIAA's position that "music pirates must be held accountable for their actions, and not be allowed to hide behind the company that provides their Internet service," says Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, in a statement.

"Given that an epidemic of illegal downloading is threatening the livelihoods of artists, songwriters, and tens of thousands of other recording industry workers who bring music to the public, we look forward to Verizon's speedy compliance with this ruling," Sherman says in the statement.

Next Battle
Although the four alleged downloaders could face legal action from the RIAA, Verizon will continue to fight other charges under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The ISP is challenging a provision that allows copyright holders to get the names of suspected copyright violators through subpoenas issued by a court clerk instead of a judge, says Sarah Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel for Verizon Communications.

"Verizon will continue arguing the merits of this case and taking the appeals process as far as it will go," Deutsch says. A hearing is scheduled for September.

Verizon is joined by more than 40 consumer groups, privacy groups, and ISPs in arguing against the clerk-issued subpoenas. The opponents contend the practice violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on using court powers without a pending case or controversy. Verizon also argues that the clerk-issued subpoenas open up a potential for abuse, with anyone--including pedophiles and stalkers--wanting to know the name of an anonymous Internet user having the ability to claim a copyright violation and get a subpoena.

Deutsch says the RIAA could have avoided this court battle by filing "John Doe" lawsuits against the anonymous downloaders and having a judge decide whether subpoenas are warranted.

"What we think the RIAA is trying to do is create a legal shortcut where they can amass hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of names," Deutsch says. She is calling on the U.S. Congress to change the subpoena section of the DMCA.

"When Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it deliberately balanced the interests of Internet service providers and copyright holders," the RIAA says in its statement. "ISPs were given immunity from liability for piracy on their networks, while copyright holders were given a quick and efficient mechanism to learn the identity of computer users who were stealing their works."

[Oz]

.

[2strokebloke]

Has anybody checked out the RIAA's website? They changed from riaa.org, to riaa.com (that is they have changed from an organization to a COMpany) People have no way to voice their opinions, although you can email the webmaster (who probably doesn't care to hear anybody's opinons about these music nazis) how's that for freedom of expression?
The RIAA is evil - perhaps even more evil than the Selden patent.

[ac427cpe]

so who else be goin to jail?

[Zippy]

What does that mean for a younger kid like me? Am I screwed for that 79 Total songs I have downloaded so far? Er...f*** it. The next person is just as guilty as me.

[semyaza]

The irony is the "poor bands" such as metallica have to loose one penny every time someone doesn't want to pay for their crappy music.

For anyone that becomes an "artist" they take it the realization that there is a good chance their life will be filled with poverty and struggle. Anyone that becomes an artist does it because they have a desire to make art... not to make money.

What disgusts me is bands that are upset because they couldn't get 5 new aston martin's because their songs where be traded on the internet. What really pisses me off is that they are tracking down the users that download this.

So in truth - people are being prosecuted for liking a band and the band doesn't like this because they don't get paid.

The modern day artists are gluttons hoping to find a fad that will carry them to riches. They do nothing to try to educate the masses nor create what they feel the need to create.

Bah - this world sucks. To be honest, some things in the dark ages wheren't that dark. This being one of them.

[texan]

Originally posted by semyaza
The irony is the "poor bands" such as metallica have to loose one penny every time someone doesn't want to pay for their crappy music.

For anyone that becomes an "artist" they take it the realization that there is a good chance their life will be filled with poverty and struggle. Anyone that becomes an artist does it because they have a desire to make art... not to make money.

What disgusts me is bands that are upset because they couldn't get 5 new aston martin's because their songs where be traded on the internet. What really pisses me off is that they are tracking down the users that download this.

So in truth - people are being prosecuted for liking a band and the band doesn't like this because they don't get paid.

The modern day artists are gluttons hoping to find a fad that will carry them to riches. They do nothing to try to educate the masses nor create what they feel the need to create.

Bah - this world sucks. To be honest, some things in the dark ages wheren't that dark. This being one of them.

This ain't communism; the artists have every right to expect compensation for their years of hard work that ultimately result in your enjoyment. I understand your frustration at the situation, but let's not go blaming the artists for wanting to protect what IS theirs. They worked for it and they've earned it, don't demand they hand it over for free simply because paying 12 bucks for an album is inconvenient to you.

What's ridiculous here is that big business has failed to realize that past music packaging formula is just that; history. Technology is allowing consumers to move past the bygone days of purchasing and album for the one or two hits on it; the pricetag on album filler isn't something we as consumers are willing to swallow anymore. I'm perfectly willing to pay Apple 99 cents per great song I download; in essence it's not that I'd be breaking the law by d/ling music off Kazaa, but simply moving past the archaic means of delivery the music industry insists I follow (while not providing me alternative, legal means). They've cashed in on the situation (and others' talent) for decades, and it's high time that BS ends for everyone's betterment. Any student of history or technology can see where this road ultimately leads, so why are multi-national billion dollar corporations so blind to the fact?

[Jimster]

The thing that pisses me off his how much it costs for a CD when all it is is a piece of plastic what does a piece of plastic cost 20 cents maybe????? even after all the copyright BS- I wouldn't pay any more than $5 for a CD- While I understand the great costs of CDplayers I don't understand why CD's should cost so damn much.


Stupid labels can lick my nuts- see y'all in jail

[YogsVR4]

Once the pc version of iTunes is available, the recording industry may finally move into more current technology. With only 5% or so of the computers in the US, Apple has sold over 3 million songs (at a dollar a piece) though their iTunes system. People get what they want and can put it on any medium that they want.

As for people whining about this - ITS THEFT. Its a crime. Do you realize you are whining because you might get caught at committing one? Thats pretty pathetic. Are the label companies greedy bastards? Yes they are. But the way you deal with that is, don't buy CDs. Listen to the radio or digital cable radio stations. Once their profits are hit by something other then piracy, they'll make a move.

[Pick]

Originally posted by Jimster

Stupid labels can lick my nuts- see y'all in jail

[Sierra Six]

Im sure there are privacy laws relating to collection of infomation in the States. There are here anyway.

[freakray]

I don't see how they can nail anyone outside the USA anyhow, since they won't fall under Federal law, and like Sierra Six said, it would be an invasion of provacy......I don't think they will be able to get anything to stick.

You would think they would need some sort of warrant to present to you before they can access your PC to look at the files.

Another thought, would having a firewall installed prevent them from randomly accessing your PC from the net, just like it keeps everything else you don't want out (in theory).

[TexasF355F1]

"We cannot stand by while piracy takes a devastating toll on artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers, and everyone in the music industry," the RIAA said in its statement.

Devastating toll? These artists hardly see a dime from their cd's sold. They make all their money by touring. Well I guess some of us will cese our downloading but you know their will be a lot who wont.

[taranaki]

Devastating toll?

excuse me for ten minitus while I laugh my guts out.


Ever since the wholesale distribution of recorded music was first organised,the bulk of all money collected from its sale has been syphoned off by the recording industry.Unless you are a Springsteen,or a McCartney,or a Jackson,and have done the hard yards,you'll get very little money from music sales,even if your first album goes to the top of the charts.The recording industry is built on nepotism,graft,and plain good old fashioned corruption.

Does Bruce Springsteen know or even care how many people have "illegal"copies of tracks from Born in the USA?I doubt it.Is Sir Paul McCartney going to starve if you burn off a copy of "Yellow Submarine"?of course not.Chances are that the 'rights' were never his anyway.The music industry itself owns much of the 'artist's rights' and collects huge amounts of money in royalties from sales.Very few artists ever get to see a fair percentage of what they create.Burn,download,copy andbroadcast all you like,you will only be taking from some faceless corporation that has hijacked the intellectual property of the artists.