200+ sued

Reign in Acai

Of Elephant and Man
Jun 25, 2003
20,265
628
113
43
Favela of My Dismay
THE FIRST ROUND of lawsuits was aimed at what the RIAA described as “major offenders” illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each.
“Some of my grandkids got in there,” said Durwood Pickle, 71, of Richardson, Texas, who said his son had explained the situation in an e-mail to the recording industry association. “I didn’t do it, and I don’t feel like I’m responsible. It’s been stopped now, I guarantee you that.”
Pickle said his teen-aged grandchildren used his computer during visits to his home.
“I’m not a computer-type person,” Pickle said. “They come in and get on the computer. How do I get out of this? Dadgum it, got to get a lawyer on this.”
Yale University professor Timothy Davis, who also was among those named in the lawsuits, said he will stop sharing music files immediately. He said he downloaded about 500 songs from others on the Internet before his Internet provider notified him about the music industry’s interest in his activities.
“I’ve been pretending it was going to go away,” said Davis, who teaches photography.
He added: “I’m not some kind of college student who’s downloaded thousands and thousands of things. It isn’t like I’m trying to broadcast these things anywhere.”
Another defendant, Lisa Schamis of New York, said her Internet provider warned her two months ago that record industry lawyers had asked for her name and address, but she said she had no idea she might be sued. She acknowledged downloading “lots” of music over file-sharing networks.
“This is ridiculous,” said Schamis, 26. “People like me who did this, I didn’t understand it was illegal.”
“I can understand why the music industry is upset about this, but the fact that we had access to this as the public, I don’t think gives them the right to sue us. It’s wrong on their part,” said Schamis, who added she is unemployed and would be unable to pay any large fine or settlement.
An estimated 60 million Americans participate in file-sharing networks, using software that makes it simple for computer users to locate and retrieve for free virtually any song by any artists within moments. Internet users broadly acknowledge music-trading is illegal, but the practice has flourished in recent years since copyright statutes are among the most popularly flouted laws online.
“Nobody likes playing the heavy,” said RIAA President Cary Sherman, who compared illegal music downloads to shoplifting. “There comes a time when you have to stand up and take appropriate action.”

‘GET A LAWYER’
The RIAA did not identify for reporters which Internet users it was suing or where they live. Federal courthouses in Boston and elsewhere reported receiving some lawsuits; court officials were assigning them to judges.
“Get a lawyer,” advised Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, who has criticized the industry association’s use of copyright subpoenas. “There’s no simpler advice than that, whether you intend to fight this or not. You’ll need someone to advise you.”
Advertisement





With estimates that half of file-sharers are teenagers, all sides braced for the inevitable legal debate surrounding the financial damage to parents or grandparents.
The RIAA named as the defendant in each lawsuit the person who paid for the household Internet account. Lawyers said that in some states, such as California, parents are not explicitly liable for copyright infringement by minor children.
“That question will come up immediately, whether a minor can have the requisite knowledge to be the right defendant,” said Susan Crawford, who teaches cyberlaw at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo law school. “A very young child who didn’t know what they were doing would be a bad defendant for the industry. It will make them look terrible.”

AMNESTY PROGRAM
The RIAA also announced an amnesty program for people who admit they illegally share music, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and pledge to delete the songs off their computers. The offer does not apply to people who already are targets of copyright subpoenas.
“If you’ve already been targeted, it doesn’t seem like it would be appropriate to invite amnesty in that situation; it would be an invitation to infringe until you get caught,” Sherman said. “Nobody gets a free pass here.”
Sherman called the amnesty offer “our version of an olive branch.”
Some defense lawyers have objected to the amnesty provisions, warning that song publishers and other organizations not represented by the RIAA won’t be constrained by the group’s promise not to sue. They also argued that people who agree not to use file-sharing services could be surrendering future rights if Congress or the courts declare such use to be legal.

‘WAVES OF LITIGATION’
The RIAA also said it already has negotiated $3,000 settlements with fewer than 10 Internet users who learned they might be sued after the RIAA sent copyright subpoenas to their Internet providers. Sherman predicted more settlements after Monday, but the price to settle for anyone already named in a lawsuit will be higher

U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person’s computer.
“Now that lawsuits are actually being filed and people realize this is for real, we would expect many more to come forward and we would welcome that,” Sherman said.
The RIAA, which represents the largest labels, has sent more than 1,500 subpoenas to Internet providers nationwide; Internet users overseas haven’t been targeted. The first wave of lawsuits was timed to the return to college of students to ensure the suits would be discussed widely on campus.
Sherman predicted “subsequent waves of litigation,” numbers largely determined by “how many lawsuits we can manage at any one time.” He said money earned from civil penalties or settlements would pay for the RIAA’s anti-piracy campaign.

© 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
yea its pretty fucked up. Especially for us metal fans. Its not like we have the genres of metal blaring over radio stations nation-wide. Their are very few outlets I can find music in which I like to test it out. And see if I want to go purchase what I have listened to. Shit 90% of the music I listen to was because of the internet. Launch.com is pretty good. But their band selection is very limited. So between web browsing for mp3 dled's, kazaa (which I can rarely use due to being at work and actually having to "work") Its fucking hard to listen to new bands to broaden my musical horizons. But back in the day i used to have hundreds of mp3's on my personal pc. If i got sued i wouldve went apeshit. That poor professor only had 500 mp3's and they strap a lawsuit onto him. It's a bunch of bullsheeeet.
 
The thing that sucks is, even though a lot of the metal and punk stuff I d/l and share probably doesn't fall under the RIAA's jurisdiction, they won't be satisfied until p2p is completely destroyed. Since that will never happen, they're going to keep blazing away with these lawsuits until somebody makes them stop. And that line about "Internet users broadly acknowledge music-trading is illegal, but the practice has flourished in recent years since copyright statutes are among the most popularly flouted laws online" is bullshit. One of the biggest problems with this campaign is the fact that the issue is so muddy due to fair use laws. If you haven't already done so, I hope everyone here will at the very least boycott any and all RIAA 'artists'. They need us, we don't need them.
 
Here's a great quote from Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA:

Asked if parents should be held responsible for children's actions, Sherman said: "We expect to hear, 'Hey, it wasn't me, it was my kid.' If they prefer the lawsuit amended to name the kid, we'll do that."

I mean, I understand his point, and even agree with it somewhat (as far as parents needing to know what their kids are doing), but what a fucking arrogant way to say it. These shitheads really need to be unemployed...
 
what a bunch of assholes, i can see the reason why but goddamnit how would they feel about buying a cd on the chance its any good and then not being able to return it b/c you dont like it? i think they dont listen to music or else they wouldnt try doing this feeble attempt at scaring the users.

well either way, i doubt a record label like Red Stream would sue anybody for "stealing" their songs

:goes back to download music:
 
Indeed, this is a bad problem for some metal fans. I know that where i live, very few people listen to the type of metal that I listen to. And he stores we look in for some of the music we have found on the internet does not sell this. So what is the next thing we think about? I know with me its to come online and look it up online. Then I would be able ot go and download it. But now that the RIAA began this, it has become more of a problem to find the music we wish to listen to. If the RIAA doesnt want people downloading music off the internet, then I think they should be sure to atleast know about locations of stores who sell underground music so that people are eligible to buy them.

Thats just my thought on this whole thing...
 
this is what im trying to say, they dont give a fuck about music, at all. this is coming from a bunch of pta bitches and asshole, money grubbing ceos. they dont know a damn thing of "underground" anything. hell most of the big record companies cant name half the ppl theyve signed, all they know is "oh its the next best thing". money is horrible
 
Indeed, all these companies want is the money. Its not like they actually care about the band its self, but more on the amount of money that the band can draw in for the company. Its sad, really.
 
It's funny that the mainstream bands that already have a shitload of money, are always the ones upset about file-sharing, because you have to be money-grabbing slime to get famous in the first place (usually). Underground bands, ones who need the money, are usually supportive of file sharing as long as people buy the albums as well.

Most bands I love wouldn't have got any money from me if I hadn't discovered them through file-sharing.
 
Guardian of Darkness said:
Most bands I love wouldn't have got any money from me if I hadn't discovered them through file-sharing.


Exactly! Most of the shit we listen to doesnt fall under the labels that are under the RIAA anyway, but still... these people are fucking idiots. Why dont they outlaw blanktapes and blank CD's next? Hope they all die.:yell:
 
BloodStainedWalls said:
Exactly! Most of the shit we listen to doesnt fall under the labels that are under the RIAA anyway, but still... these people are fucking idiots. Why dont they outlaw blanktapes and blank CD's next? Hope they all die.:yell:

They tried to outlaw both blank tapes and blank cds, i dont know much abuot the blank tape thing because i was real young at the time, but the blank cd thing got thrown out of court with one argument "BLank cds can also be used for their originalyl intended use, storing data and files"
 
iAMtheblackwizards said:
They tried to outlaw both blank tapes and blank cds, i dont know much abuot the blank tape thing because i was real young at the time, but the blank cd thing got thrown out of court with one argument "BLank cds can also be used for their originalyl intended use, storing data and files"
The fucked up thing is that the RIAA gets a cut from the sale of EVERY blank cd, no matter what they're going to be used for. Fuck them.