Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

RIAA Sues 717 More Over File Sharing

By David Worthington, BetaNews

January 27, 2005, 6:22 PM

The Recording Industry Association of America has fired off another round of lawsuits against purported file-sharers. The lawsuits finger a total of 717 individuals, 68 of which belong to universities. This action is the RIAA's first mass litigation since November, when it sued 761 users of "unauthorized" peer-to-peer software.

The RIAA considers its lawsuits to be an "educational tool," which have the affect of reminding music fans about the law while encouraging the broad adoption of legal alternatives. The tactic of using legal pressure to force change appears to have been adopted by the Motion Picture Association of America, which filed suit its second round of lawsuits against motion picture file-swappers on Wednesday.

Add a Comment (28 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Macross74

posted Jan 28, 2005 - 5:46 PM

Its a two part problem.
Yes people will copy for the hell of it regardless of what is said or done, but there is a group a of people who would buy the music if the half witted music companies had the music released on cd.
Here in australia (and most likely other countries) the record companies are complaining about sales dropping and blamming sharing as the main problem, but they are forgetting they continue to release utter garbage music like boy/girl bands who do not appeal to everyone.
The last 10 cds i bought last year had to be imported with the cost being nearly double.
My music shop for which i have been going to for 16 years has stated to me many times that he sells just as much of the imported stuff than the top 20 teeny bopper crap in the top 100.
If the record companies want more sales, release every album they in their collections, more people would buy (honest collector's would) or focus on more on apples itunes or the likes.
Sueing people as a educational tool is pathetic excuse, it would be like the government saying to people you can get blind drunk once and crash your car into anything once as long as you learn your lession.

Score: 0

By midfingr

edited Jan 30, 2005 - 12:21 AM

Couldn't agree more.
Most 'modern music' is utter crap.
I used to buy records by the arm-load. But now, man, good stuff is getting more and more difficult to find.
I could go on, but I just wanted to put in my two cents :)

Score: 0

By se7en11

edited Jan 28, 2005 - 9:08 AM

P2P software at its basics is not the problem. But honestly how many P2P applications are actually used legally? I've know about...oh wait nevermind.

The RIAA is just doing their job. We all know coping cassettes, CDs, DVDs is illegal.

When as a society are we going to take responsibility for our actions?

Score: 0

By shicaca

posted Jan 28, 2005 - 3:24 PM

It's actually *not* illegal to copy CD's or tapes b/c you're licensed for it. The copy is not illegal at all... it's the 'giving it to others' where it gets a little dicey. This is the reason that when CD burners came out they were not made illegal. When they first came out the RIAA attempted to have them outlawed b/c they 'would kill their sales', but it was decided in court that CD Burners were not illegal b/c consumers had the right to make a copy as they saw fit as long as they did not sell these copies to others.

With that said I'm nearly positive it said 'SELL' to others, and as such would not be illegal to make a copy and say, GIVE it to a friend, but that's where it gets a little weird.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Jan 28, 2005 - 12:33 PM

"P2P software at its basics is not the problem. But honestly how many P2P applications are actually used legally?"

I'd say they all are used legally, the legal use might be small, but at least we can do it.

What's a copyright? It is something that exists whenever a photo is taken, a poem is written, a recording is made... nothing else need be done to secure a copyright. How many of us have taken a picture? Now how many of us consider ourselves photographers? We are not doing it for money, shouldn't we have the right to distribute our creations over P2P if we want to? Copyright doesn't mean $#!+ to the artists that care not about the money.

Here's a country/bluegrass group that provides their work for free, for an example: http://www.archive.org/s...tion%3Aopensource_audio

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Jan 28, 2005 - 10:29 AM

With a leader like Bush it won't be any time soon.

Score: 0

By Mountain_Man

posted Jan 31, 2005 - 9:25 AM

What does this even mean??

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Jan 31, 2005 - 2:30 PM

With the Bush Administration blame moves down the ladder, not up it.

Score: 0

By The0retics

edited Jan 28, 2005 - 11:13 AM

How does this have anything to do with Bush? The court systems are insulated from any type of outside politcal influence, except people who are appointed to these positions by the President.

The issue is that the RIAA is tying up the court systems and federal money that comes from the tax payers. This is a waste of resources when something like this gets pulled.

The RIAA is simply trying to protect their buisness because that is what they do and they are in buisness to make money.

Fair use is one thing where if you have it you can make a copy of it for your personal use. However if you are making copies and distributing them to other people that is breaking the law and is not considered fair use. Do not get started with the radio and TV either because that has also been shown to be protected under the fair use laws as long as you do not redistribute them for profit, this applies only to TV and radio though not music.

Score: 0

By plgeek

edited Jan 29, 2005 - 1:51 PM

"How does this have anything to do with Bush? The court systems are insulated from any type of outside politcal influence, except people who are appointed to these positions by the President." Ha ha ha how naive. Saying this is like saying Ralph Reed(Christian Coalition/Campaign Manager) has no influence on GWBush.

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Jan 28, 2005 - 2:17 PM

They want to take away even your fair use rights as well. If they had their way you would have to pay a per use fee for every time you hear or watch it.

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Jan 28, 2005 - 7:17 AM

The RIAA is nothing but a group of hypocrites. We all know that P2P is not the problem, and it has been proven that it isn't. It is just like the so-called war on drugs as well. They can't get the real criminals, for the most part, so they go after pot smokers instead to make it look like they are actually doing something when in fact they are doing nothing and getting paid for it.

I know what the Judge Dredds on here are going to say, "THE LAW IS THE LAW!!!", but they don't seem to realize what sort of legal system they are advocating. One without mercy or justice.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

edited Jan 28, 2005 - 10:51 AM

"We all know that P2P is not the problem, and it has been proven that it isn't. It is just like the so-called war on drugs as well."

Smoke dope and steal music ...yeah, they seem to go together.

Score: 0

By sjc001

edited Jan 28, 2005 - 2:21 PM

Well, the Feds did try to tie together smoking dope and terrorism as well. That is another thing, the war on terror is turning out to be just like the war on drugs as well when they can't get the real criminals so they go after those who are no threat simply because it is easier in their eyes and it makes the gulible taxpayers believe that something is actually getting done when in fact it is the opposite.

BTW, smoking pot and "stealing" music are both legal up here in Canada. :-)

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Jan 30, 2005 - 3:55 PM

"smoking pot and 'stealing' music are both
legal up here in Canada"

How lucky for you.

Surely auto theft shall be decriminalized in Canada soon, too.

The DataRat

Score: 0

By sjc001

edited Jan 30, 2005 - 4:32 PM

You are treading on the slippery slope fallacy. It is the same as demanding the death penalty for Jaywalking because if they are going to break this one little law what is going to stop them from committing murder....

Score: 0

By PC Rat

edited Feb 1, 2005 - 1:23 PM

"It is the same as demanding the death penalty for Jaywalking"

Oh, yeah, right ...people in the U.S. are executed for copyright violations and smoking marijuana.

The DataRat

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Jan 31, 2005 - 2:32 PM

No, it is an example of your slippery slope fallacy for an argument.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

edited Jan 28, 2005 - 5:14 AM

riaa didn't want cassette recorders allowed. They didn't want vcrs with record capabilities. They didn't want CD burners or DVD burners either. It didn't matter if it was for legal or not, they wanted control. Then they lost when trying to take down Peer to Peer programs.

P2P is their biggest threat, and we must never let them get rid of it. They are not trying to stop only illegal shares, they are trying to stop shares completely. With the Internet, independant artists no longer need the riaa to get their music heard by others or to sell cds. This is riaa's biggest loss, this is what they are afraid of.

please read the first post here: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/78315

http://www.downhillbattle.org/
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

posted Jan 27, 2005 - 8:47 PM

This whole thing is crap.

If I want to make copies of a TV show by recording it with my VCR I can. If I want to take a cassette tape to record a song off the radio I can. I can then play the tape in my car. This is no different than what people are doing today. Do you think that if I go out and buy a movie and my parents or friends want to watch it they have to go buy a new one? Come on.....no way. They'll just borrow it from me. All i'm doing is making a copy so they don't scratch up my good DVD.

You know.....the RIAA and the MPAA need to go get bent. They are just being greedy and that will get them no where fast.

Losers

Score: 0

By Portal3

posted Jan 27, 2005 - 9:35 PM

There are a few things people aren't worth being paid for. Is this one of them?

Score: 0

By forgie

edited Jan 27, 2005 - 7:26 PM

Do you step on a couple ants and figure the rest will learn better and run away? The RIAA is probably in a close second to worthless spending right behind Bush.

Score: 0

By fourte3n

posted Jan 27, 2005 - 6:52 PM

All thi court action must cost a LOT! wonder how much they are spending to track and sue all these people... probably more that the people have downloaded.

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Jan 28, 2005 - 10:30 AM

What do the lawyers care how much all of this nonsense costs? They get paid either way.

Score: 0

By irdepesca572

posted Jan 27, 2005 - 6:39 PM

This is getting stupid. Get off it RIAA.

Score: 0

By debonair

posted Jan 31, 2005 - 3:27 PM

It won't stop until people realize the purpose of Law, and make a change. Of course, people have become so ignorant of law, and very seldom do anything themselves to change it, and leave it up to lawyers (who as we know are very two-faced).

The point of the legal system is make sure that people can live in peace without risking injury.

Now, a law to stop someone running a red light is an excellent idea. Running red lights is very dangerous and may cause serious harm if there's a resulting accident, which is very likely.

However, the injury from someone downloading music? Well, besides a few electronics being shifted around on the internet, there's not even any material loss. Yes, it can be argued that a CD would have been purchased, but the fact is, no CD was actually lost. Will copying bring physically harm anyone? No freaking way, yet it's still more serious than running a red light (or so it would seem to me). Monetary harm? We'll, if we define harm to be something that actually hurts, we can argue that they get enough profit anyway.

Conclusion: It's still a crime, but let's be realistic about it's seriousness!!!

Score: 0

By petgamer

posted Jan 28, 2005 - 6:29 PM

Who knows how long this will last.. Who really cares that downloaders rip music off p2p programs and burn it to a disc or whatever? It's not that big of a deal.. as long as you don't try to sell the music then it should be perfectly fine. You're not doing anything to the music.. There's plenty of other ways money is made. For example:

Computer to play the music - $400-$1000+ (depending on your preference)
CD Player/iPod/mp3 player - Ranges from $20 - $300 (depending what it is)

It's so stupid. I wish all those bas****s would realize they're not gonna stop anyone if they sue more people..

Score: 0

By psychoactive1

posted Jan 27, 2005 - 8:24 PM

Gee, back in 1979, I made a cassette copy of an album owned by a friend of mine. Should I retain the services of a lawyer?

Score: 0

Sep 5 - 8:44 PM ET Mozilla's Aza Raskin: The journey back to Ubiquity

Sep 5 - 7:10 PM ET Red Hat buys virtualization specialist Qumranet

Sep 5 - 7:06 PM ET Analysts: Online news viewers rising as newspaper readership falls

Sep 5 - 6:55 PM ET Where does Sarah Palin stand on technology issues?

Sep 5 - 6:51 PM ET Adobe Flash to deliver NFL games in full

Sep 5 - 4:29 PM ET Exclusive beta invitation from GameTap and BetaNews

Sep 5 - 4:09 PM ET Report: OLPC buy one, give one deal returns

Sep 5 - 3:45 PM ET No ruling yet in TiVo vs. EchoStar patent case

Sep 5 - 3:37 PM ET Google Analytics starts tracking Chrome, with intriguing results

Sep 5 - 2:14 PM ET Comcast challenges FCC's authority in sanction appeal