GREEDY RIAA and Record companies.With the advent of CD ,initially they cut production costs by two thirds the cost of vinyl,they started off costing "more" than Vinyl.That,s over twenty years ago.Current cost of production per "commerciallly stamped piece of plastic,is probably $0.xx cents per unit.This equalls massive profiteering.They do nothing about "Blank media manufacturers and recording device manufacturers"In other countries [not USArseholes]The price of a CD equalls more than $30 US.you pay about half that.
When are they going to take legal action against "sony and TDK" and others for INCITING people to break the law with big full page "RIP and BURN in XX seconds" ads in mags and on TV.NEVER THE TWISTED GREEDY PARASITES.
When i can buy a "RECORDABLE CD/DVD media" for LESS THAN 30 CENTS a piece; the price of COMMERCIAL ones is CRIMINAL. IT is no wonder people "Share and Copy"
And to go after "Uni students and individuals" is down right "Cowardly and INSIDIOUSLY GREEDY"What PATHETIC BULLYS.
What is neede is an INTERNATIONAL INQUIRY into the price of CD/DVD Media.And ANTI MONOPOLY PROSECUTION.Once again YOU PATHETIC CORPORATE CREEPS.

For future reference, if you actually want anyone to read your post, drop the caps.

Hell, I didn't even read it.

"Yo Jason?...Jason?...HEY JASOOOON?...." knock, knock, knock, "you got this letter dude", "ah-ah-aah, hol-hold-on, ooh, be there in a minute hold on". "Hey Mike, do we have any tissue, looks like we ran out of it", Mike, "nah dude, but hey, you got this letter from the RIAA dude", Jason, "That will do!"

Well all I've got to say is it's the RIAA's own fault for being so damn reluctant to harness new technology. If you think about it, the record companies haven't done ANYTHING new since they adopted the CD back in the 80s. A select few are just now attempting to begin their own iTunes-like services, but they will only fail miserably because of well established services like iTunes.

The RIAA is trying to fix the problem with force and that is just not going to work.

Record companies have hardly lost any money from file sharing over the years. Certainly not enough to be suing people. The legal costs are probably higher than the "massive" amount of money record companies claimed to have lost.

Lost money? I hope beer producers don't sue me for drinking water.

Comparing water to beer != purchased music to downloaded music.

That wasn't even a good try...

Just a little joke.

Sorry, haven't become accustomed to your sense of humor yet. :/

This is getting so ridiculous. I can't even imagine how many people the Riaa employs now to steak out file sharing people.

In related news the only person who actually went to trial by jury was slapped with a 222k dollar judgment and jury people wanted to teach her a lesson. Think that doesn't help out the Riaa scare the crap out of students and other would be file sharers to fight them?

Networks like edonkey ( emule )which were shut down years ago are still insanely popular at 4.5 million users on at any given time. Any music desired is readily available in 20 mins to download and thats just that one network, there are many more that are much more popular.

I seriously don't think this massive lawsuit is having the desired effect. If anything it is just popularizing file sharing, giving the Riaa a bad name and has to be a PR nightmare.

Blaming pirating for their loses in revenue is just silly. Because it has been going on since the tape recorder came into existence.

This is one of those things where they could embrance and extent the popularity of this. Instead they are fighting a losing battle and taking down a mere drop in the pool worth of people.

*YAWN*

They lost the battle a long time ago but like the dinosaur that took an hour to figure out that it's actually dead...

File sharing hasn't been stopped. if anything it's more prevalent than ever.

Better they spent their money figuring out how to attract customers rather than pimping their stable and gouging the consumer.

The success of iTunes has proven that simply setting a reasonable price works. The gouging we endured from years of CD media retail outlet sales was proven to be overinflated and it has been failing horribly ever since. The numbers don't lie.

Efforts by bands like RadioHead to let users set a price from "zero" up are not really the answer. The answer is simply for artists to sell directly to their fans without involving RIAA, or SoundExchange, etc. and to employ a reasonable price (i.e. 99cents per song or less). People will pay that. Make it DRM-free also, like Amazon and others do, so we can move it around freely like we used to with CDs and tapes (ok, I date myself).

"What the markets will bear" has been ignored for too long and consumers have allowed it for too long. Say what you want about iTunes, but it has forced a LOT of change in the music sales industry. I'm not saying it is the answer, but it definitely pushed RIAA and the record companies into a position they wouldn't have otherwise considered.

How is the RIAA benefiting artists?

The RIAA is benefiting from artists.

There, I fixed that for you.

Again more Intimidation for actions that they have ZERO proof for. Take it to CRIMINAL court and we will talk. as long as this crap continues in civil court its a farce and tantamount to racketeering and extortion. The burden of proof is So lacks in these cases, All they need say is you computer was connected to the Internet and your guilty.

DEMAND Criminal court filing and the MPAA RIAA will shriek away in terror of setting a precedence they will never be able to recover from. If this is a federal offense then this MUST be relegated to FEDERAL RULINGS! And trust me when the RIAA starts jailing 20 million Voters that they have no place to put them. the politicians will suddenly wake up that this law needs changed for the digital age.

The point is this is Not even feasible. All they are doing and have been doing for years is trying to INTIMIDATE people trying to stem progress. Something that has been unsuccessful now for YEARS, as P2P file sharing and music downloading has never been more popular and more used then it is today. Effectively making the entire movement against it irrelevant. BUT they have not been able to acept that fact, and never will until another Fair use case comes to the Superme Court like the betamax ruling.

No one is arguing that right of first sale should always remain in the hands of the producers. Those bootlegging laws have remained illegal for decades and decades, and will remain so. Those people on the street selling illegal bootlegs of movies for profit are always illegal and will remain so.

But attaining low quality (less then 256kb)files from the file sharing systems is Absolutely no different then recording something from the radio or television. And the Supreme court HAS to step in some day in the future and make this distinction as they did with betamax. Or this racket will never end. P2P will continue to grow even further underground then it is now. and the people will become malcontent against the industry. Resulting in Social disorder and ultimately the possibility of full scale revolution. Possibly with an act similar to the Boston tea party.

Again more Intimidation for actions that they have ZERO proof for. Take it to CRIMINAL court and we will talk.

I'm sure it will have no effect on your attitude (which it shouldn't), but it might make your posts a little bit more true.

Two things:

1.) They have the proof they need, if the last trial was anything indicative of their methods. They successfully linked a user to a user name and IP address, and satisfied the burden of proof.

2.) They *cannot* take it to criminal court. Copyright infringement is a *civil* offense and must be tried in civil courts.

Unless laws change, which I don't see as a realistic ideal, well... the beatings will continue until morale improves. ;p

Seems to me the big red warning on the front of every DVD says pretty clear that copyright infringement is a FEDERAL offense. SO Take it where it belongs. All they proved in the last case is that her computer was on and that THEY could download a file from her computer. Jesus I can do that with just about any machine on the internet with the right virus.

Just saying. Service not withstanding, they were UNABLE to prove that she distributed anything other then to themselves, who are authorized to receive it. Ultimately proving that though she may have been victim to a service that was allowing her personal CD mp3 rips to be shared, it was they and they alone that downloaded it with the evidence they provided. No other users were implicated. This LACKS burden of proof Needs to be put to a real judgment in the court in which it belongs.

If its SOOO serious it such a Huge problem that they are losing millions upon million upon million every single day because of the 20+million users of file sharing networks... Then they need to take it to the Federal court system and start putting people to death for it.

That will never happen. They know if it goes where it belongs they haven't a chance in hell of winning. Thats why they keep it out of the system that ultimately gave them their worst court defeat with betamax. They will do almost ANYTHING to stay out of federal court, and away from the Supreme Court with such cases to protect their racketeering.

All they proved in the last case is that her computer was on and that THEY could download a file from her computer. Jesus I can do that with just about any machine on the internet with the right virus.

So the username she used for years, the inordinate amount of files from 60 different genres, the fact that they were able to determine from modem logs that wireless was *not* enabled and that hers was the only PC connected to it in the moths prior and following, and that she had firewall and A/V software running and up-to-date, added to the fact that she had done a paper on Napster and P2P and *had* to know what kind of application kazaa was doesn't at all point the finger of liability to her rather steadily in your mind?

Man, if I ever get sued, I hope your on the jury, even insurmountable evidence doesn't sway you.

they were UNABLE to prove that she distributed anything other then to themselves, who are authorized to receive it.

Never argued that. That was decision the judge made based on the Napster case and others. If the service is used primarily for infringing purposes, simply making the file available is infringement (according to this and other cases). Add this to the fact that she knew exactly what the program was (being familiar with P2P/Napster, etc), how could she *not* have known sharing files would allow anyone to download them?

Ultimately proving that though she may have been victim to a service that was allowing her personal CD mp3 rips to be shared,

Again, she wrote a paper on P2P/Napster. She *knew* what she was doing. She may be a victim of an absurd fine, but she was *not* a victim of having her files shred. She knew full-well what she was doing.

This LACKS burden of proof Needs to be put to a real judgment in the court in which it belongs.

Ideally, that'd be great. Look at the copyright laws. Infringement is a civil, not criminal offense. That's all there is to it.

They will do almost ANYTHING to stay out of federal court, and away from the Supreme Court with such cases to protect their racketeering.

...and while the laws allow it (hell, specifically state how it is to be done), that's exactly what they will continue to do.

Call me a pessimist, but it ain't never gonna happen.

So are the students getting a letter no matter if they d/l music or not? Is this a letter sent to all students?

FUC*EM

You can not stop this......sharing online is like a wild breast....you can trap it ....but it will chew its leg off and fun wild again....

Now, I like file sharing. But it is NOT as good as a wild breast. And no breasts that I've encountered have chewed my legs off either... you're meeting the wrong girls ;-)

roflmao...

I can't believe I missed that.

I gotta see those girls. It'd make for an excellent horror flick.

It is on time we got together and put out a contract on every single one that works for RIAA. All executives and lawyers. These people are terrorists and actually just to be shot on sight. Why should we tolerate their horrid attempts to control all music on the net? These are nothing but parasites on the artists.

great idea for GTA 6 lol (pun at Jack Thompson being the lawyer in GTA)

Apple had the right idea with $1 per song. Except it still goes through iTunes and then the record labels take their cut too. By the time it reaches the artist, they get a fraction of that $1 per song. I would much rather give my $1 per song directly to the artist. Until that's possible, I have no intentions of buying any music online or any more CDs. I own about 200 music CDs, but I haven't bought a single one since the RIAA lawsuits started. They will never see a dime from me again.

Exactly my thoughts. It is the artists work .. not those parasites and terrorists called RIAA. We should get rid of them no matter what means used!

If you really mean that than go to Radioheads site and purchase the music at what you think each song is worth it. Even if you don't like their music a buck or two will get other people to notices. Tell the RIAA and recording industry to shove it and lets all make sure Radioheads model proliferates.

i despise the RIAA as much as the next guy, believe me, but saying that record labels do nothing but act as the middle man is kinda ignorant. sure record labels exploit artitsts, it's capitalism baby! it's a multi-billion dollar industry, everyone involved will be exploited. BUT, record labels provide the producers to polish the music and front the money for concerts and performances. Only the top 5% of artists have the funds to do these on their own, and that's why most artists need a middle man. the RIAA, however, seriously needs to go.

their lawsuits are on the fringe of frivelous IMO, and unless they start bringing CRIMINAL CHARGES against these "illegal" file sharers, then i see no reason to give in OR go to court over these letters.

What I love is that you can now pay online with a stolen credit card.

Just don't have it shipped to your house or to a P.O. box with your real name on it...

I'm not quite sure of the RIAA's strategy.

By their own admission these suits do nothing to stop the illegal sharing of files. Half of all college students is in the tens of millions, I'd think. Why not put your money where your mouth is and sue those people, refuse to settle, and you will have unbelievable profit on your hands?

The [corporate] music industry is bleeding, and has been for 5 years. Nothing on the horizon appears to be stopping this slow death. You now have major artists stepping down from your middleman architecture.

Is this the best they can do? Litigate for a few thousand bucks to 411 college kids who easily pay 6 times that or much more per year?

Like Microsoft, SCO, et al., when you can no longer compete, you try to get your cash through extortion in the amerikan court system, the same system that handed Bush the presidency in 2000 (even though Gore got 547,000+ more votes!).

Oy.

wow impressive trolling move. two thumbs up for a completely unrelated troll about Sore/Loserman (Gore/Liberman).

It's George Bush's fault.

I'm not taking a political stance here, but do you realize that the Presidency is not a popular vote? It never has been. The Presidency is determined by the Electoral College.

(BTW, I don't think the RIAA will send Electoral College a letter for illegal downloading.)

No you have it wrong it is Gores fault for inventing the internet. Damn you Gore, Damn you to hell!

Gore had more to do with the internet's creation than any single Republican. Look it up if you don't believe me. Oh, and I can't stand dems or repubs, so don't look for bias from me on those silly political wars.

How many times do we have to tell you morons that votes!=election????

Ever heard of the Electoral College?

oy, indeed. It's almost like you don't *want* to see the truth.

Besides, if Gore had become president, all of us, (except for him, of course) would be living in mud-huts and be on the government dole.

All the universities should get their lawyers together and show RIAA its place. You can do it we have faith in you.

Why should the universities defend criminal students? it IS illegal to download music.

Nope, it's illegal to share it, not download it.

No, both are illegal. Read your copyright law.

Artists should sell directly to the listeners, cut out the music industry fat boys, and then even college kids can afford music. No need for law suits, no need to break any laws, nice and ethical like!

Umm... RadioHead tried that. They allowed people to download their new album at a price set by the user. People chose to steal their music anyway.

"Umm... RadioHead tried that. They allowed people to download their new album at a price set by the user. People chose to steal their music anyway."

I've heard a lot of that today - what a load of garbage. Radiohead publicly stated that the cost of the album would be between *zero* up to any cost.

Their site was very slow on release day, so many people who wanted to pay the zero (or wanted to preview the album before handing over cash) decided to use the easier torrent method. It wasn't stealing, because Radiohead said that if you wanted to pay nothing, you could.

Yes, that is true, but that does not mean you should not pay for your enjoyment. If you liked one or two songs go to the site and pay for them or else you are proving the point of the RIAA who thinks that a model such as Radioheads attempt can not work. You can just chip in a buck for two songs. I personally paid $20 bucks for everything even though I don't think it is their best work but hey anything to shove it to the RIAA

They're going to keep this up and eventually everyone is going to get sick of it, even the courts. They are digging their own graves, and more power to them. Shame about the people they are trampling on in the process.

always happy with Canadian laws when this stuff happens..

What makes you think Canada is much better? The CRIA threatened Demonoid and now Canadians can't go to the site. Yeah...sooo much better. No country is perfect...unfortunately.

Who gets the money from all these settlements?

Lawyers.

RIAA fatcats .... not the labels/artists they purportedly suing on behalf of !

Never thought of it that way, the ability to give it back to the artists is not their.

Artists Revolt! sue your label for not giving you your share!