RIAA Launches New Round of Lawsuits

[TVD]

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/042705.asp


April 27, 2005

725 Additional Illegal File Sharers Cited In New Wave of Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

WASHINGTON -- As part of its ongoing effort to protect the work of record labels, musicians, writers, producers and others from theft through illegal downloading, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), on behalf of the major record companies, today announced a new wave of copyright infringement lawsuits against 725 illegal file sharers.

The “John Doe” suits filed today cite the individuals for illegally distributing copyrighted music on the Internet via unauthorized peer-to-peer services such as KaZaa, eDonkey and Grokster. The litigations were filed in federal district courts across the country, including in: California, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

In addition to the “John Doe” lawsuits, music companies filed 200 named defendant lawsuits today against illegal file sharers in California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Texas. The names of these individuals, whose Internet Protocol (IP) addresses were previously identified in “John Doe” lawsuits, have been subpoenaed from their respective Internet Service Provider (ISP).

“With offerings from legitimate online services expanding and evolving every day, this is an incredibly exciting time for digital music,” said Cary Sherman, President, RIAA. “The future looks bright, but its potential can only be achieved when legal services are given the chance to truly flourish on an even playing field where music fans understand right and wrong. These lawsuits -- coupled with ongoing education and aggressive licensing from the music companies -- continue to be an important component of our overall effort to discourage illegal downloading and encourage music fans to turn to legal music sites.”

Earlier this month, the RIAA took on an emerging epidemic of music theft on a specialized, high-speed university computer network known as Internet2. As part of this action, the music industry filed lawsuits against 405 students using the file-sharing application i2hub to download and share music on the Internet2 network. While this initial filing was limited to students at 18 campuses, the RIAA found evidence of i2hub infringement at another 140 schools in 41 states and is exploring the possibility of future lawsuits against abusers of Internet2.

The “John Doe” lawsuits filed today do not include users of university networks.

[TVD]

BTW, none of the 725 new "John Doe" lawsuits were filed against university or college students.

Nonetheless, the RIAA's career total number of lawsuits filed are just under 11,000.

Think about it: 11,000 Americans that just don't give a damn!!!

[nuisance sonore]

I failed to understand this though: how is downloading mp3 from peer to peer any different than recording off FM radio again?

[The Chase]

I failed to understand this though: how is downloading mp3 from peer to peer any different than recording off FM radio again?

It's different because the dicks at RIAA can not get at those who record off of the radio.

[nuisance sonore]

I failed to understand this though: how is downloading mp3 from peer to peer any different than recording off FM radio again?

It's different because the dicks at RIAA can not get at those who record off of the radio.

I thought radio was good, giving exposure to artist and all that jazz, and that big label were in fact fighting for radio exposure?!?

Sooo, internet exposure bad, radio good? I fail to grasp the logic...

[Hink]

I failed to understand this though: how is downloading mp3 from peer to peer any different than recording off FM radio again?

It's different because the dicks at RIAA can not get at those who record off of the radio.

I thought radio was good, giving exposure to artist and all that jazz, and that big label were in fact fighting for radio exposure?!?

Sooo, internet exposure bad, radio good? I fail to grasp the logic...

it's pretty easy....stop downloading....they control the radio waves, you can only like the artists the deem worthy, the internet doesn't only offer ways for pirates to rip them off, but a way for musicians and listeners to do it with the radio, without the contract, without their fingers in your wallet...their stranglhold has fallen and they use the obvious whine "pirates are killing our business" when they really want to ban uploading and downloading of all music, copywritten or not....wake up people or what we enjoy will end...their argument is simple 11,000 lawsuits...lets jam up the system, then it's easy...congress says we can't go through this case by case so we'll ban it all....then they own us again...

[LIMITAPROACHINGINFINITY]

f**k the RIAA.. Support independent artists from this wonderful online community.

[nuisance sonore]

f**k the RIAA.. Support independent artists from this wonderful online community.

I spent the morning doing house cleaning to the sound of the KVR cafe. That much variety, quality and fun I could not get of any radio (or p2p for that mather).

[herodotus]

What always gets me about this issue is:

1. How little actual evidence-based information there is on this subject.

2. How strong peoples feelings get about it.

3. How difficult it would be to really know the effects of p2p and the like on industry sales. These sorts of broad economic cause-and-effect questions really can't be answered definitively because of the impersonal nature of economic data.

4. How people continue to argue despite the almost complete lack of proper evidence.

The only actual study I have seen by actual economists is this one

I posted this link before, but it never hurts to disseminate information.

[Markleford]

I failed to understand this though: how is downloading mp3 from peer to peer any different than recording off FM radio again?

When you record off FM radio, you're copying only the material that the record companies have paid radio syndicates (like Clear Channel) to specifically play every hour.

When you download mp3s, you're listening to what *you* want to listen to. This means that you're hearing the shit tracks besides the singles that fill out the rest of pop albums, warning you that you'd be wasting your money buying anything but the singles.

Also when downloading mp3s, you're made aware that there is so much cooler independent music out there that never hits radio because small labels can't afford to play in the payola system.

The Major Labels don't necessarily want you to stop "stealing" their songs (which they already give away free on radio), they just don't want you to be an informed consumer.

So I'll echo L.A.I.: f**k the RIAA. Support indy music.

- m

[herodotus]

Oh, and BTW, someone told me about a great idea regarding the issue of artists getting screwed by their recording contracts. How it goes is:

If you know that a particular artist is in a nasty contractual situation (a common enough occurance given that really great musicians tend not to be that good at practicalities like contract law), then burn c.d.s of the artists work and send 5$ per c.d. to the artist directly, via personal check, paypal, or what have you.

Think of it: The artist gets far more for their work than they would ever earn off of an actual c.d. sale, while the industry hatefuls get zip.

[John Vulich]

The RIAA doesn't give a shit about the wellbeing of the Artists it claims to be protecting. From what I gather, since they only make 10 cents or so per each CDs sold, most signed Artists would just as soon give their music away to promote their live shows where they actually make real money. IMO, the RIAA is more concerned with setting precedents to shut down P2P systems because they fear that Artists will use it as direct distrubution therefore cutting out the Recording Industry's stranglehold on access to the masses . They are just pimps.

Also there is plenty of statistical evidence that shows that the Industry is not losing much, if any, sales because of file sharing. They make just as much, if not more, money per Artist as they used to, before the proliferation of P2P usage. One of the major problems is, that they release fewer Artists than they used to. So the other benefit, of this Witch-hunt, is that the Industry Executives can put blame elswhere and divert attention from their lack of descisive management skills and thereby remain in the good graces of company Shareholders and keep their jobs.

I think the smart thing for them to do is treat P2P like radio. They should negotiate to have P2P systems employ advertising and split the profits with the the software designers and, as usual, give the Artists a few crumbs also... that would probably make too much sense though.

[3*s]

This makes me wanna buy some music from the good people at the RIAA!

[The Chase]

The RIAA doesn't give a shit about the wellbeing of the Artists it claims to be protecting. From what I gather, since they only make 10 cents or so per each CDs sold, most signed Artists would just as soon give their music away to promote their live shows where they actually make real money. IMO, the RIAA is more concerned with setting precedents to shut down P2P systems because they fear that Artists will use it as direct distrubution therefore cutting out the Recording Industry's stranglehold on access to the masses . They are just pimps.

Also there is plenty of statistical evidence that shows that the Industry is not losing much, if any, sales because of file sharing. They make just as much, if not more, money per Artist as they used to, before the proliferation of P2P usage. One of the major problems is, that they release fewer Artists than they used to. So the other benefit, of this Witch-hunt, is that the Industry Executives can put blame elswhere and divert attention from their lack of descisive management skills and thereby remain in the good graces of company Shareholders and keep their jobs.

I think the smart thing for them to do is treat P2P like radio. They should negotiate to have P2P systems employ advertising and split the profits with the the software designers and, as usual, give the Artists a few crumbs also... that would probably make too much sense though.

a) On average artists make about 20% of the price of a CD by the time it is sold at a record store (varies from different labels and record stores), so way more than 10 cents.
b) how the hell would a p2p program advertise? sure, most p2p programs actually have banners and stuff, but nothing like the million-dollar ad campaigns on the radio.

[The Chase]

BTW, remember the time the RIAA site got hacked? that was funny as f**k!