RIAA sues 532 music downloaders | iLounge News


RIAA sues 532 music downloaders

“In its largest legal action to date, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed another 532 lawsuits Wednesday against alleged music pirates operating through peer-to-peer (P2P) networks.

The lawsuits use the “John Doe” process, which is used to sue defendants whose names aren’t known.

The lawsuits identify the defendants by their Internet protocol computer address. Once a John Doe suit has been filed and approved by a judge, the RIAA can subpoena the information needed to identify the defendant by name from an Internet service provider (ISP).”

« Shure E2 for $76 at MicrophoneSolutions.com

Shakespeare’s Sonnets on your iPod »

Related Stories



Just be happy,,,, if you want music and you get it from sharing or itunes,,, just be happy….

Posted by hb2 in Phoenix arizona on January 21, 2004 at 4:41 PM (CST)


Well living in canada, I figure that if i’m alredy paying extra tax on my blank meda and now i’m paying the extra levy on blank media then why not download, paying all this extra is almost like paying for the music.

Their solutions sometimes are moronic. if i want a cd for data i have to pay extra because i “could” burn pirated music to it. even though its for data ,they don’t know that, so i better pay them just to be sure :)


Posted by |x| on January 21, 2004 at 4:44 PM (CST)


Whatever the right and wrongs there is a difference between downloading a song on mp3 and stealing a cd. If I download a song off kazaa to play at a friends birthday party because I know he likes it I am infringeing copyright. If I borrow a friend’s cd I am not. I may not like the song or have any intention of keeping it. The two acts are essentially the same - one may leave me actionable, the other will not.
Mp3 is not the same quality as cd, so in essence downloading is like taping off the radio. I did that a lot when I was a kid. I didn’t steal LPs.

Posted by Jackson in London on January 21, 2004 at 5:10 PM (CST)


In the ancient past, the labor required to duplicate, say, a book was enormous. Without paper, you neede dvellum, made from sheep hides. You had to to pay shepards for several years for the care and upkeep of a flock of sheep. THen you had to pay butchers, tanners, and so on. And then, once youhad the raw material, you had to pay several dozen monks for several hundred thousand hours of labor to reproduce the book.

In that age of scarcity, of atoms, there was no notion of “intellectual property”. If you possessed the physical form of the information, then you possessed the information, with complete rights of reproduction, alteration, and dissemination.

Sometime in the last few hundred years years this changed - as techniques of mechanical reproduction lowed the cost required for duplication, certain people evolved this relatively new, untested concept of “intellectual property”. As the above links demonstrate, despite having the term “property” in its title it is nothing like the concept of property that applies to physical atoms.

Copyright is thus a recent, historically contingent concept. It does not pre-date and can not supplant our ancient cultural birthright of private property. Real property. Physical property.

I find it not uncoincidental that as mechanical and now electronic methods of reproduction have improved their performance, the threats and lamentations of “intellectual property” holders have increased. But the tide of history is against them - they remind me of the communists in Soviet Russia, in the dying days of their losing regime, screaming louder and louder “WE WILL BURY YOU”.

As we move from the Age of Atoms into the Age of Bits, the possessors of physical copies of information find that the cost to reproduce an electronic derivative of their physical property asymptotically approaches zero. Hence the combined effort of hundreds of millions of reproducers of information is opposed by several hundred immensely rich “intellectual property” barons, determined to keep their musician sharcroppers cowed and their serf consumers enslaved. But they will fail.

The RIAA and their copyright stooges are fighting against history, against capitalism, and against evolution. Information wants to be free. Believe it pal. Take the red pill.

Posted by Tacitus on January 21, 2004 at 5:37 PM (CST)


have they posted a list of names

Posted by ari polsky on January 21, 2004 at 5:54 PM (CST)


How wrong you are Tacitus, I slave away to create my intellectual Property, I spend time away from my family, I spend time away from my hobbies, and spend time (and money) developing the skills it takes to do my job.

If I am not reimbursed for the product I provide, I will no longer provide it.  If I am reimbursed for the product I provide, I will strive to make a better product so I can compete and make more money.

When you copy my work illegally you’ve stolen my time from my family, my hobbies, my life.

Product will never be free, that is the basis of capitalism.  People make things because they can make money making things, if you don’t let them make money, things won’t be made anymore.  The production of intellectual property has sky rocketed in recent history only because society has recognized that there is value in IP and has taken measures to protect it. 

What’s so ironic is that your manifesto is socialism defined, not the other way around.  You’re the one reminding us all about the communists in Soviet Russia.

Posted by Jason on January 21, 2004 at 6:08 PM (CST)


in canada they have a tax on digital music players now becuase of people listening to downloaded music on them…i love this..they basically just constituetd downloading music by imposing this tax…so the next time someone calls me a thief for d/l’ing m,usic..no no my friend i live in canada and i bought an i pod…i payed for my music long time ago :P

Posted by Krzysztof Sikorski in Edmonton AB Canada on January 21, 2004 at 6:25 PM (CST)


“If any of you is without sin, let him throw the first stone.”
thats my favorite quote…..

Yeah, well, try “Thou shall not steal” on for size.

It’s funny, all these years folks thought we were suckers for paying for our music while they got theirs for “free”.  Turns out it’s not going to be so “free” after all.  As Nelson on The Simpsons would say, “Ha ha!”

Posted by Mountain Man on January 21, 2004 at 7:15 PM (CST)


It’s not “our music” - it’s “their music”. It belongs to the RIAA. All you get for your $1 is a license to rent it for unlimited plays within the license terms. It is definitely not your property.

Want proof? Try selling one of your iTunes downloads to someone else? Go ahead.

Or picture this - you’ve spent $20,000 filling a 40GB iPod with tunes. You die, and you want to bequeath the iPod and tunes to your heirs. You can’t - it has no monetary value. You have not bought “property”, you have paid a devious subscription fee.

Posted by WhatsYoursIsMine on January 21, 2004 at 7:38 PM (CST)


I hope you all realize, that according to the dmca, making mp3s of cds that you own is illegal as well as downloading.  So the riaa can still sue you if your hd is filled with mp3s even if you own the cds (the garbage ppl say “if you own the cd your safe” is bull).  Read the dmca, its pretty disturbing that it takes away every right to back up your data.

Posted by acemilo on January 21, 2004 at 10:48 PM (CST)


sure, people usually have 40 gigas in legal music…specially if they buy them online (each track +-5 megabytes at 1 dolar!)
this guys kill me… piracy will always beat them… this is like a necrosis process… unstopable.. might as well join the crew…
big companies have their days numbered and they know it… it’s not the bands who die, but the big companies…

bands will make their cds, have their own publishers and merchandise… and fans WILL buy to them if they like the band…
the future is in small labels, and earning money in concerts and merchandise….

RIAA… still 2000 years to sue all people now… it’s just stupid…

Posted by Back from da Underground on January 21, 2004 at 11:13 PM (CST)


Have you all seen MTV cribs?  How the f**k am I supposed to feel sorry for some drummer of a band of the week who has more money than they average American will make in lifetime at age 22?

RIAA needs to find a better way to make their porducts more marketable so people will want to pay money for it.  If they don’t, they can kiss thier profits goodbye.


We have.

- E

Posted by evan on January 21, 2004 at 11:46 PM (CST)


Just look at Puff Daddy. Dude spends $25,000+ on parties on plane rides. He spends ridiculous amount of $$$ that he can easily donate to charity. Rich spoiled bastard!!

Posted by Lqv2015 on January 21, 2004 at 11:53 PM (CST)


Nobody has addressed the issues that I’ve raised. The RIAA is an organizations setup by the record industry. Not a government agency. Who exactly has enabled them with LAW ENFORCEMENT abilities. Last time I knew you needed to be a legitimate law enforcement (governmental) agency in order to do a Search and Seizure or Wire Tap (i.e. WARRANT required). Yet these bunch of recording industry self-proclaimed Anti-Piracy people are going around invading the privacy of individuals and forcing ISPs to divulge names. I maintain they do no have the right (Jurisdiction) to do so. It would be different if they were a governmental agency setup and endowed with laws to enforce anti-piracy (Then of course they would need to behave like a true law enforcement agency and WARRANTS with JUST CAUSE would be required before they were authorized to invade someone’s privacy. I maintain that what the RIAA is doing is ILLEGAL and should be challenged in court. I believe they do not have a legal leg to stand on for what they are doing and are just getting away with it because of the Record Industries huge resources (MONEY in the right places (G.W. wants to get re-elected ya know)....

Posted by Downloader on January 22, 2004 at 12:05 AM (CST)


“...Mp3 is not the same quality as cd, so in essence downloading is like taping off the radio. I did that a lot when I was a kid. I didn’t steal LPs.

By Jackson on Jan 21, 04 4:10 pm”

Quality is not the issue, it’s that radio stations do pay a fee / licence to broadcast songs to the public who tune in, and they get advertising revenue to pay for the licencing.

If you just plain download from P2P, no one “gains” anything but you (which is stealing).


Posted by voodoo on January 22, 2004 at 1:21 AM (CST)


Once technology is put into the public domain, it will never go away, “PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO DOWNLOAD” stealing or not it will continue. Laws and fines do not matter to people because if someone wants something they will take it.

Laws and rules exist. but people still commit crimes.

People become so “moral” about this issue, but do not care about morailty when it comes basic human needs in society.

Think about it.

Posted by ohshi on January 22, 2004 at 2:08 AM (CST)


In, UK they are now putting up the prices of cds, THATS GONNA HELP THINGS!!! Now more people are going to download the CDs that they would have bought at the normal price, in my experience I buy all the CDs I would normally buy, the ones I download are not ones that I would normally buy anyway, but as I can get them free I do, So they are making no less money outta me, maybe less now as the prices are going up I might buy less. Im sure this is the same for others too.

Posted by Jon Richards on January 22, 2004 at 7:48 AM (CST)


All I have to say is P2P is here to stay! Happy SHARING!!!!

Posted by Downloader on January 22, 2004 at 8:05 AM (CST)


It’s not my job to be swayed by the music industry to buy their product, it’s theirs.  So far they aren’t doing a good job of it.  15 bucks a cd?  No thanks.  99 cents for a shitty quality mp3?  No thanks.  I’ll continue to donwload until I find their products worth shelling out my money for. 

Keep in mind that I gladly fork over money to bleep.com and cds priced under 10 dollars.

Posted by dave on January 22, 2004 at 10:25 AM (CST)


let’s see here.  atleast 1,000,000 people are downloading “illegal” music right now.  532 are being sued.

The odds of me being sued are about .000532 or .0532%. 

This is me shaking.

Posted by someguy on January 22, 2004 at 10:35 AM (CST)

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy