RIAA sues 532 music downloaders | iLounge News

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

Comments

41

“...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…..”

Radio stations pay a fee, but that does not mean it is legal to tape radio. But quality is an issue - at least in the music industry. As far as I am aware only Meridien audio ar allowed to stream digitally from DVD-Audio because they have developed a secure digital link. The reason is that if you could stream from SACD or DVD - A you have a virtual master quality copy. Great for pirating. At one time this was a bigger issue than mp3. Part of the problem with P2P is that as the codecs have got better, internet has got quicker, hard drives have got bigger - file sharing is now possible on an epic scale. People used tape each others’ LPs all the time, its just hard to accumulate 20,000 free songs that way unless you have a lot of friends and a lot of time to spare.

Posted by Jackson in London on January 22, 2004 at 9:43 AM (PDT)

42

Jackson/Jason, do you work for the RIAA?

The same RIAA that *pays* radio stations to secure playtime? “payola” is a two-way street.

The same RIAA that campaigned to raise the webcasting fees to *hundreds* of times higher per listener than broadcast radio so as to enforce massive consolidation of internet radio?

The thing about it is, monopoly cartels like the RIAA don’t like having to deal with several thousand retailers of their product - as they did under the old webcasting regime. So now they only have to deal with several dozen. It’s about consolidation and control.

And as for suing avid listeners of music? No industry can hope to survive when it keeps suing its most avid fans. Good luck with that!

Posted by abraxis on January 22, 2004 at 10:15 AM (PDT)

43

No I don’t work for the RIAA, I make computer games for a living.

The RIAA does a lot of bad things, and handles a lot of things poorly.  But that doesn’t justify people breaking the law by downloading music illegally.  The RIAA is fighting the good fight to protect IP rights.  Their support for DMCA and other things are horrid, but I stand up for them when they go after the criminals.

DMCA is an attack on law-abiding citizens’ rights, suing the criminals that are breaking the law is taking the fight to where it should go.

Don’t buy the delusion that the RIAA is some evil empire and illegal downloaders are saintly rebels fighting “the man”.  Illegal downloaders are just two-bit punk criminals.

Posted by Jason on January 22, 2004 at 10:48 AM (PDT)

44

Jason nailed you so bad Tacitus. You’re arguments are ridiculous to say the least.

Posted by Dr_Cogent on January 22, 2004 at 11:11 AM (PDT)

45

First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

The Internet is disintermediating between artists and audience. The RIAA is a cartel of mediaries. Their time is passing.

Before copyright existed there were artists.
After copyright ends there will be artists.

Artists that perform, and ask for reward from audiences, according to their ability, their talent, and their charisma.

Not tame ranks of sharecroppers lending their name to dead copyrights in the hope that they will make it big, be invited into the House and out of the Fields.

The era of industrial art is passing. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction is ending.

Posted by Mahatma Tacitus on January 22, 2004 at 11:36 AM (PDT)

46

well the reality is most people download songs - many students share their collections not on any p2p network but through the intranet -  thats great if u feel like ur a good person by paying for ur songs - kudos really - but in my case no - i still will download through other methods - u guys dont need to be so hostile and stop with the name calling - if people take music so let them get caught - dont be an A$shole about it ie jason, uploader, etc. 
by the way im downloading right now - take that RIAA !  by the way - yah if cd prices were lower id buy more - cuz its getting hard to download real songs - anyone else having that problem?

i hate steve jobs

Posted by gabe on January 22, 2004 at 1:22 PM (PDT)

47

Abraxis - no i don’t work for the RIAA. I think they’re behaving like idiots. I live in England - the RIAA have no jurisdiction, and the English equivalent will not start prosecuting until we have a viable legal download site. As of now we don’t. I have some albums all the following formats: LP, CD, tape, and minidisc. All paid for. If I’ve bought it on LP, why shsould I buy it again on another format. Are we buying the medium or the content? What do we own?

Posted by Jackson in London on January 22, 2004 at 4:14 PM (PDT)

48

Europeans purchased more than three million song downloads in 2003 from the continent’s primary online music store, OD2.

On Demand Distribution (OD2) is Europe’s leading digital distributor of music.

Posted by OD2 on January 22, 2004 at 4:39 PM (PDT)

49

OD2 - don’t blow your own trumpet so soon, wait until iTune and other major players get’s to Europe and we shall see how you stack up…

Your days are numbered, better get your suit cases packed

Posted by voodoo on January 22, 2004 at 7:44 PM (PDT)

50

Try iTunes. It’s cool.

Posted by O on January 22, 2004 at 8:08 PM (PDT)

51

I have no feelings about iTMS versus OD2, one way or another. I wrote this because Jackson said there was “no viable download site” in Europe. I typed “europe legal music downloads” into Google and this is the first thing that caught my eye. So while it’s true there’s no iTMS in Europe, there are a bunch of other legal music download sites.

Posted by OD2 on January 23, 2004 at 8:41 AM (PDT)

52

I think the problem lies deeper. There is violation of IPon one side, there is a definitly greedy industry who wants to perpetualize the status quo on the other side. And there is a VERY questionable understanding of IP. If you turn to the US constitution and look why IP is protected, than you find, that is was ment for the contributors to the knowledge and cultural heritage of the American people. This would include the artist for sure (even if it shows a poor state of culture) but not the merchants and distributors. So violating IP is against the law AND IP as ugly mutated from it’s original idea. People sense that. Or do you think its benefits the population, that everytime early works of Disney are due to enter the Public Domain, magically IP protection is extended by law makers? There is some serious fixing to be done. After that, enforce whatever needs to be enforced!

Posted by TheAsian on January 23, 2004 at 4:45 PM (PDT)

53

“you turn to the US constitution and look why IP is protected, than you find, that is was ment for the contributors to the knowledge and cultural heritage of the American people.”

Interesting, the founders of the US seem to have had a very interesting relation to IP. Well, to other people’s IP. In many ways, China today is like the US in the early 19th Century…
—————————————

When America was poor, its citizens “stole.” We took the intellectual property of Dickens and other foreign artists without paying for it. We didn’t call it stealing, but they did. We called it a sensible way for a developing nation to develop. Eventually, we saw it was better to protect their rights as well as ours - better because we had rights to protect elsewhere, too. But we only imposed this burden on ourselves when it made sense to do so. Until 1891, we were a pirate nation.

Things have changed. Now that we’re the world’s leading exporter of intellectual property, we’re also the most self-righteous about the importance of protecting it globally. Indeed, we can be vicious in our self-righteousness - threatening trade wars with developing nations for the crime of being just like us.

A block of powerful developing nations should first take a page from the US Copyright Act of 1790 and enact national laws that explicitly protect their own rights only. It would not protect foreigners. Second, these nations should add a provision that would relax this exemption to the extent that developed nations really opened their borders.

Posted by PirateNation on January 23, 2004 at 5:22 PM (PDT)

Page 3 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 section entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

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