The Recording Industry Association of America announced on July 25 that it was going to begin subpoenaing people who swap copyrighted files via a peer-to-peer network. It is keeping to its promise, and is now subpoenaing people across the country at a rate of seventy-five people a day. Although it said it would only subpoena those who are swapping a "substantial amount of files", it apparently is being very flexible with that term. The RIAA recently subpoenaed someone who had swapped only five files. They intend to begin lawsuits before the summer is out. This could mean trouble not only for the 60 million fileswappers around the country, but for the rights of those who swap. The RIAA has already forced Verizon (by means of a court order) to open up its records and give them information on anyone who's fileswapping... without a court order and without probable cause, only with an accusation.

Edited to add: Scared that you might be next on the RIAA's list? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation for more information on the RIAA's list and ways to help prevent getting sued: How to Not Get Sued by the RIAA

My question: Should the RIAA be allowed to force an ISP to open its records and give up personal information based only on an accusation? Does the RIAA have any right to invade the privacy of American citizens at all?

They most certainly do not. The courts issue a warrant... THAT'S how it works.

If Quark called me on the telephone and threatened me, I can't demand that the phone company hand over his information.

The RIAA is stepping WAY over their bounds by doing this. What the file swappers are doing is illegal yes, but that is no excuse for the actions of the RIAA.



Negative...again. They cannot and should not be doing this. I only hope that the defendants file counter suits and win. I would love to see the RIAA loose money by taking these actions.

RIAA is digging their own hole.

--cheers

I just hope they dont take into account albums that have been discontinued such as Ice Cubes kill at will, or other classics. Most of the time when i buy a CD it costs me from 18-25$ a pop, in light of that i dont feel to bad about file swappers. Another point is how damaging is the process to the bands themselves, it could end up crippling any record sales they get, though i see alot of no name bands that try to get popular through various internet resources such as mp3.com and such. I guess it comes down to mettalica, but who would by their latest albums anyways

I think what the RIAA is doing is just wrong. Fileswapping is illegal, but that doesn't mean that they have the right to just demand these files. If they can prove that these people were in fact swapping files, and they have a court order for the release of the information, then, and only then, should they be allowed to obtain this personal information. The good news is that the case which allowed the RIAA to do this in the first place is going to be appealed to a higher court in September, so this is far from over. The only problem is that the RIAA is serving as many subpoenas as possible before the next court date. Hopefully if this is declared unconstitutional, it will be retroactive to the start of the subpoenaing.

I don't think they have a right to do anything for one simple reason.

They can't prove damages.

The RIAA claims they've eliminated about 15% in downloading. But CD sales are NOT going up.

But the biggest question of damages comes in the form of a gross assumption. The RIAA and the courts are assuming that the songs being swapped are identical to what the music industry is distributing. That is flawed from the start. As a rule, songs are swapped in MP3 format. The file is compressed. Which means, the quality is not the same right out of the gate.

Secondly, and most importantly, is your average person ripping CD's is an idiot. The bitrates are crappy because they have a dialup connection and need the file smaller. Parts of the songs are missing (very, very common). Another song is in the middle of the one you've downloaded. And lastly, these files can be renamed - unlike CD's sold by the music industry. You may download "Stairway to Heaven" only to find out it's really Andy and the Anal Warts with their original song, "You suck and I hope you die". But what better way to get your music out?

So, getting court orders and subpoenas assume that you've downloaded what the RIAA is providing, and that's simply not true. If the RIAA had a scratch-n-dent distribution network, maybe they'd have a case. But people are not swapping the same product they are distributing.

So, does a person get punished the same for swapping a perfect copy of what the RIAA is distributing as does the person with half the song missing? And how does the RIAA prove that the file they download from someone is the exact file on that person's hard drive when submitted into evidence?

There's only one problem with this...

I was watching an interview with an EFF lawyer earlier today who said that when you're dealing with copyright law you don't have to prove damages because damages are already assumed. That's really unfortunate.

The very core of the RIAA case is the claim that file sharing is harming album sales. They do this by taking the total number of albums downloaded and pointing to those as 'lost sales'.

That's ridiculous. That assumes that every person who downloads a song would have gone out and purchased the entire album had the song not been available. This is patently fallacious logic. It's like saying you have the right to sue magazines and newspapers that post a snipped out of your book for purposes of review because people who read the review would otherwise have bought the book. The fact is that studies done back when Napster was around showed clearly that P2P users buy *MORE* CDs on average than people who don't download music online.

Of course, the entire reason they're doing this is to pull attention from the fact that the US government has been looking at the RIAA for price-fixing for years. CDs are the *ONLY* consumer product that hasn't come down in price over time. Even DVDs, which have been around for 5 years, have dropped dramatically. CDs are held artificially high so the RIAA can make more profit. They aren't being harmed by P2P, the music industry is making more money in the last couple years than at any time in the history of recorded music. They're simply shifting focus away from the fact that their entire industry is acting illegally.

Even bands who *WANT* to offer their music free online aren't being permitted to. A year or two ago, The Offspring offered their entire Americana album for a free download on their web site. It was THEIR music, put up on THEIR wishes, yet their label demanded it be taken down so they could sell more CDs. It's funny that at the time, The Offspring was the most pirated group on Napster, yet was also the best selling group in the stores. So much for lost sales, huh?

Honesty isn't part of the RIAA's makeup.

That's not true. If I claim that the RIAA killed and raped by children, but then I bring my children to court when I sue the RIAA, then obviously my case will be dismissed. Besides, even if that were true, then they'd still have to prove that these people caused the damages.


This is all *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. The RIAA is attemping to strangle music, and I won't let them. I've started downloading at a higher rate than ever, as have many of my friends. We'll keep "stealing" music until the day we die, and if they try to sue us, we'll fight it to our graves. These greedy pigs won't be able to hang on to their pitiful little empire forever. I'd like nothing better than to see these guys go out of business in shame. I hope they rot.

I hate greedy people.



EDITED for clarification.

If you are not a thief...you have nothing to fear.

Well, considering 60 million people across the country are thiefs, it seems that perhaps the RIAA should take other action than just sue "all the people who are costing us money". Like Cephus said, people who use p2p networks actually buy more CDs than those who don't. I can say that I usually download (oh... I mean I steal) a song so that I can decide whether or not I want the CD or not. This makes perfect sense. If some bands makes a crappy album, I sure don't want it. But that, of course, is the basis of the RIAA's greedy argument: If people hear how bad a record is before they buy it, nobody will want it, and we're going to lose money! If the RIAA would actually try to make some money off of the p2p networks by making it legal, then they could make a killing. But from now on, I'm not buying CDs, I'm just going to burn all the CDs I want. If the RIAA thinks that invading our privacy and then suing is going to stop p2p networks, they've got another thing coming.

The biggest problem is that the RIAA is operating on a business plan that went extinct 20 years ago. No longer can they insist that you buy a $20 album to get one decent song. Now, people can download that single song and there isn't anything the RIAA can do about it.

If, at the outset of all this nonsense, the RIAA had set up a service where you could download a single song for $1 or something, plenty of people would be doing that Heck, set up web-only exclusives for download and you'd have people flocking to it. But instead, they went out, attacked their fans, *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off the public and they're seeing the result. Lots of people out there simply will NEVER buy another album so long as they live, simply because the RIAA has made it clear they don't care about the fans, they care about lining their pockets.

the RIAA loses more from concerts then they ever will from P2P networks. record companies are the ones who give them their money, and record labels get no money from concerts. (though some are trying) they jack the artists on record sales, and they (artists) only get royalties on album sales. the record label gets most of the sales and has to give the RIAA a cut. (a big one too) it is a lie that artists are hurt by file sharing.

also, if they (record labels) actually put out anything worth listening to, they may get better sales. check your CD's, most of them have a few good or decent(3-4) songs and the rest blow! this is known as bundling (which isn't illegal) if you own 100 CD's I bet maybe 5 are good through out the whole thing. then you have the problem of talent, and people without it getting contracts (mystikal for example) maybe THIS is what actually hurts their sales?

and daytonrocker is right, the quality is not as good as professional CD's. I have never had all the problems he lists (like one song in the middle of another) but have had to delete many files because it wasn't what I wanted.

and now the movie people are complaining. (trust me, the qaulity of ripped DVDs compared to real ones is more noticable then music. and real ones have extra features) but I would rather see a movie in the theatres (which is a their main source of income BTW) then get it off of grokster but they aren't movie stars whining. they the people that make the movies. but they also make most their money from box office earnings, not DVD sales. (example: the matrix reloaded grossed almost 100 million in it's first weekend alone.) if these people were being paid, movies wouldn't get made! if they aren't they should unionize and demand better pay.



are you psyhic? I am one of these people, and refuse to buy any album on a label is part of the riaa (indies will still get my money, when I HAVE any to give)

All this is good, but aren't we getting a bit off topic?



Try this thread to comment on how bad the RIAA is: Filesharing



Edited because I just like using the wrong word sometimes.