The RIAA Going After Schools Again

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The RIAA sent out a press release saying that, in the twelfth wave of its fight against music “theft,” it is sending out another 407 pre-litigation settlement letters to 18 universities nationwide. Hit the link for a complete list of schools.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), on behalf of the major record companies, this week sent a new wave of 407 pre-litigation settlement letters to 18 universities nationwide as part of an ongoing campaign against online music theft. The letters reflect evidence of significant abuse of campus computer networks for the purpose of copyright infringement.
Click to expand...
 
Something I just noticed about riaa.com. There isn't a single spot to leave feedback or contact anyone outside of reporting piracy. Glad to know they care what people think.:rolleyes:
 
how does that work? Interscope v. Does 1-7 ruled that the CCPA wasn't applicable against an university network due to it being a private network, and that the dcma could be the only applicable avenue, yet riaa v. verizon rules that the dcma doesnt apply to these cases. As it stands it sounds like the riaa barely has a leg to stand on against university students
 
Are they suing the students or the universities?

If they're suing the universities, that's stupid.

If they're suing the students, that's still stupid, but slightly less so.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Are they suing the students or the universities?

If they're suing the universities, that's stupid.

If they're suing the students, that's still stupid, but slightly less so.
Click to expand...

students. basically the letter is informing the student they intend on suing them but giving them a chance to settle prior to filing the suit. it asks the university to please pass the offer along to the student since at this point the riaa has only an ip address, not a students name. once they file they will file the suit under riaa v. does 1-xx and then through an ex parte session request subpoenas to get the students names from the school. where it gets interesting is that there is currently an order to show cause why the subpoenas shouldn't be quashed for the fact that there does not appear to be legal standing to file suit against edu networks thanks to precident set by the cases i mentioned above
 
Someone I know at U of Mich last year settled out of court for $2000 with the RIAA. It makes economical sense to pirate, especially since he had backups of everything. :p
 
Loki008 said:
students. basically the letter is informing the student they intend on suing them but giving them a chance to settle prior to filing the suit. it asks the university to please pass the offer along to the student since at this point the riaa has only an ip address, not a students name. once they file they will file the suit under riaa v. does 1-xx and then through an ex parte session request subpoenas to get the students names from the school. where it gets interesting is that there is currently an order to show cause why the subpoenas shouldn't be quashed for the fact that there does not appear to be legal standing to file suit against edu networks thanks to precident set by the cases i mentioned above
Click to expand...

In that case, asking for settlements in the total value of the songs stolen (i.e. $1 per song) isn't too bad but still kind of mean.

Plus I don't like the RIAA (does anyone?) for the other things they do.
 
Oh, and there's also the fact that they don't give the settlement money back to the artists who deserve it.
 
HOCP4ME said:
In that case, asking for settlements in the total value of the songs stolen (i.e. $1 per song) isn't too bad but still kind of mean.

Plus I don't like the RIAA (does anyone?) for the other things they do.
Click to expand...

if i recall the settlement offer is ~$300 per infringing song vs $750 a song they seek in court. the riaa feels this is fair because they are going after you not for downloading the songs, but rather for sharing the song on the p2p network. so technically you are being fined for illegal distrbution and the damages caused by all the people who potentially downloaded from you.
 
I truly hope the what Radiohead did and the whole Myspace thing starts catching on. Then the RIAA will be gone in a few years.
 
And to think, our access to all the information out there will probably be curtailed because a few people just HAD to have that 50 Cent CD for free.
 
Again, with the RIAA... when is this shit going to stop? With the amount of time and money they put into unleashing their lawyers to attack every 20-something fool for dl'ing music, they could instead put that time and effort into hiring the best intraweb fools to track down every torrent site on the fucking net and shut them down.

They can obviously track anyone who's dl'ing the shit, so instead, track down the damn sites, groups etc. that are making it available.

Not everyone in the world is dl'ing music. Their behavior is so fucking over-the-top, it's obvious that, as always, it's about the fucking dollar. But that only makes sense, because the record companies that sign the artists they do, are signing "artists" who aren't artists by any definition of the word. "50 cent"? Learn how to fucking spell, you retarded rapper cock-sucker. Brittney Spears... yeah, there's a winner. None of these assholes could write an actual song to save their fucking life. The RIAA is simply taking advantage of the fact that too much of the world's population listens to this shit, and they can make money off it, because these "artists" are so big and bring in so much money.

I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again: more people have dl'd my music in recent years than who've bought it, and I don't give a fuck. But the thing is, more people buy it because it's actual fucking music with something to it, so they eventually want to purchase the CD(s) just to have the "full package". That's what happens when your music actually has an impact on people.

They take advantage of being able to sue every mindless asshole who listens to mindless shit. I hate the fucking RIAA, but honestly, if you're so lacking in self that you'd listen to that shit anyway, then maybe getting sued for downloading it will knock some depth into you and you'll start listening to real fucking music. Fuck 'em both, the RIAA and the downloaders of such garbage. But the RIAA is one of the worst institutions in the world, defaming everything that music is about, and it makes me fucking sick.

...and going after college kids who's families might not be so "mindless", suing them into the ground? Seriously, you're going to potentially fuck-up someone's life, pushing them out of college (for example) so they can go get three jobs just to pay-off these assholes?

Every mindless, mooching fucking scumbag at the RIAA needs two bullets to the back of the head, then a shotgun blast to the face just for the sake of catharsis.
 
Oh boy... do they care if stuff you're downloading are no-name trance artists that really dont have a label nor an album? Cause I got 160 gigs of trance, and I be damned if you could buy ANY of it in stores.
 
According to non-profit research group Institute for Policy Innovation said:
Umm yes. I'm SURE thats the reason. Could it possible include piss-poor "shake-&-bake" artists, using song formats over and over and over again to the point of irritable bowel syndrome, or generally releasing manure that is not fit for the $12 - 16 price range, when the only good / decent song is the one that has been played ad nauseum over terrestrial radio.

I dunno.. call me a skeptic. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
HyperTension said:
Umm yes. I'm SURE thats the reason. Could it possible include piss-poor "shake-&-bake" artists, using song formats over and over and over again to the point of irritable bowel syndrome, or generally releasing manure that is not fit for the $12 - 16 price range, when the only good / decent song is the one that has been played ad nauseum over terrestrial radio.

I dunno.. call me a skeptic. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You Sir... Are on to somthing :D


god damn emo junk. no wonder the riaa is sueing everyone, their hospital bills are on the rise :D
 
[RIP]Zeus;1031926841 said:
god damn emo junk. no wonder the riaa is sueing everyone, their hospital bills are on the rise :D
Click to expand...

QFT

That needs to end up in some one's sig :p
 
so technically you are being fined for illegal distrbution and the damages caused by all the people who potentially downloaded from you.
Click to expand...

When did they stop having to prove someone actually downloaded it from you? I don't think there is a good reason to have it in a shared folder, but that doesn't mean you've told anyone to steal it from you. Its no diffrent than leaving a CD on the table and a CD burner in the room when you step outside for a smoke.
 
vengence said:
When did they stop having to prove someone actually downloaded it from you? I don't think there is a good reason to have it in a shared folder, but that doesn't mean you've told anyone to steal it from you. Its no diffrent than leaving a CD on the table and a CD burner in the room when you step outside for a smoke.
Click to expand...


brilliant

nuff said
 
vengence said:
When did they stop having to prove someone actually downloaded it from you? I don't think there is a good reason to have it in a shared folder, but that doesn't mean you've told anyone to steal it from you. Its no diffrent than leaving a CD on the table and a CD burner in the room when you step outside for a smoke.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
It's 'shared' not 'stolen' as you can't steal anything while you copy it.

RIAA needs to be taken out of business. They caused this whole thing by refusing to start digital distribution and now they're hunting innocent poor people.

Did you know they use legal leverage on universities i.e. they 'lobbyed' through legislation that will drop government funding if the universities will not comply with their demands? Extortion.

How many of you downloaded a song just out of curiosity and found out it's worthless crap? 9 out of 10 songs I ever tried was in that category. They make these losses out of thin air because there's no way people would EVER buy all the stuff they download. Ever.
 
vengence said:
When did they stop having to prove someone actually downloaded it from you? I don't think there is a good reason to have it in a shared folder, but that doesn't mean you've told anyone to steal it from you. Its no diffrent than leaving a CD on the table and a CD burner in the room when you step outside for a smoke.
Click to expand...

To the RIAA it doesnt matter if someone actually downloaded the song from you. By the sheer fact that it is in your shared folder, you are guilty of "making available" for download.

:-/
 
vengence said:
When did they stop having to prove someone actually downloaded it from you? I don't think there is a good reason to have it in a shared folder, but that doesn't mean you've told anyone to steal it from you. Its no diffrent than leaving a CD on the table and a CD burner in the room when you step outside for a smoke.
Click to expand...

soccermatt34 said:
To the RIAA it doesnt matter if someone actually downloaded the song from you. By the sheer fact that it is in your shared folder, you are guilty of "making available" for download.

:-/
Click to expand...

That is basically the exact arugment being made in the case Arista v Does 1-19 (District of Columbia). They are basically saying that the company that downloaded the song to prove infringment was authorized and thus infringment didnt take place and also that the burden of proof is on the plantif to show that infringment took place, the fact that they have taken up a case that is difficult to prove due to the fact that it occurs behind closed doors does not mean the burden should fall on the defendant otherwise.

The EFF just filed an amacus brief with the court in one case further arguing this point that purely "making available" does not mean infringment has occured, and by allowing this argument to hold water you are opening the flood gates for search engines such as google to be held responsable for content of the results the search brings up. They also cite several paralell examples where cases have show where merely making content available does not consitute infringment.

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_080111AmicusBriefOpposSumJudgMot
 
People say over and over that what the RIAA is doing doesn't work to encourage people to not be music theives. Well, they are wrong. I know alot of people that refrain from stealing music out of fear of getting sued, myself included.

Most of these students that are getting sued I would guess either don't have a clue that what they are doing is being tracked or just flat out don't give a shit until they get caught, and then only then do they care and start to cry and whine.

People are crazy for doing this crap nowdays and when they get caught they bitch and complain. It's even more rediculous now that you can get most music from Amazon or WalMart with no DRM on it. So the whole "I don't like DRM" arguement is now baseless.

It's simple... stop downloading music illegaly and you won't get sued. How hard is that?
 
I haven't downloaded a song in over a year probably. I have about 2000 oldies and that's all I need. If I want to hear a new song I just go to youtube and listen to it as if it were my itunes. :rolleyes::rolleyes: The fucking industry is retarded.

I go to UNL so I can't wait to hear from someone who got the shaft. :D I'm cruel.
 
For the record, I don't listen to music. I don't think I even own any CDs. I listen to sports radio or talk radio sometimes when I drive, but most of the time it's off. I don't download music either. I don't have a problem with the RIAA suing people THAT IT CAN PROVE ILLEGALLY DISTRIBUTED MUSIC. But like I said above, leaving something in a shared folder is not piracy. It's simply leaving the front door unlocked to your computer, well maybe your garage.

I think it is VERY clear that the structure of how money gets from the consumers pocket to the artist needs to change. Capitalism is about the market correcting it's self. If you can make it cheaper or better your gonna win. Well Piracy makes songs cheaper. Until they give people some reason beyond FEAR to WANT to buy a CD again, people aren't going to.
 
Loki008 said:
if i recall the settlement offer is ~$300 per infringing song vs $750 a song they seek in court. the riaa feels this is fair because they are going after you not for downloading the songs, but rather for sharing the song on the p2p network. so technically you are being fined for illegal distrbution and the damages caused by all the people who potentially downloaded from you.
Click to expand...

Well then yeah, that's ridiculous because they can't prove how many people dowloaded the songs and they don't give the "damages" to the people who were damaged by them.

Vorazan said:
Oh boy... do they care if stuff you're downloading are no-name trance artists that really dont have a label nor an album? Cause I got 160 gigs of trance, and I be damned if you could buy ANY of it in stores.
Click to expand...

I don't think the RIAA cares about artists without labels. The RIAA exists for the benefit of recording studios, not artists.

vengence said:
When did they stop having to prove someone actually downloaded it from you? I don't think there is a good reason to have it in a shared folder, but that doesn't mean you've told anyone to steal it from you. Its no diffrent than leaving a CD on the table and a CD burner in the room when you step outside for a smoke.
Click to expand...

As much as a I hate the RIAA I also hate piracy and would have to say that is a really bad argument. You can't unknowingly leave a file in a shared folder like you can leave a CD next to a burner. A better analogy would be burning one hundred copies of a CD and putting them on a crowded street with a sign that says "free". I guess you could call it "intent to commit piracy" if you wanted to.

Met-AL said:
People say over and over that what the RIAA is doing doesn't work to encourage people to not be music theives. Well, they are wrong. I know alot of people that refrain from stealing music out of fear of getting sued, myself included.

Most of these students that are getting sued I would guess either don't have a clue that what they are doing is being tracked or just flat out don't give a shit until they get caught, and then only then do they care and start to cry and whine.

People are crazy for doing this crap nowdays and when they get caught they bitch and complain. It's even more rediculous now that you can get most music from Amazon or WalMart with no DRM on it. So the whole "I don't like DRM" arguement is now baseless.

It's simple... stop downloading music illegaly and you won't get sued. How hard is that?
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I agree that no one should be downloading music illegaly and that it is wrong to do. The RIAA, however, sues ("settles") for very large amounts of money. Most of the money goes to the RIAA itself, some of it goes to recording studios, and none of it goes to the artists who really deserve the money. Bascially, the RIAA is stealing from theives.
 
As much as a I hate the RIAA I also hate piracy and would have to say that is a really bad argument. You can't unknowingly leave a file in a shared folder like you can leave a CD next to a burner. A better analogy would be burning one hundred copies of a CD and putting them on a crowded street with a sign that says "free". I guess you could call it "intent to commit piracy" if you wanted to.
Click to expand...

There isn't a sign that says free when I put a shared folder onto the network. If I share my whole computer because I'm too lazy to be choosy, am I suddenly committing a crime? I've just allowed everyone access to my OS files, all my program files, what ever is in my CD drive and what happens to be legal files from CDs I've bought. If I leave a bottle of spray paint in my garage, and I leave my garage unlocked and the door open, and some teenager comes INTO MY GARAGE and takes it and snuffs it (or whatever the term is) when did I commit a crime? By placing a folder in shared mode does not tell ANYONE they have writes to it any more than leaving the front door of my house open when I leave. Allowing someone to see what files you have on your computer, or what is in your house never tells them you approve of them taking it. Let me state that again, putting a folder in share mode DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE GIVEN THOSE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO TAKE SOMETHING FROM YOUR COMPUTER. You have simply left the doors unlocked. Yes, you have to unlock it manually, Yes there are options that would prevent others from taking them, that does NOT however mean you MUST use them. You don't have to have locks on your doors to stop other people from being responsible if they steal your stuff. And if they are your legal copies then they are YOUR STUFF.
 
As much as a I hate the RIAA I also hate piracy and would have to say that is a really bad argument. You can't unknowingly leave a file in a shared folder like you can leave a CD next to a burner. A better analogy would be burning one hundred copies of a CD and putting them on a crowded street with a sign that says "free". I guess you could call it "intent to commit piracy" if you wanted to.
Click to expand...

I'm going to say that's not true. If you leave a cd or even a cd binder on a desk, whoever grabs it can burn 1000 copies and thats the same damn thing.
 
vengence said:
There isn't a sign that says free when I put a shared folder onto the network.
Click to expand...

If you have it in a shared folder, and you're on a p2p network, you're offering these files to anyone who wants them, plain and simple. So yes, by putting them in a shared folder and being connected to a p2p client sharing that folder, there is a sign that says "free" on them.
 
Aren't "Shared" folders also the default place to put things to share between users on your home computer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top