Your Reaction to Music Download Lawsuits

Posts: 1694 · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 7:50 pm

As reported by the Associated Press, "The targets of the first lawsuits against music fans who share songs on the Internet include an elderly man in Texas who rarely uses his computer, a Yale University professor and an unemployed woman in New York who says she didn't know she was breaking the law."
"The RIAA also announced an amnesty program for people who admit they illegally share music, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and pledge to delete the songs off their computers."
"Some defense lawyers have objected to the amnesty provisions, warning that song publishers and other organizations not represented by the RIAA won't be constrained by the group's promise not to sue."

Question

Will the lawsuits influence your music downloading activities or CD purchases?

Posts: 11 · Joined: 27 Nov 2003 Posts: 11 Location: Houston, TX

I downloaded about 100 songs on Kazaa back before the lawsuits, but I don't rape 'em. I hear about a new band, and pull up some of their stuff. If it's good, I go buy the album, if it's not, I just delete 'em! I currently have 988 cd's, all originals, no cdr copies! I love this music too much to screw the bands like that! I usually try to buy cd's at the shows, to help the bands even more. They make alot more than if you go and buy them at the chain stores. Support the bands and the music you love, otherwise there will be no more tours for us to check out and enjoy! Metal on!!

Posts: 1694 · Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:08 am

WASHINGTON (AP)_A federal appeals court ruled Friday the recording industry can't force Internet providers to identify subscribers swapping music online, dramatically setting back the industry's anti-piracy campaign.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a trial judge's ruling that enforced a type of copyright subpoena under a law that predated the music-swapping trend.
"It's an incredible ruling, a blow for the little guy," said Bob Barnes, a grandfather in Fresno, Calif., who was targeted by one of the earliest subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America but isn't among the hundreds who have been sued so far.
The ruling does not make it legal to distribute music over the Internet, but it removes one of the most effective tools used by the recording industry to track such activity and sue downloaders.
The appeals court said the 1998 copyright law doesn't cover the popular file-sharing networks currently used by tens of millions of Americans to download songs. The law "betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works," the court wrote.
The appeals judges said they sympathized with the recording industry, noting "stakes are large." But the judges said it was not the role of courts to rewrite the 1998 law, "no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries."
Legal experts said the appeals ruling probably would not affect the 382 civil lawsuits the recording industry already has filed since it announced its campaign nearly six months ago.
But it will make identifying defendants for future lawsuits much more difficult and expensive.
The ruling forces the recording industry to file copyright lawsuits against "John Doe" defendants, based on their Internet addresses, then work through the courts to learn their names.
Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry group, said the ruling "unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation."
Sherman promised to "continue to defend our rights online on behalf of artists, songwriters and countless others involved in bringing music to the public."
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates had approved use of the subpoenas, forcing Verizon Communications Inc. to turn over names and addresses for at least four Internet subscribers. Since then, Verizon has identified dozens of its other subscribers under subpoena by the music industry.
Verizon's lawyer, Sarah Deutsch, called the ruling "an important victory for all Internet users and all consumers." She said the music industry should be required to file traditional civil lawsuits — which are more expensive and time-consuming — to prosecute downloaders.
"Consumers' rights cannot be trampled upon in the quest to enforce your copyright," Deutsch said.
The appeals court said one argument by the recording industry "borders upon the silly" — the trade group's claim that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed years before downloading music over peer-to-peer Internet services became popular, compels Internet providers to turn over the names of people suspected of operating pirate Web sites upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office. A judge's signature is not required. Critics contend judges ought to be more directly involved.
Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.
In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."

Posts: 1694 · Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:07 pm

Music industry sues 532 for piracy

By Ben Berkowitz and Sue Zeidler

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The U.S. music industry says it is suing 532 individuals identified only as "John Doe" in anti-piracy lawsuits after a recent court decision forced record labels to abandon earlier methods of tracking down offenders.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which has been fighting the digital piracy it blames for a three-year decline in CD sales, said it had filed four separate suits against the 532 users of undisclosed Internet service providers (ISPs).

In a change of legal tactics, the trade group plans to use the numerical Internet addresses of song swappers to subpoena the identity of their owners.

Three of the lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York, and the fourth was filed in the District of Columbia District Court, RIAA president Cary Sherman said on a conference call with journalists.

"Our campaign against illegal file sharers is not missing a beat," Sherman said.

Over the past few years, record labels and even musicians like Metallica and Sheryl Crow have campaigned against song-swap services, claiming peer-to-peer networks like Napster and Kazaa have contributed to plummeting CD sales and cheated them out of royalties by letting people swap music for free.

But, the RIAA has been unable to sue suspected individual song swappers by name since mid-December, when a federal appeals court ruled that Internet service providers did not have to respond to subpoenas requesting the names of users.

Sherman said that decision complicated and increased the cost of the industry's efforts to stamp out online song copying over "peer-to-peer" networks.

PEER-TO-PEER GROUPS RULED EXEMPT

The trade group had previously invoked the 1998 digital-copyright law to force Internet providers such as Verizon Communications to turn over suspects' names, an approach upheld by a lower court earlier this year.

But an appeals court found the law does not apply to peer-to-peer networks, where infringing material is stored on individual hard drives rather than on public Web sites.

Sherman on Wednesday said settlement figures would likely rise to reflect the additional legal expenses involved in filing John Doe suits.

Verizon officials were not immediately available for comment, but the company in the past said the John Doe lawsuits would discourage frivolous subpoenas and protect customer privacy and due-process rights.

A person close to the RIAA said the trade group had pursued the tactic at the encouragement of several ISPs.

Since September, the RIAA has settled 233 of the 382 lawsuits it has filed. Sherman said there another 100 settlements have been reached in principle, while the rest of the cases are proceeding in litigation.

Like the earlier suits, the latest lawsuits are targeted against what the group considers to be the most "egregious" cases of copyright infringement.

Sherman said the most of the lawsuits have settled for about $3,000.

A recent study released by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found the number of people who downloaded music from the Internet fell by around half by late 2003 from the early part of the year.

The RIAA represents the major music labels, among them the music arms of Vivendi Universal, Sony Corp., Time Warner Inc., Bertelsmann AG and EMI Group Plc.

Posts: 54 · Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 54

I thnk there going a little over board with the law suits against people
sharing music, but I unduerstand that a lot of artists in this music genre
metal/ hard rock need cd sales in order to keep sighned to record deals.
But it is also difficult for me to feel sympathy for the record industry
that dont invest in artists over the long haul and drop artists unless they
recieve immediate results.Thats why I think Independent labels are so
important, to keep bands surviving that otherwise would not get a record
deal.

Just my opinion ... ZZZrich

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:16 am

I'm with MetalShane. Anytime I find out any band I like has a new album, I go download their music and if I like their new stuff, I buy the CD. How else are we to hear new hard rock? Radio sure as hell won't play any new Motley Crue, Tesla or Anthrax.