The recording industry sued 477 more computer users Wednesday, including dozens of college students at schools in 11 states, accusing them of illegally sharing music across the Internet.

The Recording Industry Association of America praised efforts by colleges and universities to use technology and school policies to crack down on music piracy on their computer networks. But it said the most egregious offenders on campus deserved to be sued.

Campus officials at Mansfield University in Pennsylvania warned students months ago about requests from the recording industry to crack down on copyright infringement on its computer networks.

It threatened to unplug the Internet connection for each student identified by the recording industry as illegally sharing music, until the student removed all software used to distribute songs online.

"Not everyone agrees that downloading and file-sharing is copyright infringement," wrote the school's technology director, Connie L. Beckman. "While this may be debatable, Mansfield University is required to comply with the law."

The latest filings brings the number of lawsuits filed by the recording industry to 2,454 since last summer. None of the cases has yet gone to trial, and 437 people so far have agreed to pay financial penalties of about $3,000 as settlements.

Complete Story at Wired.

"It threatened to unplug the Internet connection for each student identified by the recording industry as illegally sharing music, until the student removed all software used to distribute songs online."

Software? Why, the software isn't illegal.

They could just promis to not do it again, then secretly re-install the software, kind of like how during the middle ages Gallieo secretly continued research, even though he was forced to discontinue research ad publically state that everything in space revolved around the earth (which thanks to him, we know is false)

"It threatened to unplug the Internet connection for each student identified by the recording industry as illegally sharing music, until the student removed all software used to distribute songs online."

Software? Why, the software isn't illegal.

They could just promis to not do it again, then secretly re-install the software, kind of like how during the middle ages Gallieo secretly continued research, even though he was forced to discontinue research ad publically state that everything in space revolved around the earth (which thanks to him, we know is false)

You scooped me on this one George (shaking journalistic fist)

Seems they are a bit shy of the usual 532 or so...

Did I mention today that I hate the RIAA?

"Not everyone agrees that downloading and file-sharing is copyright infringement," wrote the school's technology director, Connie L. Beckman. "While this may be debatable, Mansfield University is required to comply with the law."

"Downloading and file-sharing" are NOT illegal per se, nor are they copyright infringement per se, any more than firing a 357 Magnum is murder in every case.

I noticed that none of the schools listed are repeats of the last schools.

Just keep going RIAA you'll Piss off everyone eventually and drive the customer base into the grave yet

I'm beginning to wander how scientific their process of finding "particularly egregious" "infringers" are.

*is

Get a high speed shell account that supports port mapping and use that to download. Then the college can't crack down on you... unless...

... the issue isn't the illegality of the downloading that matters the most, but bandwidth usage (with a few people using BT or Kazaa and taking up 100% of the bandwidth). It's more wise to use eMule or another client that can scale back the bandwidth.

Even better, get around the firewall by creating a back door gateway. You might get busted for that, but it would be worth it for a few months.

Downloading isnt copyright infringement atleast not yet, in fact downloading is legal. So good luck with your law suits, Carey, you must be the dumbest son of a bitch ever, seems that harvard education didnt pay off at all. It has nothing to do with people ceasing to file share, it has to do with getting them to purchase their music, thats what generates revenue for your bosses at the end of the day, and people can still download because music will still be available by users in other countries where uploading is legal. And while people can still download freely, I doubt these law suits will have any effect on the masses. Keep believing in the easter bunny and santa claus Carey, we'll see how those numbers add up at the end of the year. Dont forget this is your customer base and even the unfortunates you have targeted or are yet to, what is to say they will become your customers in the long run. Enjoy your $3k settlement ass hole you are definately one of the reasons the music industry is such a joke.

this one didnt even make it on mnsbc's news rotation.

It's lost its ratings factor, the riaa should start phasing its suits out soon because it is getting less mainstream coverage.

Keep up "that there" war bush! : ) hahahahahahahahaha.

"And while people can still download freely, I doubt these law suits will have any effect on the masses. "

worse than that for them, even if a law is passed it will be utterly impossible to gain substantiation of the completion of a download because of the general structure of the net, and because of their own bogus files, AND because you would be hard pressed to know weather the song was being taken from a "licensed" service.

Code -- Sorry about that one. NOT!

Time to buy a another hard drive. Need room for expansion. The BOYCOTT continues.

it's all good George..no problem...was just joshing...I usually watch for the new suits...but ya beatr me fair and square...

So...I'll just say...dibs on tbe next bunch of suits...
I predict today...hundreds more suits filed by the RIAA targetting college kids....

Suing people for not buying your music, is like suing someone for not going on a date with you...it just shows you're a loser and people don't like you.

This just makes me want to go out and download Kazaa

Not a bad program, =P say the pop ups kinda suck

Only 59,997,546 more to go!

riaa idiots!

2454 people extorted without a fair trial. God bless amerika

"Singling out the universities makes an easy, high-payoff target for the RIAA."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/28/riaa_sues_moreschools/

And here's the same story almost word for word, with someone else's name on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50306-2004Apr28.html

Pretty interesting though, 2454 in about one year's worth of time or so out of a 50 million pool and growing since DOWNLOADS are on the rise according to Pew. Yeah maybe the RIAA will get the response they are looking for using this method, by the next ice age.

If the RIAA is trying to get the message out that we should not download their songs...I started avoiding downloading or buying their songs a year ago...

You know we really should be way more angry about them targeting Universities. Why you ask, because it costs us money regardless of the outcome of the lawsuits. To comply with the demands made by the RIAA subpoenas the Universities have to spend money that they had not budgeted as part of their normal operating cost, this will in turn be passed on as higher tuition. Many people going to Universities do so on Federally Subsidized loans and grants, and these will need to increase proportionally to tuition increases, and who ultimately pays this cost? Taxpayers that's who. So in a round about way the RIAA has just sued everyone who pays Federal Income Tax, and we should point this out to anyone who thinks that these lawsuits don't affect them.

How many of you think a coincidence the fact that today is the first year anniversary of iTunes. While iTunes generated $70 million in revenue, it failed to meet the $100 million it was targeting, any of you think these law suits have anything to do with that? In my opinion that's exactly what the RIAA is looking for, to practically force Universities to pay for some mp3 program like Napster or iTunes.

"The Recording Industry Association of America praised efforts by colleges and universities to use technology and school policies to crack down on music piracy on their computer networks. But it said the most egregious offenders on campus deserved to be sued."

Nobody deserves to be forced into one of two unfair decisions.

1) Pay a greedy organisation money they have no right to for something they have lies constantly about.

2) Be taken to court, and lose much more to said lying organisation.

No matter what all of the supporters of the RIAA say, it is an undisputable fact that what they are doing is wrong. To have the right to drastic action does not make the action right.

The latest filings brings the number of lawsuits filed by the recording industry to 2,454 since last summer. None of the cases has yet gone to trial, and 437 people so far have agreed to pay financial penalties of about $3,000 as settlements.

soooo...... what's happened to the other 2,017

I tell you the RIAA is a cancer on society

That's a really good question Compmore, I wonder if maybe they break out in to categories like 1)dismissed due to lack of evidence 2)pending because we can't actually identify the user whose IP address we sued 3) dropped because the person we sued had more resources than we thought they did 4) Atually pending a jury trial so we're stalling so our PR campaign has some more time to affect potential jurors

"While this may be debatable, Mansfield University is required to comply with the law."

FUCK THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think this is just about the money the RIAA would get from selling Napster to universities--it's also another great way for them to control what students can hear--on tv, the radio, AND the internet....

ShadowMom makes a good point. I read some of the bills and they mention that the RIAA want to be able to "protect" copyright owners whose material does not belong to the RIAA members. What a great way to stop people from listening to independent and foreign artists who want to distribute through the internet.

I don't see any coincidence. I just see a greedy RIAA with dollar signs flashing in Cary Sherman's eyes, and Sherman about to walk over a cliff because of his ignorance.

Another 477 people sued, and for what? Exchanging music, like a friend sharing a CD with another friend. P2P has helped connect the music industry like never before, and the recording industry is trying to disconnect it. This would be almost laughable- but come on, this is the RIAA. What did you expect? Decency? Fairness? Justice? Sensibility? An eye for future business?

Absolutely not.

:-:~ Phantom

dumby and ShadowMom that exactly what they are doing its a ruse.. its never been about money. Hell if it was we would still have the original Napster. I read that 14 percent of people on the net stopped downloading(17 million people)

As an Independent i would like to say this and using RIAA logic. For everyone that stops downloading is a loss sale for our band. THE REASON WE DIDNT SELL 17 MILLION COPIES OF OUR ALBUM IS BECAUSE OF RIAA.

I wonder if I can sue on this logic.. Hell RIAA does!!!!

I also heard there is going to be protection for each file sharer in the future, and RIAA cannot do anything about. We shall be heard once more, and the hammer will fall on those who seek injustice. Let it be said now if you do not change your evil ways you shall be crushed by my hands of 60 million.

Exactly ronnie, I hope someone does sue them when they are caught stopping the distribution from bands who want their music to be discovered. I have completely switched to the independents and will never go back. I also turned on some friends to a few sites this weekend who were very excited to find a good variety of music that the RIAA does not see fit to promote. We don't like the newer music and really love being able to find blues and old style rock to purchase. I ordered 12 cds in the last 3 months and am very happy with the variety!!!!

"I read some of the bills and they mention that the RIAA want to be able to "protect" copyright owners whose material does not belong to the RIAA members."

If you know where this is, please let me know.

they can't get me, because i only share quality content that happens not to be something created by them.

RIAA, hit me with you best shot you fucking communist bastards

soooo...... what's happened to the other 2,017

A friend of mine got nailed in Chicago, he has an attorney who is trying to negotiate a lower settlement. Right now his settlement is $4000. According to him, very few people can afford to fight the RIAA as the minimum cost is something like $15,000 in legal fees.

Most of the remaining cases are in various stages of negotiations with the amount to be paid.

I would be very interested in the status of the extortion lawsuit against the RIAA filed by the mother of a teenage girl. Anyone out there have any recent info on this?

The mom's name is Michele Scimeca. She hasn't cashed my check. Here's her e-mail -- she said anyone could contact her there.

suedmom@yahoo.com

This one guy I know settled for $2500 I think it was, the funny thing is that he would buy industry cd's as well as file share. He would really put his files up according to him in order to just share since everyone else made theirs available. But after they sued him, he decided those $2500 was the last revenue the industry was going to get out of him. This dude is 25, lol, and doesnt want to buy industry cd's for the rest of his life. That doesnt include his friends like myself, and his family that are totally disgusted with these law suits.

are these people contacting EFF? I thought they were defending people who are sued.

Pianotx you're right. the ability to be able to afford to fight is what's keeping the RIAA going and I can understand that. all I can say is that my kids are nearly grown and I've got a couple of Visa and mastercards that'll be enough if they want to come after me. I've started over many times before and I can do it again. and I'm not just blowing smoke either

George, I am going cross-eyed trying to read all the links I saved about this stuff. I think it has to do with the pirate act itself. Cary Sue remarked that they needed to protect other copyright holders. This was specifically aimed at foreign holders but the language is very vague in that respect and as with the DMCA, it could be twisted easily to other uses. The librarians are very worried about it for just that reason. If I find the exact verbage again, I will post it.

I received an email from them in response to my posting of their story on the Kerry site but haven't heard anything else from them.

The EFF does what it can, its a noble organization but it couldnt take up all these law suits, law suits at the federal level are very expensive. So picture this, you wake up one morning, check your mail, and you have what looks like a packet, you open it up and inside are like thirty pages of crap from the stuff you were uploading, then they say they are going to do all these horrible things to you like sue you for 150k per song, eat your children, take your dog away, piss all over your front lawn (well maybe not piss all over your front lawn but you never know), ect. Lol nevermind the fact they have no proof you actually got to distribute any of it, nor is an mp3 in any way the same quality as a CD, but oh well its the RIAA we are talking about. So anyway you see this one thing that says hey if you are thinking of settling call us now, then they give you the rap that they are willing to settle for $3k, because after all they really, really, do like you, now lets see a million dollars worth plus litigation or $3k. Most people despite their innocence would just settle. And then wait for Pepsi to bail them out ')

Why hasn't someone (the EFF) filed a class action against the RIAA under RICO?

I think RICO would have a good shot,since they really can not prove damages, but the EFF isnt the only organization, what you may want are more people who have been sued to come out and challenge the industry under RICO. It's obvious that the music industry can not prove to the extent where any of the defendants damaged them because they did not sit there and trace any of the IP's who downloaded music from any particular defendant, thus the possibility lies where a defendant could have had his or her files exposed for a min, realized it, closed his or her files and yet the RIAA had already logged the incident, but the RIAA did not suffer any harm. This obviously places every defendant in their law suits at a particular burden, since the RIAA can not prove the extent of harm. Each defendant is rather wieghed the same whether they had their files exposed for one second of for one week, this is a clear example of extortion and racketeering but we need more Scimecas to challenge them.

good question Carla. I've been waiting for a class action suit myself

Besides the Scimeca lady, no one else has tried the RICO deal...

What REALLY needs to happen is for criminal investigations of them to start...this would put a grinding halt to their little John Doe lawsuit parties!

carla60626 thank you for the info. Compmore, I suspect everyone, or at least most, of the "defendents" are in the same boat, like myself, who are raising families, sending their kids to expensive colleges and just getting by, regardless of how much money we earn. The RIAA seems to have a knack for going after people like that.

yes pianotex you are 100% right. I believe they have tens of thousands of IP addresses and can use demographics to safely choose the ones they want to make examples of with little risk to themselves. if you would've asked me 5 to 10 years ago when My kids were younger I would've had the same opinion for my own situation. but now that mine are grown (except one who's a couple years away) there's nothing I have to worry about there. I can afford to take the risk now. where before I couldn't

"Each defendant is rather wieghed the same whether they had their files exposed for one second of for one week, this is a clear example of extortion and racketeering but we need more Scimecas to challenge them."

Damages are statutory and whether or not actual damages occur has nothing to do with whether or not extortion or racketeering are taking place.

"Why hasn't someone (the EFF) filed a class action against the RIAA under RICO?"

Since Ms. Scimeca is already going to test the RICO theory there is no need for a for a class action suit.

There could be a multitude of class action suits against the RIAA, considering the different facets of how the RIAA is obtaining information, such as organizing major corporations to demand money from charges which have not been 100% proven, unlawful use of software from p2p networks which go against the user agreements.
I would love to see the RIAA get pelted with different class action suits for different violations of consumer rights.

I'm sure there are plenty of great lawyers who do class actions suits who have reviewed this situation or are currently doing so. If they think there is a viable cause of action you will see class actions suits get filed.

Assuming they can find plaintiffs willing to join them in a suit.

Now that I think of it, I think you can start with one plaintiff and then ask the court to certify a class.

moopie -- file a class action for us -- pleeeease!

"If you know where this is, please let me know."-gdZiemann
George, wasn't the proposed PIRATE Act supposed to make it so that if a judge decided a file that was being was offered for upload was worth $10,000 USD or more, that you could be sent to prison and/or pay a fine. IANAL, but the way it was worded, it sure sounded to me like there was a wide opening, in which you might be able to be imprisoned and fined for sharing your own work? Am I misunderstanding something? I sure hope I am misunderstanding this bill.

Carla we want someone on our side to argue the abuse of the system and vauge wording of the law. not someone who has already made up their minds and even said a little girl gets what she deserves and there was no pity for her.

"moopie -- file a class action for us -- pleeeease!"

: ) Unfortunately, I have neither the skills nor the resources. The only way a class action will be filed is if a lawyer with the skills and the money thinks their is a good likelihood of winning because all the costs are coming out of the lawyers pockets.

"not someone who has already made up their minds and even said a little girl gets what she deserves and there was no pity for her."

The lawyers personal opinion is irrelevant. He is there to represent the client.

yeah right. I'll believe that when a politician tells the truth.

wait, most politicians are lawyers, coiencidence, I think not

You just made my case for me. Lawyers want to win.

at any costs, no matter who gets hurt

As long as its legal and ethical. The duty is to represent the client to the best of your ability. If you don't you are violating your duty and doing a disservice to your client. Maybe someday you'll need a lawyer and then you'll appreciate that. : )

I already have and my lawyer agreed with me in that instance. and I know that no matter how impartial you are personal feelings get in the way. If you honestly believe a little girl gets what she deserves then no matter how hard you try you will (usually subconciously) over look grey areas a lawyer who is passionate about their cause wouldn't. areas that could make a difference in the case. The law is full of vauge and grey areas and that's why we need courts to clarify it. If you believe your client is wrong and you overlook these then you are doing a disservice reguardless of your intentions. I would never hire a lawyer who thinks I'm wrong reguardless of their intentions and abilities. I want one who'll be creative and fight for me.

"I would never hire a lawyer who thinks I'm wrong"

You won't know that your lawyer thinks you are wrong. That's not something a lawyer tells a client. That's what we tell each other over drinks. : )

well that's what I'd ask him. if he refuses to answer he won't represent me

Fair enough. Let me also add that "wrong" is a moral issue. "Guilty" is a legal issue. These are two completely different things.

silence is the same as a no. if my lawyer expects me to be honest with him, I expect him to be honest with me

true, very true, but again if my lawyer doesn't believe in my case he can overlook those things that can prove guilt and innocence

Don't they have to sue these individuals individually and how do you think the cost will be?

I want to know why nobody is filing charges against the RIAA for circumventing due process laws by gaining warrents for 500 people at once who are unrelated save for the use of a p2p program.
Under this logic everyone who is suspected of murder should be covered under one request for a warrent.

"You won't know that your lawyer thinks you are wrong. That's not something a lawyer tells a client. That's what we tell each other over drinks. : )"

I can generally glean the motivations of people by simply looking at them. An answer to the question is generally unnescessary.

They put a firewall in here at Penn State thanks for Cary Sherman.

lol milla

A song in honor of the RIAA

"Sue , sue, sue your customer
In hundreds as they stream
Scarily Scarily Scarily Scarily
The end of this will make you scream."

The RIAA is Illegal, and violates the bylaws of The North American Phonograph Co. Because we are older than RIAA, let me put this very beief. If anyone is guilty of Piracy, RIAA is, and they do not have permission to record anything. As President of The North American Phonograph Co. I hearby resove that RIAA is forbid to record anything, and its members are fobade to record anything. If they can pull shit like this, then I am going to do the same to them. If you have been wronged by RIAA give me a call at. (51 634-7746. If you would like to help with a competitive industry association then lets start Edison Recording Industry Association Universal. Maybe if we compeate with them, with common Sense bylaws, we can drive them from the market place. The North American Phonograph supports new ways of distributing music, and file sharing, you have our permission, and I think North American supercedes RIAA

President of The North American Phonograph Company,

Shawn Borri

Didnt the beginnings of the RIAA start out with Piracy, taking classical songs from the masters and pretty much self appointing copyrights to themselves?

"compmore" wrote on Date: April 29, 2004 @ 12:53 AM
"True, very true, but again if my lawyer doesn't believe in my case he can overlook those things that can prove guilt or innocence."

I was really riveted to this interesting dialogue between compmore and mroop, but then it quit-- was it because mroop declined to respond to that last comment by compmore?
Hmm.