The RIAA says CD sales have dipped 20% the last three years.

05/25/04

By: David Goins, Springfield 33 News

Springfield, MO - - A Springfield woman has been named as the first person in southwest Missouri to be sued by the Recording Industry Association of America for illegally downloading music.

Carolyn Munnelly is named in the federal suit that was filed in the Western District of Missouri on Tuesday. However, she tells Springfield33 News she personally never downloaded anything.

"I don't know why the music industry is targeting me," Munnelly said Tuesday. "When me and my husband realized our kids, or our kids friends had downloaded songs, we deleted them months ago."

The RIAA alleges Munnelly downloaded without permission copyrighted recordings and made available those recordings for others.

The RIAA is a record label conglomerate with members including Capitol, Warner Bros., BMG Music, Elektra and UMG.

RIAA spokesperson Jonathan Lamy says the music industry is targeting only what they consider the most egregious MP3 offenders; users with an average of 900 songs available for others to download.

"The general rule is, the more you have on your hard drive, available for others on an unauthorized peer-to-peer network, the more likely you are to be a target for litigation," Lamy said Tuesday.

The suit against Munnelly is the latest in a wave of nearly five hundred that were filed nationwide on behalf of the RIAA. The first suits against music piracy began last summer.

Munnelly says she has no idea why they decided to pick her family to sue. "Maybe it is because my daughter is an MVP soccer player," Munnelly said.

"We do not target people, we target amount of songs" Lamy said. "We recognize that this isn't an easy thing to do, but it is a step we felt we had to take due to the enormity of the piracy problem and the effect it has on those who create music."

story here

http://www.springfield33.com/Global/story.asp?S=1895522&nav=0ci6NPl8

she deleted the songs once she found out her kids had downloaded illegally. she did what any parent not wanting her kids to get in trouble would do. if she takes it to court I wonder how leinent the judge would be on her. The industry has no heart

"We do not target people, we target amount of songs"

this reminds me of when TheTruth.com came out and said that cigarettes kill 400 people a day. big tobacco came back and said that those numbers meant nothing, because they were just computer-generated numbers.

"We recognize that this isn't an easy thing to do, but it is a step we felt we had to take due to the enormity of the piracy problem and the effect it has on those who create music."

yes. trying to squeeze $3,000 out of a single mother who earns $12.00 an hour is surely going to do the trick. not to mention the college students who can barely afford to groceries.

the industry needs to realize that just because people stop downloading, doesn't mean they're going to go running back to sam goody or wherehouse music (especially if the industry that supplies these stores just took them to court and accused them of being criminals for something they feel wasn't wrong in the first place, or something they didn't know was wrong in the first place). the damage is already done. stop beating a dead horse. redefine your business model and stop forcing people who live from paycheck to paycheck into bankruptcy.

oh, and f*ck you RIAA. i can't wait to see how well metallica's new album doesn't do.

i'm from a small town east of springfield, mo...it is pathetic that the riaa is doing this at all. people in sw mo don't make much money...low cost of living. $3000 is a lot of money...yes F*CK THE RIAA.

oh, hopefully the judge will through it out...metallica used to be good...but when you sell out, you go downhill

Like I said, the RIAA is run by a bunch of brainless idiots.

They're probably using the argument that even though she deleted them, they're still there since they can be recovered. Of course this would mean the owner of the computer would have software to undelete files and the knowledge to use said software.

Bunch of crock, really. Do they have a list of the songs downloaded? Probably not.

Crap. I stopped using K-Lite K++ at the request of my parents last summer, and haven't touched it since. Does this mean the RIAA can decide to up and sue me? More reasons to boycott. RIAA, *imitates South Park voice* you got serrrrved!

I am absolutely livid. The local Fox affiliate here just did a piece on Matt Oppenheim, "the man behind getting music pirates" or some such crap. I can't find a phone number for Fox to express my outrage.
The usual lies: poor record sales due to piracy, stealing music, hurting everyone involved in creating music, downloading music (and no mention that it's uploading and not the downloading they catch), it's illegal, they will catch you.
SCREAM!!!

Whenever I come to this site now I get attempted pings on my machine from the RIAA and the Dept. of Justice. If you can read this, there is a thing called the 4th Amendment. My computer is my property. Stop trying to spy on me like I'm some kind of terrorist. You RIAA pigs need to get out of the country, the real America has no place for you and your propaganda.

Hey I just got RIAA and DOJ pinged too -- and that hasn't happened before. (RIAA once) Maybe they're doing a sweep.

Document the intrusion and email it to me. I got an idea.

Like I said, the RIAA is run by a bunch of brainless idiots.

They're probably using the argument that even though she deleted them, they're still there since they can be recovered. Of course this would mean the owner of the computer would have software to undelete files and the knowledge to use said software.

Bunch of crock, really. Do they have a list of the songs downloaded? Probably not.

I do not know your e-mail Leflaw, but I have had the same problems with the RIAA and the DOJ.

Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-26-2004 @ 1841)

Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-26-2004 @ 1842)

This started today 5/26. I check this site 5-6 times a day and I got hit every time. I have my logs if you need more let me know.

Hit again just refreshing my page.

Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 01:02:11)
Connection Rejected: 12.130.12.31 - IANA Reserved (05-27-2004 @ 01:02:11)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 01:02:11)
Connection Rejected: 68.163.90.10 - tst inc riaa host PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 01:02:11)

Everytime I try and read an article. Never paid this much attention before.

Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 01:04:37)
Connection Rejected: 12.130.12.31 - IANA Reserved (05-27-2004 @ 01:04:37)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 01:04:3
Connection Rejected: 68.163.90.10 - tst inc riaa host PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 01:04:3

Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-26-2004 @ 23:35:27)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-26-2004 @ 23:35:27)
Connection Rejected: 64.200.214.173 - ads.peel.comATBP ATBP (05-26-2004 @ 23:35:27)
Checking: 64.200.214.173
Connection Rejected: 64.200.214.173 - ads.peel.comATBP ATBP (05-26-2004 @ 23:35:27)
Checking: 12.130.12.31
Connection Rejected: 12.130.12.31 - IANA Reserved (05-26-2004 @ 23:39:27)
Checking: 12.130.12.31
Connection Rejected: 12.130.12.31 - IANA Reserved (05-26-2004 @ 232

Thing is I am not sharing anything. My music is on an HD that is external and I can turn off when I am on-line.

If it wasn't for Peer Guardian and Protowall and the fact I can shut my HD off. What would stop them from saying I am an uploader/downloader

Everytime now.

Connection Rejected: 68.163.90.10 - tst inc riaa host PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 01:19:07)
Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 01:19:16)
Connection Rejected: 12.130.12.31 - IANA Reserved (05-27-2004 @ 01:19:16)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 01:19:17)
Connection Rejected: 68.163.90.10 - tst inc riaa host PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 01:19:17)

What is the statute of limitations on copyright infringement? Maybe the RIAA has just as much right to sue her as they do to sue anyone else.

One refresh and this happened:
Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:39)
Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:39)
Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:39)
Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:39)
Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:39)
Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:39)
Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:39)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:42)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:42)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:42)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:42)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:42)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:42)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:42)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:42)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:42)
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 02:38:42)

Christ, I don't share music. I am getting hit too
Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 05:37:17)
Connection Rejected: 68.163.90.10 - tst inc riaa host PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 05:37:17)
this happens every time I go to the home page.
What is more interesting I got attacked the other day when I went from this site to p2pnet.net. Some computer in England. Have to thank Norton for catching that one.

Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-27-2004 @ 05:44:22)

A new player.

I know what's going on here. I'm using Protowall, which also reports which TCP/UDP port is being accessed. I'm also getting hits of DoJ, TST Inc. RIAA host and stuff, but Protowall says that the destination port is 80 - in other words, an OUTGOING connection from my browser.

Checking the images on the homepage, I saw that some images, like the RIAA and DoJ logos, are hotlinked from www.riaa.com and www.usdoj.gov. That explains why PeerGuardian fires when the browser attempts to download the images from these servers.

Wayshot
Proud supporter of local and independent music

Its not difficult to open a connection from port 80, which would be consistant with your firewalls logs, but I can see no reason anyone would do so.

goldenpi: If the destination port is 80 and the connection is INCOMING, it could be that someone tries to check if there is a web server running on my computer.

But my computer is located behind a NAT router/firewall, so any incoming connection attempts at our external IP address will be dropped. Protowall doesn't specify the direction of the connection, but since I'm behind a firewall, the hits with destination port 80 MUST be outgoing.

By the way: When a browser makes a connection to a web server, the source port is somewhere between 1025 and 1500, and the destination port is 80. There is, as far as I know, only one situation where the source port is 80: The requested traffic from the web server to the client (web browser).

Wayshot
- will take the CCNA certification test tomorrow

good luck on CCNA wayshot...drop me a dmusic note and lemme know how it goes!

Wayshot is a genius. When an image is "hotlinked" back to a server, your browser goes to that site and requests that image. Someone had put the RIAA and DOJ logo on a couple of articles, and when your browser tried to load them, it was told to go to the RIAA and DOJ sites to get the pictures. When that happened, PeerGuardian would say, HEY NO WAY WE GO THERE, and would report it as a ping from those sites. I relinked the pics elsewhere, and now, it is fixed.

BIG thanks to our resident genius Wayshot. Great detective work Wayshot!

these lawsuits are impossible to win by the industy because they never have evidence, and even if they claim they do, I'd write zero's to my entire drive several times then reinstall windows and allot of crap to take up the space that the songs were on, permanently loosing the 'evidence' forever, then they couldn't pull any shit on me, with out evidence you're innosent, and in the court of law you innoscent untel proven guilty, so never admit wrong. Never say you had them and deleated them, never acknowledge their existance, and then make sure they never did exist, that's how you will win, in my case, I'd put a whole slue of Indi Music in the eact sectors that the RIAA crap was on and then tell them to Fuck off.

"The RIAA is a record label conglomerate with members including Capitol, Warner Bros., BMG Music, Elektra and UMG."
Is there a difference between a "trade group" and a "record label conglomerate"?? I thought there was, which makes this statement false. If they WERE a record label conglomerate, they wouldn't have as much 'power' as they do (illegally), or as many problems. any takers?
ttmmm