Those odds seem pretty good, until it happens to you. This past October, my former Internet provider alerted me that they had been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on behalf of its member labels with the demand to turn over the names and addresses of 100 "John Does" that the RIAA had detected sharing music. The RIAA is now appealing an 8th Circuit Court decision, which ruled that Internet services providers don't have to reveal names of customers who have not yet been sued.

"We surf peer-to-peer music networks," Jonathan Lamy of the RIAA communications office says. "We look for people who are offering songs, and if they have a substantial number of songs, we take note of all the songs they are offering for distribution and their IP addresses." Suits are filed against the anonymous file-sharers in bulk and then the RIAA goes to court to get names and addresses from ISPs. From there, the RIAA offers downloaders a chance to settle the complaint, or they can go to court and fight it.

For me, the experience of settling with the RIAA was almost painless�except for the thousands I agreed to pay. Dragging my "shared" folder to the trash icon, promising not to download anymore, and acknowledging that illegal downloading is wrongful were easy enough. I happened to know an intellectual-property lawyer who agreed to handle the negotiations pro bono. He was the one who called the RIAA settlement center number and spoke not to a lawyer, but to a staffer empowered and trained to negotiate. "It feels like they're doing a volume business," my lawyer told me.

Lamy says that of the 8,400 suits filed (8,100 of which were filed against John Does) there have been about 1,700 settlements to date. The process, from detection to settlement, can take months, but its critics believe the RIAA moves far too quickly. Annalee Newitz, policy analyst for the civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the practice of suing not just a single anonymous person but dozens at a time is called "spamigation." "That's one of the slimier things that entertainment companies are doing," she says, because mass lawsuits allow "companies to sue hundreds of people for the same cost as suing only one. So instead of respecting the defendants' due process rights and suing them individually, the companies are able to cut down on court fees and sue them as a group. This makes it much easier for companies to sue people willy-nilly, even if they aren't sure that the person being sued is in fact infringing, because it doesn't cost them any extra money to add another name to their suit." The EFF has helped compel entertainment companies to file individual rather than group lawsuits in Northern California, and has also worked with other John Does to have the RIAA and other entertainment company cases moved to their home states.

Most settlements top $3,000, and according to Newitz, some can go as high as $7,000. The RIAA wouldn't confirm these figures, but it didn't dispute them either. Lamy says that of all the John Doe cases so far, "none have come to trial." And indeed, it is hard to imagine going to trial doing much good for a hypothetical Doe, since millions of users are illegally downloading and sharing music. Frequent downloader Cecilia Gonzalez didn't settle against the RIAA, and on January 7, she received only a summary judgment in a U.S. District Court. Throwing out Gonzalez's claims that she was simply "sampling" songs to see if she wished to buy them and that she was an "innocent infringer" unaware that she was violating record company copyrights, the court ordered her to pay damages of $750 for each of 30 songs she was found to have downloaded illegally, for a total of $22,500. That's more than the poverty line income for a family of five in 2004 ($22,030), but it is worth pointing out that damages of $750 per infringement is the minimum the RIAA could have received, and that the original complaint filed against Gonzalez claimed that she had nearly 2,500 downloaded songs. Damage payments could potentially be much higher. Finally, courts have found that the "cumulative effect" of downloaders makes individual downloaders liable for damages, even if their personal downloading has only a marginal impact, so even penny-ante downloaders are potentially at risk.

The RIAA is not eager to go to trial, according to Lamy. "We would prefer to settle sooner rather than later. . . . We make numerous attempts to engage downloaders throughout the process." The RIAA is even eager to adopt P2P technology, he says. "Record companies are aggressively licensing digital music," and even Napster founder Shawn Fanning has come in from the cold with SNOCAP, a clearinghouse of properly licensed digital music. The problem is that legal digital music firms have to compete against P2P outfits with "parasitical business models." It's cheaper to distribute stolen free stuff than it is to pay up front, after all.

For all the furor over the suits, they may not be having that much effect on the amount of illegal downloading. Newitz says that "recent reports indicate that file sharing is bigger than ever�and so are the record industry's profits. As a result, it's hard to see the suits as anything other than a wrongheaded attempt by the old media industry to push upstart innovators out of the marketplace rather than working with them." The RIAA points to the rise in legal downloading to show that its strategy is working. In a December press release, RIAA president Cary Sherman said, "With legal online retailers still forced to compete against illegal free networks, the playing field remains decidedly unbalanced. . . . That's why continued enforcement against individuals stealing and distributing music illegally is essential, as is holding accountable the businesses that intentionally promote and profit from this theft."

The EFF has its own suggested model for legal downloading, called "voluntary collective licensing." P2P users would pay a flat rate, say five dollars a month, for use of the networks, and that money would be passed on to ASCAP or some other suitable association representing artists and producers. "This is exactly how radio works, except that radio stations pay the licensing fees rather than listeners," Newitz says. "It would be easy to figure out how much to pay artists using a VCL for P2P technologies, because it's simple to use current software to track how many times a song is downloaded"�a method that would make such a scheme even more precise than the estimates radio uses. But the RIAA isn't going for it. "We do oppose compulsory licensing schemes that would set a specific price" for a license to download, says Lamy. SNOCAP and other pay-for-play systems like iTunes is what the industry supports.

And downloading? Well, I'm done with it now, except for legal amazon.com freebies, but even my close friends haven't been scared off. One scoffed at my settlement, and said that if she were sued, she'd fight the RIAA in court. For her, downloading is "civil disobedience" in protest against the legal digital music systems that just don't have all the music she wants. Of course it's easy to strike a rebel pose like that . . . until you become just another John Doe.

From http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0510,mamatas,61813,22.html

"The RIAA is not eager to go to trial, according to Lamy. "We would prefer to settle sooner rather than later. . . . We make numerous attempts to engage downloaders throughout the process."
================SNIP========================
Hmmmm...these friggin' a-holes are all lawyered up, are money grubbin' greedy bastards. and claim they have the DMCA on their side...so, with the potential damages of 150 K a song for willful infringement hangin' out there, why AREN'T they eager to go to trial?

Maybe there is something they know that we don't!
Hmmmmmmmm....Do Tell!
~Code

Inquiring minds ponder...the RIAA...how CAN they afford to settle for such low settlements....Wal*Mart has the answer in three words....
VOLUME..VOLUME...VOLUME

"Annalee Newitz, policy analyst for the civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the practice of suing not just a single anonymous person but dozens at a time is called "spamigation." "That's one of the slimier things that entertainment companies are doing," she says, because mass lawsuits allow "companies to sue hundreds of people for the same cost as suing only one."

It's definitely slimey. It should be illegal. Right, Code, under the DMCA they could get $ 150,000, but they take just enough to really hurt average people. I know the RIAA is a non-profit organization, but isn't there some major profit here? I guess a little fancy accounting takes care of the profit...

"why AREN'T they eager to go to trial?"

Because you couldn't get a unanimous verdict of guilty from a jury.

"Frequent downloader Cecilia Gonzalez didn't settle against the RIAA, and on January 7, she received only a summary judgment in a U.S. District Court. Throwing out Gonzalez's claims that she was simply "sampling" songs to see if she wished to buy them and that she was an "innocent infringer" unaware that she was violating record company copyrights, the court ordered her to pay damages of $750 for each of 30 songs she was found to have downloaded illegally, for a total of $22,500."

I think what this girl was doing should be considered acceptable. It's like reading a book before you buy it!!

gdZ, what happened in this case? Did this girl not have legal representation? Can she appeal?

question: what do they do if you're so piss-poor you can barely pay your rent and live off ramen's?

question: what do they do if you're so piss-poor you can barely pay your rent and live off ramen's?

Take an arm and a leg I bet

Read about the Gonzalez case here:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheMeter/050204.html

The RIAA's senior vice president for legal affairs, Stanley Pierre-Louis, acknowledges that Gonzalez may have been sharing her files only briefly and perhaps unwittingly, but he maintains that it doesn't matter. "The answer we have is if you'd turned the [share] default off we wouldn't have found you," he says. "That's the bottom line."

So much for the "illegal downloading" line of bullshit.

After five years of seeing the same stories every day, including headlines that say the opposite of the story contents (not necessarily this one, but in newspapers and in general), you've got to start wondering how freaking stupid these people are that are getting caught.

The guy in the main article here, the John Doe who received the subpoena, rolled over and paid up (as well he should have -- he had no defense) writes for the Village Voice. Still he has no clue and gets busted.

I think the RIAA is completely misguided in this legal blitz. I also think that at this point, if you get nailed by the RIAA, it's Darwin in action.

Darwin in action? Yes there are a lot of clueless users, we can thank AOL for that. However, I've yet to see anyone ask the basic question of whether those who were caught were using anything to protect themselves. From a general point of view, based upon all who have been sued, what percentage used a good firewall/NAT, PG, Protowall, Proxy, ect..? If they're not using any protection then they deserve what they got.

I wouldn't call the general population stupid - ignorant yes, stupid no. Some are scammed ("Safe & 100% legal downloads") while others only know the basics of email and web (and can't tell the difference between the two). At the very least these sort of folks deserve pity... and two Dixie cups with a string in between.

i tried PG once... it blocked the applestore and apple tech support forums... along with the rest of apple.com

until they become sensible about their firewall rules.. pg is useless to me.

let me guess.. for windows users it prevents connection to microsoft for critical security patches too?

I wonder when they will sue someone who has nothing to lose by taking out the heads of a few record labels? Someone who is dying of a terminal illness and has only a month to live but can still function normally would do it. Once that happens then the shit will really hit the fan.

"I wouldn't call the general population stupid - ignorant yes, stupid no."

i would define stupid as deliberately ignorant, or failing to properly investigate what theyre spoon fed by marketing experts..

There are a tremendous amount of people who are stupid under this definition. An indisputible sign of such stupidity is the choice to vote for bush in the 2004 election despite having an income lower than $700,000 a year or large quantities of hallibruton shares, and especially for reasons relating to his "faith". Don't underetimate their power, and the threat they pose to democracy.

"We surf peer-to-peer music networks," Jonathan Lamy of the RIAA communications office says. "We look for people who are offering songs, and if they have a substantial number of songs, we take note of all the songs they are offering for distribution and their IP addresses."

The RIAA always tries to imply that any type of file sharing is illegal. They never bother to mention indies, or the fact that there is now more truly free music available than commercial junk. They are truly manipulative scumbags that have done an amazing job of brainwashing the general public into buying crappy music, and maintaining that it is worth the time and risk to share.

I'd really like to see a few commercial recording artists start sharing and publicly announce that they are doing so. They owe their existence to fans, and now when they need them, they run and hide to save their own existence. Too bad.

"However, I've yet to see anyone ask the basic question of whether those who were caught were using anything to protect themselves."

"...good firewall/NAT, PG, Protowall, Proxy, ect..?"

"The answer we have is if you'd turned the [share] default off we wouldn't have found you."

After 5 years, if you're still sharing RIAA music, you are not merely ignorant, you are certifiably stupid.

Thanks INeedAlover.

I strongly recommend that everyone read the article about the Gonzalez case:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheMeter/050204.html

It covers many of the arguments people have made in the past regarding "fair-use." IMHO, if anyone should get financial help for a case, I'd say this is a good one.

I found Ms. Gonzalez' attorney and sent him an email. I don't know what good it will do, but I made some points I thought relevant.

"After 5 years, if you're still sharing RIAA music, you are not merely ignorant, you are certifiably stupid."

...only if you have been keeping up with the issues as we have. Please don't be too harsh and judgemental against those who are not "music & copyright news junkies" like us...

unfortunately, there are FEW in our society who bother to learn about our issues. It is pretty dry stuff when you step outside and think about it.

apathy/inattention of the sheep is the biggest weapon our enemy has.

WE need to continue to do more to spread the word and be the good shephards.

Welcom Capt-N-Jack. What I find amazing is that the Judge entered a summary judgement on the case. No trial by jury.

In addition, I can't believe these lines:
RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy puts a different spin on the decision: "We moved on a smaller number so that any recovery would be modest, and to be as fair and reasonable as possible."

Near the end of discovery Baker asked the record companies to withdraw the complaint, but they refused, offering instead to settle for $3,000 to $4,000 -- the typical amount in such cases, according to the RIAA. "We make every attempt to be fair and reasonable. But these are open-and-shut cases," says Lamy. Baker talked to Gonzalez about the settlement offer. "She said, 'I can't do that' -- what they were asking for would bankrupt her."

Open-and-shut cases??? Is he kidding? Nothing about copyright law is open-and-shut. Lamy ought to be fined for making a comment like that. I suppose his comment had no influence on the judge either....

Morals of the story: 1) Never admit to anything, even if you are an honest person. It'll come bite you in the ass everytime.
2) Stop sharing RIAA music. They will sue you if you do.

Sorry, Shmoo, but I see people who have been posting on this board for quite some time keep stepping up to say "share more RIAA music, that'll teach them."

The only thing it'll teach them is your IP address.

"What I find amazing is that the Judge entered a summary judgement on the case. No trial by jury."

I agree INeedAlover, a case as important as this shouldn't be dispensed with in a casual manner. The Judge should know these aren't open-and-shut cases, at least not Gonzalez' case.

The solution here is simple.. like Schmoo, I say repeatedly, stay AWAY from the RIAA Crack-music!! Pay them NOT A PENNY!! I have not bought a CD from the "majors" now in years. Plenty of good stuff on DMusic, for starters, and other indy musicians I know.. my break music is composed of all indy artists, with a list to their websites for interested people.. funny, as the USA turns more and more into a "Bob Cratchett" world, I am turning away from the more and more, riding the bus, recycling clothes, buying indy, used equipment, using computers until they literally fall apart, magazines from the library, etc.. and the less I gotta worry about the the more freedom I have.. so as for the RIAA.. it is past boycott and into a new way of life that simply leaves the greedheads alone... knowwhadImean??

PG now lets port 80 through so you can carry on browsing websites whilst your P2P ports are blocked off from known enemies.

Code,

Did you yourself become an RIAA target? If so, sorry to hear that (I just got back from my Korea assignment, so I have sort of been out of touch these last several months).

In Korea, I notice that many are using BitTorrent now. Last I heard, there isn't a very effective way for RIAA (or MPAA) to go after BitTorrent users. What is interesting is that BitTorrent works best for downloading entire albums (or movies) rather than individual songs. So if the effect of all these RIAA lawsuits is to drive people to using BitTorrent, then the big labels are in trouble, because at least with single song P2P swaps, record labels could benefit from "samplers" who download a song, liked it, and bought the CD. Now, with BitTorrent, entire albums can be had for the download.

Nope....not a target of the DiaRIAA bunch, and never will be...don't share their RIAA slave music!