A Sacramento attorney plans to file a motion on behalf of a file sharer in Washington US District Court, says an August 13 USA Today story. It will be the first legal action by someone targeted in the RIAA's sue 'em all campaign.

"The argument is a new one in the increasingly contentious battle over the blizzard of subpoenas being served to colleges and Internet service providers," says the piece, by Mike Snider.

"Just because a user's PC has music files stored within a peer-to-peer file-sharing program doesn't mean the user is illegally distributing copyrighted material, says attorney Daniel Ballard. Distribution implies sending, rather than leaving something where it may be taken, he says."

This brings another dimension to the fight, the story quotes EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) lawyer Fred von Lohmann, as saying. "Actual subscribers have a perspective that has so far been absent."

Ballard will file a "Jane Doe" case for a user whose personal information has been subpoenaed "It is an assumption they (the RIAA) are making," says the piece.

"The RIAA wouldn't comment before the motion is filed but said it asked the court to force ISP Verizon to turn over the user's information, after which it would discuss any issues with the individual," it adds.

Great link and great article. The atty raises a good point, the "offering" aspect. A "real world" example is this. You buy a Stephen King book, and are reading it in your yard. You go in for a bit to watch some television. Someone, walking down the street, sees the book, runs to the local library, and copies the last chapter and runs back with the book and puts it where they found it. King finds out from someone that this all happened, and sues YOU for copyright infringement because you left the book in your yard "offering" it for copy.

Makes about as much sense as having old big-lipped Cary-Sue be your spokesperson (notice I didn't say spokesMAN :0) )

"Into the valley of death rode the 600"
Charge of the Light Brigage
~code

I know if my system was serched that my entire CD collection would make me look like I been downloading like a mad man. Truth is it just my CD collection backed up on my harddrive. I've never ever used any P2P program. Its my right to have this stuff backed up. Its also easier to play form a file than CD swap all day. Currently I have the right to do this. Or at least in theroy I do. In practice I would be marked as just criminal scum to bleed dry. I do not give this away I do not make a habit of "Stealing" music. This is what I'm afraid of. Loosing my rights to freely use what I have paid for. If stuff like this looses then it means we have lost that basic right. The right to fair use.

I read this on yahoo news this morning. My opinion is that this is a Great idea, but what are you sharing those files for if not to distribute them. Also, what are FAIR USE? If i own a CD already, what is the problem with getting a backup of the songs via P2P? Intent may be a big factor. I will continue to share 1351 files on kazaa as i have permission to share them all.

A good thing about this case is that THE RIAA is LOOSEING MORE FANS AND MORE MONEY, and not to mention all the lawyers that may follow after this one. Its going to be one heck of a battle.

Daniel Ballard (the Attorney)is a Real TROOPER! Remeber his name!
He just fired a salvo across Sue"s bow!!
let the games begin!!!! yea man

As I understand it the woman is saying she didn't even have copyrighted material on her computer. Apparently, the RIAA doesn't even download any music files from the people they're subpoening. They just get a list of files the person is sharing that look like copyrighted material. They could be anything. If this is true, the RIAA is going to have a lot of trouble proving copyright infringement. What's to stop everyone from saying, "They weren't real music files. I just created 'spoof' files for joke."? End of lawsuit.

I hope that does work. The "I dont know what your talking about where is your prof ? " defence may be the only way not to get fined out of house and home.

I came across an article that, while it may not have anything to do with the RIAA's vindictive, punitive agenda, nonetheless there are similarities, and there is a new buzzword to describe their attitude towards "justice": Benthamite. You can find this in the link: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20030813.shtml - and see for yourself.

Consumers - I don't see how they'd know you have the files, as long as you don't have any p2p software or aren't sharing it online....unless they're now going to go after anyone who has ANY music on their hard drive but isn't using the p2p services. My understanding was they wouldn't, but the RIAA lies about everything so who knows.


My situation is similar to yours - I have thousands of cassettes, many which are old, out of print or rare. I've been transferring to CD-Rs. I don't use p2p software, so my assumption would be they can't sue me because I'm not sharing them. So, if you don't use Kazaa or any of the other p2p programs the RIAA terrorists hate, but keep a backup on the hard drive, I believe you are within your rights to do so. I hope I'm correct.

It doesn't matter what you share on a P2P network. If the RIAA (or those employed by them) only examine your shared files list, but they don't download the actual files, they have no proof that you'r committing copyright infringement. The files could be "dummy" files with silence on them for all anybody knows. No proof, no case.

Indeed, its like arresting someone b/c you saw illegal arms in someones house from a window, only to find out its a childrens tchotchke.

On a desultory note, I was watching C-Span yesterday and a number of spokesman from various groups(all against further merging in the cable industry) were speaking about the dilemma the cable industry is in. Theres a report in pdf format, and a article that outlines the report at www.uspirg.org - I haven't read it myself, it was just posted yesterday, I will get to it soon hopefully. Just thought this may interest some.

Suikio

OK. Here's something I have been thinking about. When someone uses Kazaa, he or she has the "reasonable expectation" that not only are they mandated to abide by the Terms of Serice/End User Agreement
http://www.kazaa.com/us/terms.htm.

It is clear that the toadies which are doing the bidding of the RIAA, CLEARLY violated :
2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users;
and
2.14 Collect or store personal data about other users.
and PROBABLY violated
2.3 Impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
as the bots that really do the grunt work to collect the info, are posing as human users.
The RIAA also violated:
2.1 Transmit or communicate any data that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
when they sent those instant messages to other users threatening them with legal action or warning them that they are being watched.
If you go to court to sue, you are supposed to have "clean hands", and if they violated the TOS, they do not have clean hands.
Also, since a bot cannot have permission to download a copyrighted piece of software since a bot is not a legal person, there is presumptive violation of:
2.5 Transmit, access or communicate any data that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under non-disclosure agreements);

2.6 Transmit, access or communicate any data that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party;

"''When a Tralfamadorian sees a corpse, all he thinks is that the dead person is in a bad condition in that particular moment, but that same person is just fine in plenty of other moments. Now, when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is 'So it goes'.''
-Kurt Vonnegut/ from Slaughterhouse Five
~code

I'm sorry, but I don't get this whole thing. As a life philosophy I always ask "why?" It doesn't make sense.

As any healthy company/institute I assume that RIAA wants to make as much money as they can. Any healthy company/institute also knows that you shouldn't make your (potential) funders angry. I can't imagine that a single person sued by RIAA is happy about it, especially not when facing a $150,000 claim per copyright infringement/single shared song. As I've understood, RIAA has sued 1200 people.

(Just a side note: if everyone RIAA sued shared 1 song, RIAA expects to receive 1200 x $150,000 = $180,000,000.)

RIAA isn't naive, or atleast shouldn't be. If you undertake such an action you should expect a reaction. The most likely reaction is being sued back and being boycotted. This, ofcourse, resulting in a substantial financial loss, or even bankruptcy.

As I stated in an earlier posting, the lawsuits got international attention. Also in Europe organizations organize against illegal file sharers. In The Netherlands the BREIN foundation announced to haunt people that share a substantial amount of copyrighted music, and wants to sue them for several tens of thousands of euros. BREIN's big idea is comparable to RIAA's actions: trace the criminals IP's, ask their ISP's for their identities and get them prosecuted.

BREIN is the abbreviation for "Bescherming Rechten Entertainment Industrie Nederland" (Protection Rights Entertainment Industry Netherlands). The word "brein" also means "brain" in Dutch.

All this doesn't sound logical to me. It can't be just claiming what is yours, or doing what is right. There must be more to it...

P.S. Don't mind bad grammar, I still don't have it fully under control...

CodeWarrior:

I'm not clear on what you're saying. Is it that I have the expecatation that others on the P2P network (including the RIAA) are abiding by the user agreement. Since they're not, they can't sue me? Or that Kazaa can sue them? As I understand it, failure to comply with a user agreement would be grounds for being blocked from the network, but that's all. Kazaa could, and probably should, block the RIAA, MPAA, Mediaforce, etc. but they'll just access the network from other servers. It probably wouldn't be all that successful a countermeasure. Or am I completely misunderstanding what you're saying?

Code - awesome post.
I'm loving this more and more.
The RIAA doesn't even have a reasonable case against us, and we have quite a few reasonable ones against them.

BTW - anybody else counting down the hours? They have until tommorow to respond to Senator Coleman.

Sorry, here's what I was saying. The bots, are not humans, so they are posing as human users. They are violating the user agreement, and are violating the rights of other users by these multiple violations. In general, people have a "reaonsable expectation of privacy" in their homes or on their personal computers, and by the end user agreement, with the legal theory that others using the service, are abiding by the user agreement, this extends the reasonable expectation of privacy to Kazaa. The bots, at the programming of the toadies, at the direction of the RIAA, are violating these agreements to hunt down, harass, collect information about other users. And since a bot cannot have permission to download a file from the copyright holder, (because such agreements can only be made among humans), if they download files, they TOO are violating copyright. The whole point of this is that generally, there is a legal doctrine of "clean hands" which means that if you are breaking the law or acting in an illegal manner, or violating user agreements, you cannot enter as a plaintiff with clean hands.
Often, courts will throw out any suit in which the complainant does not have "clean hands".
And, if the toadies access Kazaa from other servers and still violate the
service agreement, they can be sued civilly by Kazaa in my estimation.
Clear as mud, right?
~code

Some interesting points being made over on Zeropaid, such as, if I make files available on a P2P network (assuming I have legally purchased or ripped those files), why am I liable for the action of others who download them without the legal right? How can I know who has the right to own those files? It's like leaving my car unlocked in the street with the keys in the ignition. Am I responsible if someone steals it? This sounds like a valid defense to me.

Of course, the RIAA would probably argue that you don't even have the right to have digital copies of songs on your hard drive, even if you own the CD. They don't seem to recognize "fair use".

CodeWarrior:

Not a bad thought, there's just one minor caveat: it doens't work when RIAA connects to the p2p network with their own software (they're funded well enough to develop such software.) In that case they can make up their own TOS/EULA.

CodeWarrior:

Whether or not they were using bots, it seems clear the RIAA (or their minions) were violating the user agreement. Whether this means they don't have "clean hands", I'm not sure. They haven't broken any laws, they've just violated a user agreement. They could argue that the user agreement was written in such a way as to shield copyright infringers and so should not be considered.

This is tricky legal stuff. I still say that, if the RIAA isn't actually downloading the files from you they have no proof of copyright infringement. Even if they have the proof, so what? I didn't force anyone to download those files from me. I made the files available for people who have the legal right to them. I'm not responsible for the actions of others. I like that argument!

I am a new user so if I say something stupid or incorrect, etc. please correct me.

To CodeWarrior:
Wonderful job at finding those violations that the RIAA has commited. I'm sure they will be able to be used someday soon.

To IFeelFree:
Accorindg to Sharman (makers of KaZaA), they are not responsible for the consequences of what you do. Unfortunately, this means that the RIAA can sue away. The consequences of the RIAA's violation is that they are no longer allowed to use the software. The effect of this is that if the RIAA were to sue you, you could claim that they gethered their information illegally and therefore it would be void. I'm not the greatest with legallity's so I could be out there, this is just the way I understand it.

Are they going to sue radio stations and digital cable tv radio and XM? Techinically... they are all offering (free of addtionaly charge) the same music that P2P users are "sharing"? When I was young, I couldnt afford or talk my mom into buying music for me, so I recorded songs I liked off the radio to enjoy over and over again (until the tape wore out anyway). According to RIAA's position, I've been infringing on copyrights since I was about 10 yrs old. LOL

Another thing.... what does the FCC have to say about all this? I'm connected via a phone line and I thought there was laws to protect someone from others interfering with, tapping or otherwise collecting any information from said person without a warrant or judges order. (maybe I've watched "The Wire" too much)

Here's a quote from William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Judge "The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"

Peace!

BadGuin

IFeelFree & CodeWarrior:

If RIAA did use Kazaa Media Desktop they might have violated rules. The EULA only covers how YOU handle the software, not how other user handle your software.

Another thought. I don't know a lot about U.S. laws, but how about: not reporting possible copyright infringements when you can make a reasonable assumption somebody is infringing copyright laws.

Sorry... I read through and then posted. Seems I had no need to reply after all.

My last thought applies when RIAA found copyrighted material that they don't own themselves...

BadGuin:

Radio stations, cable radio, XM, etc. all pay royalties to the recording industry for what they "share" so they can't get sued. We don't pay royalties. Taping off of the radio for non-commercial use is considered "fair use" and is allowed by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. In the case of file sharing you are "distributing" files without the legal right, the RIAA would say.

My argument is that I'm not "distributing" the files. They are available on my hard drive for people who have the legal right to download them. If others also download them, it's not my fault. This is similar to the ISP company arguments: We're not responsible for what people do with our service.

Let me step back in the past a minute here...

As far as "piracy" goes, isn't that more defined (or at least once was) as someone who illegally distributes copyrighted work FOR A PROFIT ?

Sharing for free, keeRhist, that's like borrowing a book, and you don't see libraries suing the crap out of anyone.

Just a little bit of perspective here on the situation.

-user

Still, one problem. The KaZaA/FastTrack protocol is a closed one, and ShermanNetworks can change it at will. So, i'd doubt they are running on private software, because everytime the protocol is changed, the KaZaA program has to be re-hacked in order to get the protocol. And FastTrack has a mind to changing every time it learns someone's making a client that uses their network and they arent getting a cut of the profits.

ok, one more time with the letter. again, any help getting an artist petition going would be appreciated. please cut and paste at will. all the local artists I know are in favor of this but I just don't know that many and after the irish beer drinking songs they don't claim me.

Respected member of Congress:

I am sure that by now you are aware of the legal situation regarding the Recording Industry Association of American and their self declared “war” on the file sharing community. Everyone can understand the need for copyright protections and it is my belief that nobody wants to cheat the artists out of their rightful compensation but making felons out of 60 million Americans is not the answer. As an elected member of the governing body of America surely you above all others can appreciate the gravity of the public outrage these actions are creating.

The RIAA claims to be taking a hard line approach here to protect the interests of the artists it serves. Reading the average recording contract however paints a much more clear picture of whose interests they are really protecting. In all other types of copyrighted media the artist owns the work and it is published, printed or viewed by their permission. Not so with the recording industry. The record labels own the works, the rights and the royalties. Artists who do the lion’s share of the work receive minimal compensation and almost nothing in the way of future royalties from their work. Now, to further inflame the situation the recording industry claims that file sharing is causing irreparable harm to these same artists stating among other things that “illegal downloading” is taking money out of the artists pockets. This accusation is as unfair as it is untrue. Peer to Peer networking, file sharing whatever name you wish to give to it, is an advancement in technology. Like other advancements that have come before it, has it’s critics and detractors but it also has its’ supporters. No one in their right mind would claim that radio took business away from record sales. Yet its’ modern counterpart, Peer to Peer networking is single handedly responsible for the downfall of the industry if you are to believe the RIAA.

FAIR USE

Would it be fair for a person to buy land, collect materials, put those things together with a lot of work and time and build a house, only then to be told that someone else holds the rights to the house so they can never own it? This is the position most artists are in now. They create the work but they can only perform it by permission from record labels and they can never own it. That is correct. They cannot own their own work. Nor do they see the vast majority of the profits made from the work. How is this fair? More importantly since the rewards are not shared with the artists in any equitable way, How is it that file sharing is taking money away from the artists.


I respectfully submit to you that there is an alternative to the all-or-nothing approach that the RIAA is pursuing. The copyright laws as they exist today are inadequate and outdated. They favor corporations to the extent of choking out any reasonable competition or improvement. Since the problem is with the laws, the solution then has to come from legislation which is aimed at creating a fair environment that can make room for technological advancement and still ensure that those who do the work recognize some reward for their art.

I would like to see a system that would not allow for this kind of abusive behavior by record labels. I don’t begrudge a company the right to make money off of its’ investments but there is a difference between enjoying a return on an investment and taking someone’s soul.

Here’s what I see as fair:

1. Under no circumstances should it be legal to take the rights to an artist’s work forever. A three year law would grant ample time for the label to gather a return on their investment. After that time the rights to the work should revert back to the creator of the work. This will allow the artist some hope of long term benefits from their work and at the same time pressure the record labels into exploring and developing new talent and regional markets.

2. While any work is under the control of a record label it should be allowed for sharing so long as it is of a bitrate of less than 192 Kbs. That way, music can still be shared over the internet but the sound quality is inferior and thus anyone who wants the cd quality copy must purchase a cd or go through a download service and pay the prescribed fee for that. This model has a number of good points about it, not the least of which is it allows consumers to exchange and evaluate but still allows for legitimate purchases. This is what radio used to do, now it is time to move on to the next level and allow the internet to have it’s chance.

3. After the three year period, the artist gets the rights to their works back and can then decide whether or not to allow continued sharing of their works on line. My bet is that most artists would be happy to have the exposure and the chance to own their own work.

4. Record companies can still make their money from initial releases and promotions in addition to various marketing strategies but then they would be forced to move on and promote fresh talent and give the public the diversity it craves There are billions of people in this world. I refuse to believe that the market for this doesn’t exist and I refuse to believe that the indentured servancy program that is currently in use is good for anyone’s creativity.

I understand that writing legislation such as this is difficult and possibly even unpopular with certain special interests right now but right now is the time to act. Peer to Peer technology isn’t going to go away no matter what the special interest would have us believe. It may go underground or otherwise covert but it is here to stay. Blanket prohibitions, unlimited litigations against consumers and other hard line approaches will only cost us this opportunity to create meaningful and fair laws that serve the people not make felons out of them.

Sincerely,

BadGuin: as always brother, you are right on! Loved that quote by the way...
captdunsel ...excellent letter my friend...good one to get the ball rolling...
and every other post was, as usual,
thoughtful, articulate, and well conceived with good reasoning!
Right now, am chalking up another day of my boycott. Another day I did NOT:
download,upload, nor buy any of their crap.
another day I didn't go to any movies...
another day I created my own music at home on my Ovation guitar...
All in all...it was a good day for boycotts!
~code

user65535:

You're correct about your definition regarding "piracy". What file sharers are accused of is "copyright infringement". No profit is involved but it's still (possibly) illegal according to current copyright law. Unfortunately, the popular press (and the RIAA for that matter) often refers to is as piracy. I guess "piracy" sounds more catchy than "copyright infringement".

CodeWarrior, I think I love you...Kurt Vonnegut quotes and he plays the guitar!

FYI CodeWarrior: I'm a sistah

To the people that seem to think that the RIAA is not downloading the songs to verify them are only fooling themselves. They used to just look at the folder contents, but that is old news. Trust me, when they start taking people to court, they are going to have a lot of information about each person sharing up files and it is not simply going to be a print-out of your shared directory. Hell, I wouldn't even be surprised if they were doing the following:

-Sniffing the data entire transmission as they download the file from you
-video taping the entire process of downloading the file from you with your login name seen on the screen, then playing the song once it downloads

The bottom line here is, they are going to be collecting as much information as humanly possible to prove you are uploading copywritten works.

And to the people ranting out the Kaaza license agreement, as long as the RIAA is not currently in litigation with Sharman, do you honestly think Sharman is going to show up in court when a user gets sued and help to defend that person by saying the RIAA is in violation of the user agreement??? Lets be realistic here. The only way Sharman is getting involved is if they become a target. And the whole privacy argument holds no water. If you open up you shared directory to the Internet, you just gave up those rights.

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not pro-riaa, but people, use some common sense.

CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - Under the clean hands doctrine, a person who has acted wrongly, either morally or legally - that is, who has 'unclean hands' - will not be helped by a court when complaining about the actions of someone else.

Unclean hands can be used as an affirmative defense in cases where the complaint is equitable.

In family law, the doctrine is invoked most often in two situations. First, a parent who kidnaps and then later requests custody will often be denied custody unless the child is in danger of harm from the other parent. Second, a spouse who conceals assets or otherwise misappropriates marital property during the marriage or separation will often be penalized in the division of property at the divorce by being awarded less than her fair share. This, of course, requires that the innocent spouse learn of the concealment or misappropriation.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c202.htm

BadGuin
Wiping the egg off my face, as any
decent swashbucking pirate, I bow low and beg thy forgiveness. My eyes were blinded by electrons
~code

Getting back to the original article...

The RIAA can argue that by choosing to share a directory with copyrighted music one is distrubiting the music. They can point out that picking which directories and/or files to share in a P2P program is an intentional act that effectively invites others to download them. To borrow Code's analogy, they would say that it is like putting a bunch of photopcopies of a Stephen King book on a table outside your house with sign on it that says, "Take as many as you like." Please note that I'm not defending this RIAA counter-argument...I'm just bringing it up.

It's a shame that CodeWarrior & IFeelFree aren't lawyers. The RIAA would be running scared.

CodeLite

You would be surprised at how many people are using p2p and don't have it setup right or know how to really use it. I've found plenty of people that had no clue what they were sharing. or how to change it.

metal-man-micro:

I was passing on the information I got from the article. It stated that the RIAA had not actually downloaded the files from the person being subpoened. I find it hard to believe as well.

CodeWarriorLite:

I use the example of leaving my car unlocked in the street with the keys in the ignition. If someone steals it they're still breaking the law but I would not be held responsible for "inviting" the person to steal. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to a file sharing program?

This reminds me of the movie, "FootLoose."

Some very valid points, definitely. Giving away a copy of a song has never been illegal, just not very well liked. Say I bought a new cd, loved it, and made a copy for my sister or a friend. The industry certainly doesn't like it, but it's one cd, and as I didn't sell it for profit, it's considered fair use under the Home Recording act. We went through this before, on a smaller scale, when dual well cassette decks became readily available. Where the industry is getting nervous, however, is that now instead of making one copy and physically giving it to another person, you're making one copy and making it available for any number of people to take. Piracy? No. Unless you're charging for access to your files, and making money off of those songs, then you're not a "pirate".

The ToS provided by KaZaa and others applies to the server-side software, and all end users, regardless of what client you use. For example, say I own a Mac, use Netscape or whatever, and access Microsoft's website. I'm not using their OS or web browser, but I'm still bound to follow the ToS of that company. So anybody that connects to KaZaa, regardless of what client software they use, are required to follow the guidelines of KaZaa.

I also believe the Internet Privacy Act is still in effect, which specifically states that nobody in law enforcement, government, or industry, or representatives of them, can threaten or harrass users. What's on your machine is your private stuff, and you have the option to select who accesses your system. Of course, that only applies to the US.......

The library argument is good. The library buys the books, obviously. Then most libraries these days charge you a yearly fee for a card (at least they do around here), if you don't live within the tax base area of that library. So technically, they're making a profit off the loan of books. Who's to say that I wouldn't copy an entire book? It'd take awhile, granted, but it could be done easily. I don't use KaZaa anymore, myself, but it requires you to share at least one directory. Now, it's faster and easier for me to put my files in that folder, so my sister in Boston can grab a copy of a song I think she'll like. KaZaa gives you the option to disable file sharing with other users. So, just because I have those files in a shared folder in that program, doesn't mean anyone has access, they can't even see them.

Here's a laughable, but rather nasty example of what's going on. A friend in Australia bought a Sony car stereo...I forget the model, but it's the one with the 40gb hard drive built into it. You take your cd's and rip them down to the stereo's hard drive, and rock out for days. Costs 1000 bucks here in the US. A month or so later, she went to the store, and purchased a CD on the Sony label. Took it home, only to find out that the CD has the new copy protection that won't allow it to be played on computer CD-roms. Fine, except that the CD drive in her $1000 car stereo is a computer CD-rom! So she just paid good money for a cd that she is unable to play in the equipment sold to her by the same company that produced the cd. Nice, huh?

Forgot to mention, since this is really a computer issue. Industry in general has been spamming your computer with ads, and so far has gone relatively unchallenged, up to the last few months. How many of you get that "gray box" popup, especially if you're on broadband, when you're not even browsing the net? That's exploitation of a small app in Windows that allows me, as a network admin, to send you, at a workstation on my network, messages regarding network status, remider about a meeting, whatever. But the retail industry found a way to use it to further spam you with more ads for viagra, home loans, even popup ads trying to sell you a popup ad blocker. Your computer is accessed daily by people who have no right to be there, but most people just click the close button, cuss a bit, and let it ride. The RIAA is no exception to any rules. They are a private entity, who's accessing your computer through various means, to determine what you have there. I believe that does violate several privacy laws geared toward consumers, but nobody seems to be paying attention to that fact. Until now. If in the off chance I get a subpoena, you can bet your butt I'll be counter-suing for invasion of privacy, harassment, and anything else I can legally sue for. Point is it's MY computer, and my files, in my home. If you come in uninvited, and try to sue me, my family, or even my cats, be prepared for a battle.

Cats rule...
and churchkey...I'm blushing
-The Boycott,and the war..continues
~code

There's been a lot of the "RIAA must know what it's doing" chatter. Actually, I disagree-they are flailing around like a wounded animal, lashing out at anything and everything. And with the "good faith" DMCA, they can-or maybe, thought they could. Time will tell.

My favorite logic twist in all of this is really a very, very simple one.

I hear often the complaint that downloading is just like going into a record store and shoplifting a CD.

With one minor exception. When you shoplift, the product disappears from the store's shelf. When you download, you have not "taken" anything. The original is still there.

Have you really infringed on the copyright? Or have you just provided the artist with free promotion? If so, should we not send the artists a bill for our services?

Until June, the record labels were paying Clear Channel to get people to listen to music. Isn't Kazaa doing the same thing for free? Who should be paying whom?

Remember, the record labels have given away an annual average of $4 billion in free physical goods over the past five years. The artists paid for these promotional copies. Look at the RIAA's own stats. Almost a third of their annual production is shipped and never sold nor returned -- every single year. It doesn't come back the next year. It's not piled up in a record store's back room.

They are given away. They are an artist expense.

With an mp3 they can accomplish the same thing at relatively no cost.

So why are they really complaining? Because they have no control over what downloaders listen to. That's what it's all about. It's not the money, it's the control.

Is it just coincidence that restraint of trade is defined by the SHERMAN Antitrust Act? Or just Twilight Zone twist that Cary-Sue should realistically be the next logical target for prosecution under the law ironically bearing his name?

To All- A Question?

When I was downloading, it was mostly bootleg recordings of live performances. Lots of Beatles, Stones, Hendrix stuff. Like a live recording of Jimi jamming & singing with John & Paul on "Day Tripper."

Now, since these were bootlegs in the first place and never released recordings for sale and thus never a source of profit for the RIAA in the first place. What kind of copyright laws do these fall under?

It appears that the RIAA wants their cut of money for material that they never released and is only available because someone else bootlegged it way back when.

Seems like they owe a debt of gratitude to all those old bootleggers who have made a great supply of material available that never would have even existed without them.

The truth is, businesses are getting a free ride because the Bush Adminstration doesn't want to prosecute anti-trust cases.

Probably cause his friends would be the ones targeted, but anyhoo...

While dems in congress are bad, we need to at least have a president that'll use the justice department to mete out equal justice, and not just "justice for his friends."

"Giving away a copy of a song has never been illegal, just not very well liked. " -heffie

The RIAA would probably claim that it always has been illegal, because their products contain those warnings that say, "unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, blah blah blah". But they have never made any serious effort to enforce this claim, and most people consider giving away a copy to a friend to be "fair use".

Let's look at what the U.S. Copyright Act says about "fair use", shall we?

-------------------
17 U.S.C. S107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include --


1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
-----------------

Of course, there are many much more specific legal guidelines for applying these vague criteria to different industries and media. But the question arises: Do sharing by traditional means (making a copy for your friend) and P2P file-sharing stand or fall together? In other words, is there a reasonable set of criteria based on copyright law that would differentiate these two activities? If the answer is "no", then either P2P should be perfectly legal or old-fashioned music sharing should be illegal. A radical result either way. On the other hand, if the answer is "yes" --there are reasonable criteria based on copywrite law according to which old-fashioned music sharing is OK but P2P is not-- then I would like to know what they are, exactly.

Well, I guess we're going to have to outlaw tape recorders and VCRs then since the taping of music and movies must affect "the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work", i.e., lost CD/videotape/DVD sales. The only difference with P2P is that it's easier to get copies of music and movies. It doesn't matter. Either it's illegal to make copies or it isn't. If it's illegal than we have to outlaw all recording devices. If it's not than the RIAA needs to shut up.

Somewhat off topic, but please forgive me:

What I have a problem with is how the RIAA gets a certain percentage of all CD-R, MiniDisc, and DAT tape sales, in order to compensate for any illegal burning/copying. They also have a flat $2.00 tax on all CD burners sold. (Audio Home Recordings Act of 1992)

1. If I make a photo CD of my family vacation on CD-R, the RIAA still gets money. There is no descrepency on intent of use.
2. If what they say is true, about cd-r sales quadrupeling and showing no signs of slowing, then they should be making lots and lots of money.
3. If more and more new computers are sold with cd and dvd burners, then, again where is that money going?

This point has been made before, but it gets buried under bigger things. I just wanted some newer people to be aware of this, and to resurface it.

I was just wondering, isn't the RIAA's action of downloading portions of "copyrighted" material to determine if an individual has broken copyright law a form of entrapment since they themsleves broke the same copyright laws they wished to enforce. It is the same as a cop going to your house and smoking a joint with you then arresting you for possession.

Am I completely off base here or what?

I'm just happy to see that an "average Joe" is fighting back for a change!

This whole thing is all about control. The control that the RIAA has on the availability of music for the masses. A lot of people say "what's the difference in taping a song of the radio and downloading an mp3?" Because the radio playlist is creating on committee by those who work at the radio station, which is ostensibly controlled by the labels. So as the song is being played at that time, they make it so (There's no such thing as requested songs in a Clear Channel world) The difference is now, you don't have to wait for a radio to randomly play a song on the radio with your finger hovering over the record buttton. Now you can paruse the internet, find it, and play it to your heart's content. The RIAA cannot do anything to control that. They control the radio, know that they can't control the internet even though they would like to. So what is the best way for them to try to gain control. Sue, sue, sue!

Monopoly breeds mediocraty

phiberoptix -- Right on the mark. It's all about control. Because what if we don't want to listen to Avril Lasagna's big hit -- and they've invested so much money into it...

God forbid we have (gulp) freedom of choice as consumers!

kyodylee -- I remember when every concert you went to absolutely banned tape recorders because of the evil bootlegs, just as filesharing is denounced now.

But I'm noticing that an extremly high number of artists now encourage this, to the point of including it in their contracts and demanding preferential seating for those who want to record.

The RIAA does NOT control those bootlegs. And it allows fans to share the music, while kind of distracting them from the CD version. In a lot of cases, it may actually stimulate sales because some acts are asking the fans for sopies of those bootlegs and are making CDs out of them.

If nothing else, it saves them money on production costs. The labels are drying up and their cash flow is increasingly tighter these days. Even established artists are being forced to create their own albums without the labels, who are now only providing them with distribution (if the artist is lucky).

CodeLite
You said:
...
The RIAA would probably claim that it always has been illegal, because their products contain those warnings that say, "unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, blah blah blah". But they have never made any serious effort to enforce this claim, and most people consider giving away a copy to a friend to be "fair use".
....

Here's my question (and my first post, so please be patient)...

I used to run a regional music magazine for independent musicians. I had to register my business name with the state, and at that time I learned a small portion of do's & don'ts regarding the name I registered. Something that was brought to my attention (in summary) was the defense of my registered name. I don't know if the same logic applies to copyright as it does to registration but it would make sense.

What I came to know was that if one person started using the name, in the same context, I had a legal right to defend my ownership where I was registered. However, if one person assumed the name, and I didn't defend against them, but another assumed the name later on I had no stance for a defense against the second user because I didn't defend my "title" against the first user. Could this be applied in the infringement cases as well?

I mean I know my description is rough, but I'm sure there are some legal-type folks here who know what I am trying to say. My theory is that if this was a potential truth then wouldn't it be fair to assume that since the RIAA didn't attempt to defend their copyright against tape traders (and people doing similar with tapes in the past) that they don't have a solid foundation to stand on in the current digital medium? I mean isn't there some sort of specific that states if you're gonna fight for your property then you can't pick and choose your battles, but in essence provide a well rounded defense against all corruptors or else your argument is basically null & void (with some exceptions I'm sure)?

I was just curious. It may be a silly question, but I've seen so many clever defense theories here that I thought I'd throw in my .02 to help the colorful (and incredibly productive) continuation of this grassroots effort by all of us, the average americans who are rarely heard.

If nothing else, thanks for reading what I had to say. I look forward to your thoughts (and anyone else who has some light to shed on the matter).

Thanks in advance for your time,
-Schowler

all right kats i got a sec from my figureing out what they are doing to peeps machines....

im doing hardcore monitering of my entire system and noticeing what the logs are seeing is a bad thing.

ok yesterday i got "scaned" buy a few ip addressess and it was trying to connect to a few diffrent things,one was emule on port its port,but then it was trying to connect to something in windows and one even tried to connect to port 80,so what they are doing is scanning ports to get into computers.

now port scanning used to be illegal i thought,but it will be fun when they update pg to see what ports they are tring to connect to to see if what i am thinking is happening is happening.

note that i have one machine that is doing nothing but loging ip addressess of people tring to connect to it,along with a packet log.

one of the offending ip addresess was trying to even ddos my machine yesterday so i started hammering it with all four that i had in my office.

i have also rescaned the pg database and changed a few ranges names and added a few missing ip addressess to it,so i belive that it will be reposted on the pg board when it re opens.

ill report later on a few more things,and hopefully the riaa will give more info to that one kat so we can see what they are doing....

later

Given the number of new Lurkers, it’s probably always appropriate to repeat some of the things that have been previously said.

So though not wanting to bore anybody, some of mine have been: S.E.C. investigation (called for RIAA / Big Five to be investigated. – Given that Games Industry is currently undergoing investigation, maybe they’re next? Can always hope.)

Reform of copyright law: It’s broke - now fix it.

Forensic accounting probe of RIAA / Big Five: Something’s very, very rotten and the stench is becoming overwhelming.

Re-evaluation of Internet privacy laws: (or more specifically, lack thereof).

I suppose the points need to be repeated - repeatedly.

The RIAA – front organization of a cabal of Five Big Companies has colluded to restrict, to overprice and to control access to product that it has apparently cheated (on an ongoing basis) the creators out of, while hiding behind the defense of doing so for those same poor content creators!

Their perfidy knows no bounds save those we put upon them. And it’s time we did!

Otherwise we must live with the realization that the freedom of the Internet for all time was lost by this generation, at the start of this millennium.

And that is not a legacy I want to be a part of.

eraph...some time ago, long before I came here, there was a jerk scanning a discussion board I was part of. He tried to scan my machine, but I was fully
stealthed, and at that time, I checked to see if port scanning was illegal. It is not illegal. The other day, I had PeerGuardian running all day with no hits at all. Then, I went to Congress.org and posted some anti-RIAA letters, left the site, and just happened to check PG. I had been hammered several times in a row by an IP associated with the RIAA per PG. I think they probably scan this board several times a day. What they are doing this for is unknown, but if they hack into your machine, it is a federal felony , a violation of Title 18, the unauthorized access to a network section.
~code

Meant seraph, had a hard time posting for some reason and did a cut and paste from notepad...missed the "s", apologies seraphielx
~code

Code.. glad to have ya back!
I'm glad someone else is bringing up the "expectation of privacy" issue. Some disagree, but I've got another tak to throw into that. There's also the "extension" issue. All that means is that your car, mobile home etc.. becomes an extension of your home while you are in it. This was used for privacy issues as well as other 4th Ammendment rights such as illegal searches and burglary as well as others. Same thing goes with your computer.
Some would say that if you're on the internet, you give up your privacy rights. I say bullshit. I'm in MY home, on MY computer with MY passwords, so it's mine correct? Yes, I'm correct.. I dare someone to prove me wrong.
If you're on your computer, you DO have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in that you do NOT expect someone to hack into you. The chances are there yes, but you do not EXPECT anyone to be looking for info you choose not to share, whether it be thru the use of firewalls, blocking software or other means.
wow.... that's a lot of expectations huh?
ttmmm

just another thought.
In college when I was studying business law, we had to study (of course) some civil stuff as well. They have this (unofficial) tool called the "reasonable prudent person test". This just means they ask the question "what would a reasonable prudent person do?" This has been used in successful prosection of beatings, rape, theft, burglary, blackmail, RICO, graft, as well as intellectual property cases. I think it applies here as well. If I was using p2p (which I am) and I found a bunch of files on a server that I did a specific search for(it happens everyday), what would I, as a reasonable prudent person (shyeah right LOL) be expected to do?
DOWNLOAD MY ASS OFF.
If I was using KazAA (which I never have) and found out someone was violating the TOS/EULA.. I would be exptected to let Sharman know, again following the same line of reasoning.
I know, this isn't an acid test. As a matter of fact, to be fair it's been thrown out of a lot of court cases because it's highly subjective, but the point still stands.
If someone has a cd, and the means to copy it to the hard drive and does it.. can/should they be sued? Definitely not, as fair use is assumed from the purchase..and most RPP out there do assume fair use rights.
ttmmm

I'm new to posting so Please forgive any indiscrections! First off I've been following the posts for quite some time and most of you folks are well spoken and determined - GREAT Combination!!! Secondly Code I'm glad you did not stay away long - you are one of the most interesting posters. Third I support the movement and hope the RIAA gets it stuck in thier asses! Fourth and finally has anyone heard anything about the "Big" news that is suppose to happen today??? Lawyers ganging up on the RIAA???

MP3Slave, thanks so much for your kind words. Great post for your first one!
I certainly will welcome hearing your thoughts, opinions and suggestions here.
Have a great day my friend!
~code

Code: You asked!

I think the only way that the RIAA is gonna get slowed down or shut down (perferably) is if enough people have the balls to stand up and fight the case in court before a jury. The question that begs to be answered is this - who has big enough balls to stand against a possible fine that in some cases could be more money then most of can make, borrow, or steal in a LIFETIME??? I agree that the copyright law is wrong and I agree that the RIAA just wants control and gobs of money - but I'm not sure that if it were me on the spot - that I could stand up to the possibility of having my life ruined! It's easy to sit behind this computer and spout out what should be and be all puffy and indignant - but it isn't us (I hope) that is in the hot seat.

seraphielx

I get scanned every day. Many times. I am sure everyone does. The big question is, who is scanning you? Do you know for a fact that the IPs scanning you were from the RIAA?

The sue 'em all campaign must be getting expensive. Of course, once people start settleing for 10-20k the money will soon be replaced. Might even create a profit, if you ignore the losses from new boycotters.

Yup, you're totally correct, Code. Port scanning is not illegal. In fact, there's several security related sites that allow you to scan your machine(s) to test your firewall. However, once you find an open port on somebody's machine, what you DO with that info could be illegal. Best thing to do is what you should be doing in the first place, set up a good firewall, and only leave ports open that you need to use. And fer god's sake, turn off the Messenger service in Windows.....not MSN messenger (the IM thing), but the one that allows admin messages to be sent to workstation computers on your network. Click Start/run then type in Services.msc and hit ok. Look for Messenger in the window that opens, and disable it. I'm just posting this 'cause I know most people don't know about it, or even know where those particular ad popups are coming from. It's a vunerable port on your computer that you will never need.

Heh I'd forgotten about the RIAA getting money from the sale of blank media. That means that I've been paying to record my own, non-RIAA music, paying to transfer home videos to DVD, and paid alot to record classes when I was in school, lectures, etc etc. I think maybe antitrust would fit into this nicely, don't you?

I am no lawyer or legal expert but I think I have a defense aganist the RIAA that has not been explored yet.

I believe they are in violation of the Bait & Switch Laws.

The RIAA & the Big Five Record lables are in bed with Clear Channel. They have a Payola system setup with Clear Channel (that owns most radio stations) to play the songs of the artist that they (record companies) want to promote. A person listening to these song(s) (that are paid to be played) likes the song(s) and thinks "hey that song(s) is cool I think i'll go buy the cd" When they buy said cd they find out that the cd has 1 maybe 2 good songs on it (the ones they hear on the radio) and feels ripped off.

What I am trying to say is that the song(s)you hear on the radio is/are the Bait and the cd that was purchased was Switched because the rest of the cd is garbage, other than the song(s) you heard on the radio (which is the initial reason you purchased the cd in the first place).
To me that is Bait & Switch.
Just a thought.

The only thing evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

Peace Brothers & Sisters

heffie

Thanks dude for that info. I just disabled mine. I did not know that was even going on. That is why I like this site, alot of great information from knowledgeable people.

Peace

heffie: i didn't know how to shut it off either. I knew it was going on though and configured my firewall to block that communication since (to me) it seemed like the programs that were doing that were csrss.exe and lsass.exe

This is what Hilary said:

Hilary Rosen claims KaZaA is ruining, not expanding, the recording industry by allowing inferior copies of music to be downloaded with its software. "If you're using KaAaA today, you're getting, in my view, a crappy quality song -- not what the artist did in the studio, not what they wanted you to hear, not their finest work," she said.

If a mp3 is a inferior copy them would this be another way to fight back. This would mean you are not getting the true copy. Am I wrong.

First of all, let me state that I believe in what George and many others have said repeatedly and I do not share, download or otherwise sully myself with anything related to the RIAA or it’s members.

Now, I have a suggestion for those talented individuals who are busy writing new P2P programs that would allow for better privacy (masking IP addresses, etc.)

To begin with, the license agreement should state that individuals consumers can use the software for free provided that they do not use the software in association with or for the benefit of any company, corporation or entity. Companies, corps, entities or any individuals acting in association with or for the benefit of them must purchase a license to use the software and, in doing so, agree to the terms of the license agreement. This agreement should be very restrictive with regard to user privacy – even more so that of the p2p software currently in use.

Now here’s the kicker: Design the P2P software to encrypt IP addresses in such a way that the only way to gain access to the IPs is to break the encryption. The software should also be set up so that it is impossible to access shared data with any other software unless some sort of encryption is broken or circumvented. By doing this, the only way the RIAA will be able to gain information they can use to sue anyone would be to crack the software thereby violating the DMCA.

I’m not a techie so I’m not sure how feasible all of this is, but I’m sure there are some ex-Microsoft employees out there that are well versed in the art of creating proprietary software. Also, I’m sure that the RIAA would try to sue the makers and distributors of such software for contributory infringement. However, I’m sure as long as the software works in a similar way to Kazaa, the argument could be made that there is nothing illegal about both providing security for users privacy and protecting their own “intellectual property” through encryption.

I don’t know, what do you think?

PS – Glad you’re back, Code!

musicwantsto...

I am not so sure it is possible to encrypt an IP address. A router needs to know where a packet is coming from and where the packet is going. To do this it looks at the source and destination IP address that is encapsulated in the packet. If the IP address was encrypted, there would be no way for the router to see this.

Sorry Musicwantsto but your idea to encrypt IP addreses is not possible - however the rest of the idea CRANKS! It should be fairly easy to devend in court also. Good thinking!

Schowler,

I'm not an expert in this area but I think you're right--if copyright holders don't defend their copyrights then they can effectively lose them, at least in some respects. For example, if you create a cartoon character and then others make and sell T-shirts using your character and you do nothing about it for years, you have given tacit consent to that use of your character and it can be seen as "fair use". If you let it slide then you would greatly lessen your chances of winning in court later on. So the fact that the RIAA is now trying to sue people for copying music when in fact people have been copying it since the invention of tape recorders without any consequences -- well, it is a legally salient point.

The only problem with the cartoon character shirt is this.

If I made the character and by some rare circumstance never saw the copies on anyone, I would never know my copyright had been infinged on. Now on the other hand, I could have known about it, because something like this is easily seen, and then maybe the situation you describe is possible.

So if you then look at it from the RIAAs point of view...lets assume that they assumed when people used to buy vinyl, they would copy it to tape and give a few copies from time to time to friends. How exactly are they going to suppposed to track these people down if one, they don't know who your friends are, and two, they have never seen the copied product? With the advent of computers, ripping, mp3s, the Internet, and p2p, they can now for the first time see the product as it gets distributed from person to person. They are sueing now because now for the first time they "THINK" they can prove it.

metal-man-micro...
it is possible to mask an IP address through encryption. check out the freenet project at: http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=whatis

what it does is encrypts the IP address and runs it through several nodes which makes it extremely difficult to trace. I think that the Freenet Project is where P2P is heading. Here is an interview with Ian Clarke (one of the programmer's with the Freenet Project) and Matt Oppenheim (RIAA's Senior Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs):

http://news.com.com/2010-1027_3-1023325.html?tag=fd_nc_1

Definately something worth reading. You can also google for more interviews with Freenet Programmers and the RIAA. ZDNET and CNET have a lot of articles regarding Freenet.

My angle on this is this:

When you get a Kazaa account the shared file is on by default.

Many people are not aware of this. If it is sharing by default of the system, how can you be held accountable?

Shared files are not setup by kazaa users. It is default of the software.

If anything, it seems as the software needs to be changed so that you must manually turn on the shared folder to be held accountable.

Yeah! Right On, Wethepeople. That is how most of us Nubies are getting terrorized.

It takes an act of will to specifically download music/movies/software from a computer who has sharing on.
Very similiarly it takes an act of will to go into a house with the doors and windows open to take something. It may say garage sale outside the house, but that does not mean you have access to the whole house just because the doors and windows are open.

Now they pointed out he didnt specifically send the files on his own accord, he offered them to be downloaded, so what happens when Windows File sharing is turned ON and our computers get hacked and files taken from us just because we are unaware of that aspect? Are we held accountable again because anything taken fromour computer is copyrighted?

This is a great angle, and one that will probably prove the test of time. An act of free will on the part of the downloader does not place the sharer in jeopardy of copyright infringement, but rests them on the shoulders of he downloader. It just might make sense to win, and make sure if he does, his name is used with nothing but respect. If he loses, atleast he tried, which is more than most of us would even attempt.

Yes, your accountalble. But if you didn't know the file was publicly accessable, and were unaware of the infringement, you have a nice legal defence which can lower the damages to just $200.

Of course kazaa has shareing on by default. If it didn't, the network would be unuseable. Queues would streatch to weeks. Im surprised kazaa even has an option to disable shareing. Ed2k is one of the best networks ive found, and that is designed so its impossible to avoid shareing.

"it would discuss any issues with the individual," it adds."

"Give us money and lots of it or your dead. End of discussion."

I never thought about P2P that way though. I like this guys style.

Just a quick thought on the accountability angle.

A few years back I was visiting a friend in Ohio. Her boyfriend got into some trouble, and was jailed. I went with her to his arraignment, and there was a phrase on a large plaque on the wall in the courtroom. I'll never forget it as long as I live. It said, "Ignorance is not innocence."

My concern is the "I didn't know" defense has probably been used so frequently that the judicial system has become desensatized to the approach.

Just a thought.

Schowler:

I agree with your assesment. It is the same thing as going hunting or fishing in another state - if you take a animal or fish that is illegal by that states laws you are guilty of not only breaking the law but also of ignorance! It has always been the job of the individual not the gov' nor law enforcement to make him/her self aware of any pertanent laws regarding what ever you happen to be doing.

Here's my plan.

Sit in front of the RIAA offices with a laptop with wi-fi, find a hot spot and download to my hearts content.

I'll give all of the suits a thumbs up as they depart each day as my head bobs to music. Maybe if I have the time I'll stroll by the MPAA offices and watch some movies too.

Of course I'll be listening to music I own CD's of at home but just didn't feel like lugging around...

Which brings me to my case if I am sued. I demand a list of files they say I was sharing, make sure I have original CD's for each... Argument being the RIAA legally has access to all of the files I have on CD so for me to share with them a digital copy is far from illegal, one might even say it is legal...

I have to agree there. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean innocence. You can't really claim ignorance of the use of a file sharing program......look at what it's called. However, that angle can also point right to the RIAA, as they're breaking laws by doing what they've been doing....and they have lawyers.

radio should not have sold its soul to corporate radio, now what do we have left? predetermined play list of people you dont really care for in the first place. sucky music you dont like being hammered into your cranium until SUPRISE!!....you know the words of the very songs you swore you hated! the industrys stupidity and arrogance are coming full circle and all they have to show for it are feeble atttempts at blaming their customer base for their slumping sales(dont worry,it couldnt be because of all the"manufactured stars"
you guys cranked out like automobiles on an assembly line. Is it any wonder the shelf life of your artist can be measured with a stopwatch now?. No one invests in the artist(not even the artist themselves). Listen to some of these people sing outside of a studio, they sound like mating bullhogs.....and god forbid you ask them to pick up a instrument and play something. If you built ships like you do your artist your next big hit would be the RMS Titanic. Its too late to cry foul now.

Well looks like if I'm sued by the RIAA Then guess I'll have to sue Kazaa and my IP server for letting me download music that I thought was safe to do....also if I was sued by the RIAA I would stop buying any CD's or DVD's then times my thinking by 30 million people....and see what would happen...

I'm relatively new around here too... but I just thought of something.

Think about something like SHOUTcast. Anyone with enough bandwith can set up their own net radio station and broadcast away... and if you go to the SHOUTcast site, you'll find that thousands do. The thing is: many of these stations are run by private individuals, who more than likely pay no royalty to the music industry for said songs they play. Yet we hear nothing from the RIAA on this front.

sheet music down loads for guitar,sax,piano,ect..by all the known artist.. that is free....will RIAA pull the plug on all those sites...

I found a trialware prog called MagicNetTrace. It's pretty cool. Plug a domain name or IP number in, and trace it back to the origins.

I don't know how useful it is, but I plugged in a bunch of IP numbers from my router log, just for kicks. Interesting.

My router log is covering over 10 pages a day now, but most of them look like that blaster virus, the vast majority are hitting port135.

PuterDad...
A while back, the RIAA tried to pull the plug on Olga.net (online guitar archive). Olga boasted to have the most guitar and bass guitar tablature. It had virtually every song known to man. They tried to pull the plug citing copyright infringement. Here is what I pulled off of olga:
"In 1996, UNLV was contacted by EMI Publishing, who alleged copyright breach. UNLV kicked OLGA off its server, but no threat was ever made against OLGA, so we went wandering around looking for a new home, a journey only recently ended at iocus.com.
In 1998 OLGA was threatened by HFA, who, like EMI before them, refused to say exactly which songs they were claiming and to provide ANY information about licensing, and gave us seven days to close the entire archive."
Lyrics.ch (the website that had every lyric to every song) was also threatened to be shut down. This all happened right before MP3 hit mainstream with Napster. I guess they had bigger fish to fry.

Ty..I guess RIAA is just power hungry