In a clear sign that it'll continue to go after software companies as well as individuals, the RIAA says it's suing iMesh alleging that it's contributed to "massive copyright infringement online, much as other file-trading companies before it".

"[...] a Los Angeles federal court judge ruled in April that Grokster, along with Streamcast, was not responsible for copyright infringement by people using its software to trade songs or movies," says BusinessWeek online in a September 19 report, pointing out that the RIAA has appealed that decision.

"The judge compared the file-swapping software to a Xerox photocopier or a VCR, saying that both were legal technologies that could be used for illegal activities, and that their manufacturers could not be held liable for purchasers' infringement."

iMesh responded by pointing to the ruling in the Los Angeles court, says BusinessWeek, going on:

" 'IMesh has received the lawsuit and we intend to respond appropriately, and to win this case on merit,' an iMesh spokesman said. 'The recording industry has lost a summary judgment motion this year, filed by Grokster and StreamCast. In those cases, the court found that those companies do not violate copyright laws.'

"iMesh has operated for close to four years using several sets of successive file-trading technologies. Based in Israel, it maintains a New York public relations agency, is incorporated in Delaware, and specifies in its terms of service that disputes arising from the software should be litigated in New York courts."

In a prepared set of questions and answers, the RIAA offered only scant explanation for why the company had not been sued until this week, says the report

"' There is no bad time to enforce our members' rights against illegal activity,' the organization said in the release. "IMesh's recent conduct and public statements make clear that its goal is to encourage illegal behavior. This action is timed to make clear that there is no free pass for those who center their activity around, and profit from, copyright infringement'."

(Thanks for the pointer, gilbd : )

iMesh has it right, the RIAA tried to hang those other companies & they lost. (Never having used iMesh, I'm assuming its a decentralized p2p like kazaa). Apparently, they thought the judge's ruling was a typo...

The music industry must not be doing that badly if the RIAA can afford to use the label's money to hire lawyers to sue everything that draws breath.

Guess another 20% drop in sales for Xmas (the proverbial "lump of coal" for Cary-Sue Sherman) won't bother them too much then.

Seriously, what grounds do they have to sue, after the Streamcast/Grokster decision? The lost, now they're appealing, so wait until after the appeal.

No good music in the past 4 years...
No "good" lawsuits (stop file-sharing, in their minds)
... coorelation? They are speading their diminishing income too much, which is good -- Down with them, boycott!

The RIAA is pretty desperate and theyre running out of people to scapegoat their own failures as a business by forcing antiquated/greed driven business models on consumers and artists.

They tried to hold back technological advances so they can continue to sell knowingly shoddy filler overpriced products to consumers who see little value when they can use portable mp3's of different songs. Even 9 out of 10 average people with little knowledge of these insidious actions or technology acknowledges that the record companies are greedy.

They tried to shake fear in the VERY target consumer they tried to sell their shitty products by suing/threatening/bullying/pleading/and even go as far as blackmailing college kids/teens and apparently even little children.

They embarrasingly cloak themselves as a the "protector" of society that rebukes pornography online yet said nothing until p2p's and mp3 technology became their enemy. They tried to look inconspicuous but looked ridiculous considering that EVERYONE knows they sell sexual/violent explicited CD's on their catalog.

There's much to saying that desperate folks reveal their true colors and the record industries are doing that as every day/week/month/year passes.

We can bleed them dry by contiuing to boycott their CDs and other merchandise...concerts.

Post flyers on all kiosks/cars to your cities and towns!!

Support indie musicians that they no longer feel that being with a major label is the only to make it!

Defy them by contiuing to use p2p products. Fuck em! Societies like the US continue to advance technologically..why should these motherfuckers hold us baq to save their sorried fat asses?!!

It takes time people to make a revolution but a little contribution from all of the above would help.

Rome wasnt built in a day but it sure didnt take too long to destroy them either.

the riaa and their cannibalistic lawyers are at it again. they will never learn. thier sue them all campaign is starting to come to an end with the promising proposal of the DMCA 2003 act introduced by sen. brownback. now they are trying to pull all the plugs by trying to get everybody they could get to sue." the hole in the ship is pretty big and the siphoning pumps are not working no more capt. cary sue....what shall we do now?"

yfoog

I dont see the grounds either but from my understanding..they cant sue the companies using the technology..and theyre not succeeding obviously by suing the users of this technology...so they sue the contributers who built the technlogy.

If thats the case I really dont see how effective that is

kneo24, if you don't have anything postive to say, don't say nothing at all. your negative output is not needed. why don't you go to a pro-riaa sight where you feel comfortable with. y

the case will be grandfathered into the same case as the grokster/streamcast case. the riaa is wasting their time and money with this by making their already rich lawers pockets even fatter. hell, they probably using their apprentices to make the extra money on this one

Funny kinda.

They win a case aginst verison and they use it to get the IP addersses of 12-year-olds. But, when they loose a case they constantly try to reverse it. Just like JohnCarlton02 said, they think the ruling was a typo.


Hmmm....

!mesh will not be found guilty. The RIAA is wasting their time. Well, I guess that's all they have left until they are bankrupt.

Only time.

Hail Mp3!!!

its about the end of the road for there sueing camp....they are going to try and get all thee peeps that they can while they can.

seems like there was 671 last week....can we say some where near 1000 next?

Censorship is bad! I had a few choices sentences for my lover in crime Kneo24 earlier ago

~

Anyways...Seraphielx...theyre gonna continue their suing spiel for the publicity. Its hysterical to think these people ACTUALLY BELIEVE this sue-em-all campaign is HELPING their cause.

Censorship is bad! I had a few choices sentences for my lover in crime Kneo24 earlier ago

~

Anyways...Seraphielx...theyre gonna continue their suing spiel for the publicity. Its hysterical to think these people ACTUALLY BELIEVE this sue-em-all campaign is HELPING their cause.

perhaps RIAA's goal is not to win (even though that would be a plus). they could be trying to wear everyone down financially, create public support by keeping the issue pubilic, Or influence lawmakers to pass legislation to stop this whole mess on their behalf. Granted with the public backlash thats happening they will have a tough sell and it's unrealistic but when wild animals are backed into a corner, reason and logic goes out the window. They come out swinging at everything and anything.

indieWarriors you are so right....
install fear in there hearts.....

it would be a plus from their point of view. Whew! I needed to clarify that

Question:

If the RIAA is in complete control of enforcing these copyright laws on their own behalf and they have continually pester the same companies with no real hard evidence, couldn't these being pestered nail the RIAA for malicious prosecution?

Just a thought.

That's a good question Stryker, I believe what you're talking about are frivolous lawsuits. This does sound like it wall fall under that, but I'm not a legal expert. I've asked this before and no one has responded. Anyone have any ideas?

Speculation:
I think that the RIAA is firing off suits right and left, appealing adverse rulings..and is getting more and more desperate...but, they will start becoming aware that civil lawsuits against both the P2P providers, and customer/users, is NOT going to accomplish their goals. At this point, from desperation, they will
try to either file a civil RICO themselves, or try to pressure the DOJ to file a criminal RICO. If they claim that sharers, are guilty of criminal copyright infringement under the NET Act, and that users are exchanging files, and thus conspiring to engage in criminal activity, they CAN make a case for the allegation that the P2P networks, "facilitate criminal activity" and that the networks should be shut down, because , as the RIAA would claim, and in fact as their attorney claimed in an interview on TechTV, that the "primary activity" of the P2P networks is copyright infringement. Also, involving the law enforcement agencies, will save them money by forcing the government to take up the costs of prosecution of legal cases. Also, they will see the use of law enforcement to go after P2Pers as criminals, that this will boost their image with the public, in that they think the public will think that the P2Pers must be bad guys if the cops are after them now.

I hope I am wrong, but I look for them to start pushing the law enforcement part of this near Christmas, or in the first three months of 2004. I hope I am wrong, and believe most people will say I am wrong now, but, I believe, and have for some time, that this is where this is headed.
~code
PS..please,let's try to be civil and cut out the cursing, OK?

Daily 'fuck you' to Cary. Hey Cary, fuck you! See you tomorrow.

Code, couldn't there then be a counter suit from independant artists and others who trade and share non copywrighted documents and pictures? that's a legitimate use of the peer network.

then you'd have to go after Sony for doing the same thing with CD burners and VCR's. their primary use is to copy, and tape copywrighted material. while we're at it, copy machines faxes and digital recording media. why stop at Peer to Peer

I know this has been said before, but here goes. I think that the RIAA keeps suing these individual p2p program writers for two reasons. First, they're hoping to get some judge to rule in their favor that will enable them to set a legal precedent that will enable them to shut the rest of the p2p programs down. Or just tie p2p companies in legal wrangling with excessive lawyers fees until they bankrupt them into non-existence.

It's laughable that so many fall for the RIAA's specious claims that they're concerned about the artists, techs, etc; producing records for their products. The RIAA's lawsuits are not only about money, as many of you already know. They're also about power. The RIAA member companies want to remain dominant in the marketplace to enjoy the monopoly and easy money they've made for years.
Hopefully, the RIAA will never be able to enjoy the market dominance that it once enjoyed.

I know that the Sherman Trust Act was meant for a "single" company that dominated the market...but could there ever be a law against allowing a few major corporate giants to dominate a marketplace?

Meryl, great point. that's what I was trying to say earlier but you said it more eloquantly. (spellings wrong I know)

"I know that the Sherman Trust Act was meant for a "single" company that dominated the market...but could there ever be a law against allowing a few major corporate giants to dominate a marketplace? "

This is illegal. The record companies have been charged with price fixing, twice.

Code: From my understanding of the Sony Betamax case years ago when Sony was sued for introducing the VCR, the same movie studios clamored about piracy, illegal distribution, etc., and they lost. The civil case that was bought upon the VCR industry melted into nothing, and now millions of people worldwide on one or two VCR's in their homes. Would this not be paramount to the same laws that the NET act or even the RICO act can be construed to be used against ALL VCR manufacturers, since VCR's are sold ALL over the USA?

The one thing that we as CONSUMERS should demand of the RIAA or any other industry is to conform to new technology - to emrbace it.

Look at Microsoft, and how they embraced (and ultimately extinguished) the browser market - they didn't go to the DOJ and claim that Netscape was "illegally" dominating the browser market - instead they made the browser part of the operating system (and subsequent DOJ investigation - that's a whole different thread) and now dominate the desktop market.

If the RIAA were to follow similar technological trends for advancement, why not adopt a business model such as Apple has done with iTunes? Granted, 5 Million downloads isn't a lot, but hell, it's a start.

Also, one has to wonder, since mp3 quality is still poor versus an actual CD, if the RIAA/Industry weren't so greedy in trying to make a buck, and actually sold ALL of their albums for under $10.00, I'm sure more people would buy them, and the so called "slump" that they are experiencing would disappear.

I'm actually dumbfounded by one major company, Sony, who owns some large media labels, hasn't taken the HUGE step do say "we want to adapt to the technological marketplace and are now going to introduce the lowest pricepoint for ALL of our recordings on compact disc to top out at $9.99 each", turn around and create a $.39/ea download mp3 @ 64kb sampling (which is radio quality at best) and tell people if they want the CD quality, go buy it - or, build a business model to actually let people download (with broadband or faster connection) CD quality songs at a fair market rate of $0.99 per song. Sony would make a killing on the marketplace and beat MS to the punch.

Hey, anyone from Sony reading this???

Ah finally . . .

In the words of the RIAA when SBC filed against them:

"Your arguments have already been rejected in the COURT OF LAW! YOU HAVE NO CASE! RAH!"

Id be curious to hear what the RIAA has to say about the SEC goin after their ass LOL
I still think they know most of these lawsuits will fail..but theyre out there mainly for the show to get some momentum. How? I have no clue since 99.9% of their claims are so far-fetched.


Kneo24
FIRST POST FIRST POST FIRST POST FIRST POST! Kiss my ass motherfucker.
I dont give a flying fuck how much you whine about it.
You havent contributed much to this thread as of yet xcept gripe like a little bitch. Try sodomizing yourself with a splintered wood you sack of shit.

Cary-Sue Sherman can do the same

Hehe ...good one Feisar
ummm...a little off topic but just an observation.

The other night, about 3 in the morning, i couldn't log on to this site. And now i see that the pages load much faster. Did we get an upgrade to the server?

Guys, trade AIM screennames and argue there.

Thanks,comp .

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, . . .

Just counting down the time when thumbtack will take down these News 'comments' entirely.

Hey Indie and kneo, I thought we were trying to stay away from the maturity level the RIAA has shown toward it's customers. Please refraim from using language that could be labelled offensive as I'm afraid they may stop access to this site at my place of business, and I wouldn't be able to show other employees here the boycott and what the RIAA actually stands for.

Thank you,

Lestat

I would like to add, that I have sent some of my friends that are miffed at the RIAA weenes to this site saying: "If you want to be informed with the current news and you can post your comments. I have seen little evidence of flame wars."

Till now.

I'm new here, and many will jump on the bandwagon as more irate citizens lend their support.

Let's be an example of what is good on the Net.

If Imesh is in Israel why would they care if the RIAA sued them? They don't have the same one sided laws we do. Imesh should just give the recording industry the finger.

I think the RIAA is going down, and like a small brained troll, they are going to grab at anything and anyone on their way to the bottom. I think Code is right, and about the timing too.

~goingnova

I agree with you "napstersghost" but I will use both hands.

Just because Imesh is based in israel doesn't make it immune to the RIAA. The artcle explains it could be sued under New York of Deleware law, and in some past cases non-US companies have been found in breech of US law because they have substantial business in the US.

Imesh uses the same network as Kazaa, that most famous of lawyer-dodgers. I have a copy of the spyware-free imesh version. Even if Imesh was shut down by legal action the network cannot be shut down and users have the software.

The RIAA has traditionally relied heavily on the Napster precident when attacking networks, but with the recent decisions greatly weaking that this case could be unpredictable.

WEll so much for the article the opther day asking people to no swear when posting on here huh?

Guess they need to assign a moderator and give them the ability to delete and in extreme cases ban users from posting.

Just making a note .
It just occured to me if The riaa is whining about going broke .........oh brother,not yet apparently they haven't tasted the long months of argument's on court costing dearly i mean against the whole world? Well RIAA is about to file bankruptcy...I wonder if this is the reason they want to shut down not wanting to pay taxes to the government?

Foopah- I agree with you. The problem is one of an almost insane obsession to control everything in music by the RIAA. It really comes down to the fact that the RIAA is acting irrationally, and ultimately, is destructive to the artists, and other companies of the big 5 like Sony.

And, a side note-
I'd like to second Lestat's request.
Please watch the language. We want more people to access this site, not less. No one says everyone must agree on things, but just please try to disagree with civility, or at the very least, no MFs and the like, OK?

YEY!!!! GO RIAA!!! Sue the crappy programs!!

iMesh has a bitrate limit, it doesn't show MP3s higher than 128k. Everything on it is xing 128k and lower MP3s. Filled with spyware, works like crap. It's an even crappier version of kazaa, they connect to the same networks.

p2p is legitimate, the company that I work for, the engineering dept use peer to peer for a lot of their work to share and move it around. So the legitimacy is there, there fore canceling out that p2p is only used for copyright infringement

This just goes to show us that the law favors the rich, and greedy corporations... Yes many file sharing networks won the cases, which is awesome... But If you are rich enough you can just appeal and appeal and appeal and appeal until you get your case won...

RIAA: go waste your time you baffeling bafoons. As for imesh, legaly they should win, but their p2p app sux (Spyware, bitrate limit, ect.), so go waist your time and depleating money, see if i care. Well, not if we get a law to pass that limmits the number of appeals you can have on a case topic (ie: File sharing)

The first report I saw this morning mentioned that iMesh was planning to sell music from unsigned and indies.

Somehow, this doesn't look like a coincidence.

The real threat P2P presents to the RIAA members is the possibility of escape for their slaves (artists). The RIAA is doing whatever it can to make P2P non-viable as a way for people to speak freely to willing listeners, despite the fact that this is a clear violation of the Fist Amendment right to speak and be heard.

The RIAA could weather a boycott of a few months, or even a couple of years. What the RIAA cannot withstand is a permanent loss of their customer base and slaves. If the artists find another way of reaching their fans -- such as P2P -- then the RIAA is screwed. Everything the RIAA is doing is aimed at scaring the fans away so that P2P is not usable as a free speech medium by those who would wish to speak to willing listeners.

IMesh already promotes indie free-to-share music on the opening page of their client (well, mine doesn't because its spyware-patched, but most do).

Instead of fucking deleting my first post in this topic, it could have been edited. Way to censor me for no reason, but leave the rest of my flammatory remarks up! What morons!

woodhead had an interesting remark:
"the company that I work for, the engineering dept use peer to peer for a lot of their work to share and move it around."

The RIAA will obviously attempt to either have the US Congress or even at the State level to have all P2P technologies banned, based on the complete assumption that it "only promotes piracy". What the RIAA still doesn't get is that they need to adapt - a lot of news programs are finally getting on that bandwagon, to let the music industry know that you can't run from technology, and that just like the VCR (Digital VCR's are up next), the internet is here to stay with millions of people buying inexpensive DVD burners in the next several years.

It's amazing, even with the pressure from the press asking "WHY" the RIAA insists on clamoring to the DMCA without even giving one iota of breath to saying that their business model is very 80's and needs to catch up to Al Gore's of this world and invent something new.

Hey RIAA, as a consumer, why would you want to alienate me and my peers who spend our hard earned money to get the music that we really appreciate to go to Indie labels and dump the traditional market?

Oh wait, that's already happening, you're just too caught up in the lawsuit frienzy to realise that you're being left behind.