St Louis seems to be the latest city targetted in the RIAA's unwholesome war against file sharers.

RIAA subpoenas have been received by Charter Communications, there, demanding the identities of 109 customers.

Writing in the St Louis Post-Dispatch, Peter Shinkle says, "the subpoena calls for the identification on the user of IP address '66.215.231.121 at 9/17/2003 at 1:15 p.m.' For that user, the RIAA is seeking the name, address, telephone number and e-mail address.

"The RIAA documents go on to say that the person using that numeric address used KaZaA, an Internet-based file-sharing system, to offer an array of copyrighted music for downloading by others. The person at that address also used a screen name, rscac001@kaZaA, the RIAA claims.

"The user offered downloaders Whitney Houston's 'I Wanna Dance With Somebody,' Madonna's 'Like a Virgin,' Pink Floyd's 'Mother,' Destiny's Child's 'Say My Name,' MC Hammer's 'Too Legit to Quit' and Michael Jackson's 'You Rock My World,' according to the RIAA."

Shinkle told us no file sharers have yet been in touch with his newspaper.

The subpoenas "instruct Charter" to turn over the requested information to its local law firm, Bryan Cave, within one week, he says in his Post-Dispatch report.

name, address, telephone number and e-mail address.

This is what every one should be in arms about and I do mean every one.
Who the heck does the RIAA think they are the police??? oh wait higher than the police they don't have to follow due process.
the dingle berries

My first concern is how does the ISP keep track of the IP’s? I know I get a new IP from charter everyday. I have my system set to get a new one everyday at midnight. What is keeping them from giving the wrong info on a user? I think that that information should be kept private unless they go through the proper procedures of a subpoena. This way is unjust. I could fill to get someone’s information this way if I wanted to. (Which is wrong). I feel that if this is allowed to go on that my kids would not be safe from sick O’s on the net. Anyone could request his or her info. There is something wrong with the government if they do not see this. Make the music DICTATORS follow the law. And the DMCA is not a law. It is more of a payoff by money grubbing DICTATORS.

woodhead, could you please try to explain the third paragraph for me.
this is ALL NEW to me!!!

All I can say is that this person probably downloaded Pink Floyd by mistake, judging from the rest of their choices.

So let's play devil's advocate for a moment.

I say we promote the persecution of anyone downloading Madonna, MJ (I refuse to put his name in print), and other label pablum.

Maybe with some of them out of the consumer base, these over-hyped performers will disappear as well.

The DMCA (as bad as it is) does provide that the target of a subpoena should be given time to refute the claim before information is turned over. One week doesn't seem like enough time for the ISP to contact the individual targeted let alone time for that individual to study the claim, contact a lawyer, etc. Then again, from what I've been reading, most ISPs are not even bothering to inform the target that there has been a subpoena filed...they just turn over the information.

ok your isp address is the address to where you live usually, and the isp has your info such as name, addy, phone# and email that you give when you sign up.
So for a corporation to be able to get this info through the DMCA act, with the signature of a judge, is to me WRONG.
Why should a corporation have more power that our own police force. The police and other law enforcment have laws that protect your right to privacy until you are charged or what ever, the DMCA gives copy right holders the power to get your info with a clerk, and not a judge. This is why I feel the DMACA needs to discarded, and copyright lwas re written

I do not get it. They are after these people for "offering" files for download. If you want a judgment for money, it seems to me that you have to show a loss. If no one downloaded any of these files, then where is the loss. For that matter if someone did download a file or 10, and never did anything with them, then there is no loss. If you are going to sue someone for $150,000 per song, or file, don't you have to prove in court that you DID suffer this loss, and show what was done with the file, or song to cause that loss? What am I missing?

Jewelbox

wait...look at the downloaded music..maybe...maybe the RIAA is right -- these poor artists are so horrible...maybe this person should be punished...
(just kidding)

crap. i dropped my pickle

What you are missing is that the RIAA never has to show loss if none of the cases ever make it to court. The RIAA never intended any of these cases to go to court. They want everyone to "settle," pay up and stop file-sharing. Their hope is that if they do this with enough people that file-sharing will either be crippled or shut down altogether. That way they go back to being the only game in town and regain their oligopoly.

woodhead, thanks. i think what i really wanted to know is about the date 9/17/03
was this the date of the service or.....
i agree with a lot of your views.

They want everyone to "settle," pay up and stop file-sharing

Yea and if you dont want to settle out of court for a few grand, with the idea that if you fight it they will sue for 50,000 to 100,000. This should be a gainst the law, this is nothing more than intimidation wait I think that is against the law.

this was the day and time that the bot was in that persons share folder

I totally agree with you woodhead. This is why the RIAA has been compared to the mob and it's "protection" racket. "You pay up and we'll leave you alone." It absolutely should be against the law, but unfortunately the ones with the most money seem to be the ones making the laws. Bad for us.

woodhead, thanks again. i guess i will have to assume that this and any more (subpoena's) that may follow are a new wave of attack.

I'm not sure, but aren't IP's and web history/activity logged and saved for a specified period of time (years?).

There isn't a jury in the country that will award the RIAa more than a few thousand dollars. No profits were made by the sharers. If their targets share more than 1000 songs they are getting about 2-3 bucks a song, judging from the settlements I have seen.

On another note, have you seen that Kazaa is offering phone service? I can just see the RIAa suing over phone ringtones. Except now they won't need a subpoena, they will only have to let there "fingers do the walking" to find people to sue.

hello, i've just registered and i'm from europe (not uk).

as i've been reading articles on this site for a while i get more and more intrigued due to the facts presented. i find the riaa's actions outrageous and the dmca absurd.

New posters.. welcome aboard!
Lemme see.. first name, Nanya.. last name, Bidness.. Middle name.. d@m*!!

Interesting minivideo at http://overstated.net/media/

The files are RIAA_PSA.mpg, mpeg, and .mp4.

The video is a comedy about the RIAa.

I am a charter customer living in St. Louis. I never used Kazaa in my life, and when I do use bearshare, I don't allow anyone to view my files.
In order for the RIAA to come and get me, they'd have to search for the names of individual files I share. Then they'd have to prove the material that I share is by an RIAA member. Then they could get the subpoena.
I'm in the hot seat right now, I'll let you all know how things shake out.

riaa's latest tune: 'Sue you in St. Louie' hits the charts at number 109 and is still climbing... lol

Let's pick a day when the RIAA folks will be off work (like Thanksgiving or Christmas Day) and everybody just open all their files up for that day... on second thought, maybe I'm naive to imagine that those corporate clowns are going to let their enforcers take a holiday.

This is somewhat off-topic,but can anyone give me a link to a site with good info on the DMCA?

Welcome to St. Louis, RIAA

pacmandude: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030102_dmca_unintended_consequences.html

Three letters to the editor appeared in the opinion section of USA Today regarding Cary Sherman's editorial piece last Friday--and ALL three were anti-RIAA!

Charter Cable has you pay for digital music (built into the cable package). I pay $140 a month.
Isn't SOME of that money I pay them going to artists/entertainment industry ---- to pay for music (for the no-commercial music channels)??
So if I download songs, can they sue me if I am paying $140 a month? It seems stupid to me. Especially for the cable company customers who, of course, have the broadband.

yeah the riaa is not the govt. they can't tell us what to do! We shall rebell and say F.U. to their pnoney subpoenas. We are not their citizens, and we are not their captivs, slaves, or anything else! We shal ignore EVERYTHING THE RIAA says and continue to boycott them to their death.

Cary Sherman would put every file sharer in a concentration camp and rip out their gold teeth and steal their wages, assets if he could get away with it... Heil Cary Sherman, the NEW HITLER! Nazi F*ck!

and the reason Hillary Rosen stepped down is because she had to go off and have an orgy with the devil and his minions... Slut!

actually hillary's term in office was the orgy, she stepped down because she kept grossing Satan out and at least the boy named sue shaved his armpits

Hey . . . every time I try to contact the webmaster(s) on this site, I get "Sorry, you come from the wrong place!" . . or the e-mail just fails.

All I wanted to do was share my ideas for promoting the boycott. What gives?

With all the controversy this ISP would have to be retarded to cooperate.

You are right George...Pink Floyd had to be an error!

yolie- I know exactly what you're talking about. Yeah, we DO pay royalty fees for the "Music Choice" digital music channels, which are, of course, commercial free. Therefore, we have paid for licenses to listen to a multitude of songs. There may be a court argument right there, if you can prove the songs you had on your comp were played on Music Choice. Of course, your problem still is that you offered the music for downloading, and the argument that "I had no idea the programs did that" wouldn't fly in court, according to the intellectual property attorney I talked to.

Oh. Just a thought. Thanks for answering me.

Also, I think a facet of the entire "sue-em-all" campaign that's being totally overlooked is the effect it will have on the growth of broadband in the US. Remember that, no more than a year ago, nearly EVERY broadband commercial on TV emphasized downloading and burning music onto CD? They sold the majority of their new subscribers on the idea of downloading music. Some judges have recognized this in court (read: the 9th appeals circuit). I think that two things will happen to ISPs in the near future:

1) We will see lawsuits and countersuits against ISPs for deliberately selling broadband for use of copyright infringement (thus leading to the entire "sue-em-all campaign) and

2) The growth of broadband in the US will decline significantly because of the fear factor in sharing files.

The RIAA is destroying one of the shining industries in the US during this past recession: the internet and service providers. The RIAA's campaign will reverberate throughout our economy for years to come.

Hey we should all subpoena ISPs for e-mail addresses. That will really show the sleeping pubic how dangerous the actions taken by the RIAA are.

Maybe with some of them out of the consumer base, these over-hyped performers will disappear as well

george, I am with you, over hyped performers, well you know, starts with s endswith k

So if I download songs, can they sue me if I am paying $140 a month? It seems stupid to me. Especially for the cable company customers who, of course, have the broadband

The riaa can sue you simply for you or your cable provider do not have a license to distribute music over the internet, and the way it is looking ISP right know are handing names over, with out a fight. Except for a few that is. It is time to right your reps in washington. If you are not registerd register it is free wont even cost a stamp, and your given right as an american. do so today, well tomorrow, it is nite time now, but tomorrow. You should be able to go to your local library and pick up the form, if not you county clerk

VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE

I filled out the online petition - and I emailed my state's representatives, who sent me a form letter.
Yes, I am registered to vote.
And I no longer buy CDs.
They have impacted my world.

Hey IAWAF, this is the seconds news article in which you've posted the same message...

Check out the *forums* section under *action ideas* that should be where you share your ideas with others.

Hey R0dr0ddy..I work for a cable co that offers broadband (internet tech suport). I agree.....my company is still running a commercial that boasts "faster download speeds for faster game speeds. Download your entire summer music library in an instant...blah, blah blah." It irritates me. I sent an email to corporate that maybe, just maybe, they should pull this add. Quite a few of our subscribers got letters from our company that tells them that the RIAA has requested their name/address etc. I personally would like to see them fight it...but I'm sure the company lawyers had something to say about that. I wouldn't worry about people abandoning broadband. Our numbers have been increasing in leaps and bounds (even more so than out cable TV division). The company I work for just made an announcement that they are doubling download speeds by the end of the year...so I think they are looking ahead and thinking of ways to keep luring subscribers, despite the battle over P2P. The good thing is, as I help people with their internet problems, I spread the word about this site ! Keep up the fight

Gwen

yolie

Yes, I am registered to vote.
And I no longer buy CDs.


If Code were here, he would be as thrilled as I am

You Rock!!!!!!!!!!!!
fight the good fight
and VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IAWAF

Copy and paste your email, and I will email it for you, and I will try as hard as I can not to read it.
My email is woodheadboycott@hotmail.com

Code is da man and he would do this, damn big shoes to fill, but I will try as I might as will others here.
Remeber the new ppl are the most important.

and no I am not code, but I feel he is in the wings, but not me, so get that idea out of your heads quick.

Anyone here that owns intellectual rights to anything should use the DMCA to issue subpoenas to find the private information of people. Subpoena a child. Get on the news. It'll be great fun. The DMCA doesn't just let the RIAA tear up the Constitution, it lets all of us do it!

Sue the RIAA for taking your idea to sue people, and demanding 50% of their gains from the lawsuits.

Wow, I'm on Charter in the St. Louis metro east area, and I use K+ to share only mp3s of COPYRIGHTS THAT I OWN (namely, my band). I dare those bastards to come after me; I'll be glad to make an example of them by suing them into oblivion for slander and whatnot if they try to come after me. I mean, we have a song called 'Today.' How many major label bands have songs with that same name?? I'm just waiting to show up on a subpoena. Anyway, feel free to look up Camino on Kazaa, or go to the website at caminorock.com, at least until I have to sell my server to pay legal bills...

Hi guys I'm new here so bare with me. I just wanna say that this whole fie-sharing vs internet piracy bothers me. I honestly really feel that we as music lovers SHOULD compensate the artists that produce the music that we love. What the RIAA has done pretty much shot themselves in the foot. They already scorned their fans and trust me guys, this is the end of record companies. People like Clive Davis (the scumbag who I beleive concockted that fake music group Milli Vanilli and then waled away scot free) will longer be needed. They are getting what they deserve. Only a matter of time. I do however notice that I get more info of their activities on the internet than on the news. Is it me or is it becuase they are trying to keep it quiet from the public at large?
I've gotten into heated arguments with one of my best friends of mine who download, and upload music, video and other files to the net and they try to tell me that music is a buisiness and what we are doing is stealing. Whether it's from the artists or the record company doesn't make a difference. My thing is, i do feel gui8lty becuase when we download music and get it from Kazaa or other file sharing services, we are NOT paying for it. And I think that what the record companies need to do is make ALL of their music catalogs availalble on let's say a massive music server and everyone payes to get it for a cheap or resonalbe price and in the music format that the buyer wants. I don't understand why the record companies don't wanna do this?
I also wanna propose a question that ANYONE in or from the music buisiness can get a hold of a record contract and bring one of those to light...that will be the smoking gun that proves without a doubt that record companies have been SCREWING the musicinas royally for many many years. THAT MY FRIENDS WILL BRING DOWN THE RIAA.

gdZiemann: "...let's play devil's advocate for a moment.

I say we promote the persecution of..."

"...Madonna, MJ (I refuse to put his name in print), and other label pablum."

"...these over-hyped performers will disappear as well."


I think that we should extend the war on the RIAA to the artists they have so politely put in front of us as targets.

I would like to suggest that the membership immediately begin a letter writing campain of complaint to the fan-clubs and fan response desks of the artists named in this article.

We need to turn up the heat on artists that allow the RIAA to be a spokesperson for them. If they dont like the attention that will be focused on them, then they should let the RIAA know that they dont like them speaking for them!

Let the artists that allow the RIAA to speak for them, join the ranks of Metallica as sell-outs and the scourge of the music world!

We need to show our support for the un-fortunate fellow that has found himself to be the latest target of the RIAA.

- Jolly Roger.

- There is no greater disease than apathy.

Looks like MrOop will have a new friend here.

JLBRMECHANIC seems to share some of his views on the morality of file sharing. I would like to see a "non-confrontational" strictly professional, debate someday between MrOop and Mechanic, and lets say , Otaku and Fucary!

Now THERE would be the CAGE MATCH to end all cage matches!

- Jolly Roger.

BlueCollarJoe, I think i speak for a majority here when i say that for an artist that is in support of our cause, if he were being sued by the RIAA for the type of thing you are suggesting, im sure that we would all be willing to take up a donation to try to help him out.

- Jolly Roger.

- By the way, what ever became of the collection that was being talked about to help out the 12yo girl Brianna?

Yollie: "Charter Cable has you pay for digital music (built into the cable package). I pay $140 a month.
Isn't SOME of that money I pay them going to artists/entertainment industry?"

The short answer is: Probably not, but if any of it is, in its present state, the money you are paying is going right into the "war-chest" for the RIAA to use to sue you and the rest of the world! I would stop that part of my service right now...as it is another form of revenue that needs to be boycotted!

That being said, I would implore you to look at some of my other posts, I have suggested before that we need a system that offers the right to upload and download songs for a flat-rate fee added to your ISP bill each month. Check the Action Ideas forum for those threads.

- Jolly Roger.

- Is there a place I can find a picture of the members of the rogues gallery? I would like to practice my Darts. >

ahhh...the RIAA in my home court? (St Louis MO) interesting choice of cities, wonder why they are bothering us here in the midwest? oh well their search bots wont find anything on me or my humble box.... better tell my great-grandmother to watch out though(and she doesnt even own a computer)

that's okay svengali, they'll sue her anyhow, then drop the suit, just for the publicity. *smirk*
I'd like to see a list of the files the riaa says are being offered. Wonder how many of them are from riaa bands and/or how many are top 40.Hrmm. that didn't come out right. Lemme try again.
Do they search for The Rainmakers? BillyPilgrim? Hexerei? I'm guessing the bots are all searching for specific artists owned by the RIAA, not EVERy artist owned by them. This can only make our case stronger, as it shows a bias on the part of the beast. It shows they are specifically targeting people who offer/d.l those particular artists. Sounds to me like entrapment. I mean, if they were REALLY down on music sharing (I won't call it file sharing anymore.. that's LEGAL).. they would set their bots to catch every single damn instance of an mp3 or *choke* wmp file. That way they get an honest, and somewhat fair idea of what's being shared.
just my two cents.
ttmmm

I think the RIAA is just searching for files they are fairly sure they'll find on the *average* contemporary music fan's computer. They're looking for the most popular and most plentiful ones.

As for why St. Louis now? It's just part of their campaign of FUD. One of those "you're not safe anywhere" statements.

Hey Roger,
My argument isn't really a moral one. Honestly it isn't. I'm trying to look at it as business that's good for them, and good for us. I hate being labled a pirate becuase they themselves are using the word piracy way outta context. I also think the record company executives are scared shit. As soon as enough musicians realize that P2P is good, the record company executives will lose thier bread and butter. Payback's a bitch.

Peniophobia - fear of poverty

I think this might be RIAA's problem.

J-R: "Now THERE would be the CAGE MATCH to end all cage matches!"

Save me a pair of tickets...

heh, heh, heh...