Ten Colo. music swappers settle lawsuits for up to $4,000
By Erin Gartner, Associated Press
DENVER — At least 10 Coloradans accused of illegally downloading music have settled lawsuits brought against them by the recording industry, some paying as much as $4,000.

"The only reason I did was because I'd spend that much money in attorney's fees," said Brad Wise, a Highlands Ranch resident who settled his copyright suit for $2,814.30.

The settlements were made available Tuesday in U.S. District Court. Eight people settled for between $1,000 and $4,000 while two people were not ordered to pay. All agreed to not use the Internet to illegally download music in the future.

The Washington-based Recording Industry Association of America has filed at least 382 copyright suits across the country since September, when it began an aggressive campaign against online music piracy.

Complete Story

And all of these are after the RIAA v. Verizon decision? Could they have fought back, saying that they way the RIAA acquired their names was ruled illegal(for the time being at least) and possibly get the case dismissed? Kinda like when the police use dirty or illegal methods to get information, and they case gets dismissed?

And George, I didn't mean to insinuate that theory about copyright infringement was yours, I just went on a tangent about the RIAA and labels. I have a bad habit of doing that, sorry.

Suikio -- Don't worry about it.

while two people were not ordered to pay.

by whom? and why??

good question, compmore.

Here is another one: how is it determined how much each of the accused will pay when a settlement is reached? $1000 to $4000 seems like a healthy spread to me.

Bufo, probably by the sheer number of songs they grabbed.

Along the same lines as Bufo's question: Is calculating the settlement amount that much of an exact science that they had to tack 30 cents on to the end? Considering that the damage is supposedly worth 150k per song, that seems like a peculiar amount to settle for. Maybe they're pretending there's actually some kind of logic/reason behind their ways.

George - Do youhave any information about what kind of dollars the RIAA is getting from default judgments? They have a number of them at this point I am sure. It would be interesting if the amounts were low.

The problem is that no one wants to spend (or at least, risk spending) time and all the money on attorneys and lawyers to go to battle with these corrupted powermongers. We need one person to step up to the plate. To make it even better, have someone who actually has a lot of CDs (Both Indie and Label) every mp3 of every song of every CD he has in there and nothing else. Then "volunteer" for a lawsuit and let's go down that road.

"At least 10 Coloradans accused of illegally downloading music "
Previously, the RIAA went for the uploaders...through the illegal distribution theory....is this a typo by the original author?

It probably should say "uploading" or "making available"

~Code

Raoulduke1 .... I don't think any of the RIAA cases have gone the way of default judgments, where the accused never responded and it went to court..
I believe that all the cases were settlements...i.e. never went to court...
a default judgment would be a court ordered amount pursuant to the defendant not offering a defense and not responding...
~Code

You can read the story here courtesy of 9news. This is about all I've been able to find that's been publicly said.

http://www.9news.com/storyfull.aspx?storyid=22838

Damn links, ok read the story here,


DENVER (AP) - At least 10 Coloradans accused of illegally downloading music have settled lawsuits brought against them by the recording industry, some paying as much as $4,000.


"The only reason I did was because I'd spend that much money in attorney's fees," said Brad Wise, a Highlands Ranch resident who settled his copyright suit for $2,814.30.

The settlements were made available Tuesday in U.S. District Court. Eight people settled for between $1,000 and $4,000 while two people were not ordered to pay. All agreed to not use the Internet to illegally download music in the future.

The Washington-based Recording Industry Association of America has filed at least 382 copyright suits across the country since September, when it began an aggressive campaign against online music piracy.

At least 24 Coloradans have been named in such suits.

Court-issued subpoenas have compelled Internet providers, such as Comcast Cable Communications Inc., to identify their customers linked to the online accounts used to download songs.

Wise estimated that his son, who was attending Colorado State University in Fort Collins, downloaded about 1,300 songs while Wise was paying his son's bill for Comcast. The bill was in Wise's name.

"I told him if he ever did it again, I'd kill him," Wise said. "The bill is no longer in my name. It's in his name."

Most of the RIAA's cases have been settled. Record companies can legally demand $150,000 per song, but defense lawyers familiar with some of the cases have said penalties ranged from $2,500 to $7,500 each.

The lawsuits seem to be having their desired effect. The percentage of Americans who download music online has been cut in half, according to a report released Sunday by the Pew Internet & American Life Project and comScore Media Metrix, a Web tracking firm.


If you want to search for it go to


9news.com

let that be a lesson to all those who subscribe to internet service with comcast. They turned over a boat load of their customers without even being asked. Now they are on a major crusade here to drum up more customers. They have been putting kiosk in major stores trying to increase their subscription services. everytime I see one of them I make it a point to tell them why I won't be using them and I do it when there is a crowd of people around.

you're absolutely right Capt...

don't patronize companies that screw customers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Code - word on the street is that is incorrect. Numerous people have not responded and had defaults entered. The question is what were the amounts of the judgments.

Just be happy in knowing that occasionally some attorneys and judges get gunned down. Pigs.

hmmm i didn't think they could use that method anymore

i know its like 5 business day for peeps to get warning about movies now

raoulduke...I wouldn't be surprised if people had not responded and default judgments were entered...just have not heard of any...if you have any links or info on this...please let me know

If there was an attorney out there with the resources - and I don't mean an attorney out to make a name for theirselves, I would gladly be the test case. I have about 500 albums worth on my 'puter.

If there was an attorney out there with the resources - and I don't mean an attorney out to make a name for themselves, I would gladly be the test case. I have about 500 albums worth on my 'puter.

Hey Leflaw, you got any of these people in your countersuit?

You can ignore a subpoena but the courts have to tell you you are being sued. But collection is another matter. Talk to anyone who has sued and won, the easy part is court, collecting is another matter. The courts will not send police to collect, that is your problem. And if it is too much, you can ask a judge to reduce the judgement.

I do not believe anyone has actually gone to court. This is a ploy by the riaa to eliminate the supply without making much of a stir. I think that a large judgement would be counterproductive to the riaa ploy.

It should be interesting to see what will happen in light of the Verison decision. Now the riaa has actually got to go to court with lawyers and prove that there is something going on. Then you can defend yourself and still remain anonymus under a John Doe subpoena.
see this link - http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5130033.html

If there was an attorney out there with the resources - and I don't mean an attorney out to make a name for themselves, I would gladly be the test case. I have about 500 albums worth on my 'puter.

Why does the atty have to be rich?

I believe these people were sued and subpoenaed before the decision in the verizon case.

Have no fear!

I think the RIAA doesn't want to go after people who will fight them in court. It is easier and more to their advantage to go after those they know can't fight them...this way it generates fear in people and it also gets them quick, easy dirty money.

" Previously, the RIAA went for the uploaders...through the illegal distribution theory....is this a typo by the original author?"

It might just be a sign of the writer's lack of information on the subject.

It doesn't have anything to do with money.

The single objective of the lawsuit campaign is to scare people into leeching(downloading, but not sharing).

The RIAA knows that it can't even come close to suing enough people to make any kind of a difference, especially in light of the recent court decision.

Hell, at the current rate, it would take them 85,714 years to sue every P2P user in America.

I know I'd be more then happy to take them to court. They won't be able to gain any money and I have nothing to lose by standing up to them anyway. Worse case that can happen is I lose a computer and they can be replaced. I only have 1.050 songs but most are Pre 1971 and are also ripped from CD's too.

The Court decision some of you are talking about only applies to the Washington D.C. area and that is I believe the 9 th district court of appeals it's still open season for Riaa subpoena"s thur out the rest of the country!!!!!!!!!!!

Highlands Ranch is an upper middleclass neighborhood!!! The Riaa is getting close to the Rich folks now!!! Soon they will slip up and sue someone who has a lot of money and all of us will finally get our court test of their lawsuit and see if the lawsuits can be beat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or see if the Riaa gets a dollar for damages!!!!!!!!!! haha

n response of stilltrying comment on saying that the 9th circut appeals said it still open season. that is true 9th circuit did say that the riaa could use dmca to subpoena p2p users that was before the verizon decision and charter is appealing that decision to 9th appeals court and as far as I know they have not said anything. In that case I am no lawyer but I play one on tv No isp that has any balls will give up user infomation untill the 9th court appeals says they have to and for the other circuits there are 10 in the country each circuit will have to say they have too before isps will give custmer infomation to the riaa because isps know it is very bad for there bottom line.

Stilltrying,

wouldn't it be great if they was to sue Elway?...lol

I may have said it before in other contexts or forums, but I'll say it here: If any of those people who were cleaned out by the RIAA were, say, fighting among the Allies at the Battle of the Bulge when the Nazis surrounded them, we'd probably be speaking German today or have been turned into lampshades. (The RIAA might just as well send goons into people's homes, hog-tie them, and rob them at gunpoint then and there, the way they're going. It's only a matter of time before we get to that.)

Furthermore, the fact that those people surrendered without so much as an eon of a fight only further entrenches the forces of evil, tyranny, usurpation and enslavement against the masses, and makes the cause of freedom even more lost.

Conversely, if the RIAA tried to sue, say, Al Franken or Rosie O'Donnell, we'd probably have a different outcome in each case. (Just ask Fox News or Gruner + Jahr.)

And about this "desired effect" thing: Yeah. Like Fidel Castro's March 2003 crackdown on 75 Cuban dissidents. And I'll say THIS again: Because our bought-and-paid-for "guvmint" clearly supports this confiscatory, Bolshevik-style extortion-blackmail-coercion scheme, we have absolutely NO RIGHT OR BUSINESS lecturing other countries on democracy and human rights. Is it any wonder that the likes of Castro or Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, or other tyrants around the world (i.e. Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea) with absolutely sorry human rights records, are so blatantly able to thumb their noses at us and say "screw you" in so many words?

......and not to mention the fact that they are using illegal means to do so. RIAA breaks the law, and they are some of the worst hypocrites the world has ever seen. I may have to look up legal procedures to do this: but if they ever so much as though about trying to build a case on me.....my friend's grandfather is a good dern lawyer.....i wouldn't have to worry about such fees and i would gladly take these jerks to court. i would win. first off: it is illegal to delve through personal information on the internet without permission from the user or a warrant. i don't know if they have a warrant......if they do, they haven't posted it anywhere or announced it. they merely just said: "hey, we're gonna sue you.....and we're able to see what you have on your hard drive". that is illegal. the reason they haven't been challenged is b/c of their intelligible scare tactics. that is why they don't want people to discuss exactly what they say when they catch you. even by settling with them, you're making up for a great deal of their "financial losses of cd sales". might as well fight with them and see where and how you can hurt them the easiest.....and.......the MOST. im not afraid. I have rights as a citizen of the U.S. If anything, im sure a government who isn't too hesitant in changing the laws in their favor when they break it would suffer too badly if they changed those old copyright laws to where people could download stuff and take a piss in the eye of the RIAA. the reason the government is hesitant is b/c the RIAA probably has connections throughout our nation in places we wouldn't believe. they are all highly influential and have too much power over regular citizens of the U.S. - this has already clearly been demonstrated.

oh yeah.......i forgot to add.......i use kazaalite k++.......and im very sure the RIAA has found a way to secrety cut the connections/bandwidth down tremendously to keep us from using it and discourage downloading. there are still a few million online.......but i have dsl, and im downloading on supposedly high bandwidth at an average speed of 1.50 kb/sec.

2 months ago, i never had such problems. something is fishy. so that "cutting downloads in half" thing is most likely a tactic they used to make it look like they are the right ones. they have the means to do it.......the courts are mainly on their side: so why wouldn't they? i know 100% if they knew they could get away with it, they would. no one would ever be able to find out.

I don't think the RIAA wants to screw with JOHN ELWAY Cap those SuperBowl rings leave one hell of an impression on your face!!!!!!! haha Captin D you must be from Colorado?????