Dept. of Justice sides with RIAA in MP3 File-Sharing Lawsuit

[jinjuku]

I work for a telephone/ISP/TV cable company that has about 15000 customers. While I mostly work in the outside plant engineering dept I talk with the guys in the ISP dept almost everyday. The RIAA and MPAA has sent us letters wanting to know the identity of our customers with certain IPs. We have not replied to any RIAA requests yet. We are waiting for official court ordered subpoenas before we turn over any customer information.

However we have came up with some interesting things in pre-examining the "wanted" customers on our system. Several IP addys the RIAA have tagged never was used by any of our customers. One IP addy was tagged by the MPAA for downloading a movie almost a year before the IP addy was put into use. Several IP addys did not have any suspicous downloads but were targeted due to sent and received e-mails with mp3 attachments, no matter if the mp3 was music or just random sounds.

And all that would come out in Discovery. The judicial system, even though left wanting, does work. I am glad you don't hand out that information except under court order. Just the way it should be.

I am also sure that you would much rather have the bandwidth you provide be used legitimately and not having it impact your customers that are not doing this.

BTW, I have worked for everything from dial up ISP's to TWC and Adelphia. All in the NOC.

 

[Sheep]

This thread is broken... it says there is a page 2, but it keeps going back to page one. My post should be the post that goes on the second page.

Anyway... I download music, through various programs, P2P networks, and torrents. To say that downloading music hurts the artists is just wrong. If everyone thought like that, we would not have invented the wheel.

Musicians get D*ck all from record labels through CD sales. By downloading CDs you stick it to the label, and you can go to concerts to support the band.

However, I only download CDs to sample the band. If I like them, I will buy the CD.

There is also other ways to sample songs, like www.imeem.com They have a large library of songs and videos and what not you can preview in order to form an Opinion. I prefer torrents due to the high download speed and better over all quality. Hate me all you want, it's legal in my country.

SheepStar

 

[jinjuku]

The main tenet of music sales is the win/win. Artist overwhelmingly do what they do as a desire and a calling. They still need to be rewarded for their efforts.

I am not willing to entertain the 'because RIAA does this, or MPAA does that' argument, that going and filching content is 'ok'. It isn't. Prudent people see that for what it is: simply an excuse to do something wrong. I shudder to think that parents are teaching this behavior to their children.

I am all for other means of music distribution that the artist can live with. Imeem is a great example. So is my library. They have a HUGE collection of music and movies. I have been watching: 30 Rock, Heroes Season 1, LOST, Band of Brothers, The Office etc... all through the local library. FREE! No commercials

I know that 'invention of the wheel' was brought up. What I would have said since RIAA is viewed as a dinosaur is: Necessity is the mother of invention: iTunes, Rhaphsody, Imeem, Radiohead, Napster. The market is alive and well with alternate forms of distribution and pricing that doesn't involve trampling on other peoples rights. At least here in the U.S.

 

[birdonthebeach]

Musicians get D*ck all from record labels through CD sales. By downloading CDs you stick it to the label, and you can go to concerts to support the band.
SheepStar

This is so incredibly ignorant...

 

[philh]

Local artist weighed in a couple of years ago. She said her CD sales went up significantly when she made her music available on her own web page. Seen several artists complain how little money they actually get from record labels, hence this particular artist is not associated with a label.

Personally I got tired of buying disks filled with junk music and two good songs. Industry was way too slow to the single piece purchase

 

[AdrianMills]

Speaking for those of us over here on the other side of the pond this 200K fine seems way over the top and I'm finding it difficult to comprehend how anyone can possibly justify that this amount fits the crime no matter if an initial settlement was refused or not.

And yes, I get that there are also interested outside parties involved that are "backing" her but that is irrelevant even if the jury were informed about these well heeled backers (why on earth would they be?)

It's not the first time that I have to shake my head at the litigious culture in the US. It boggles the mind. Really.

 

[WmAx]

This is so incredibly ignorant...

Personally, I would like to see the major labels bleed money and die a slow painful death. Out dated business model = irrelevant. The end result? You will have other (superior) sources to get your music. Probably better music, as well. Consider the current model of controlling artist work to fit statistically derived models, and control air play (preventing most real/innovative artists from being aired) through 'incentives' to corporate radio owners. Music is a desired product, therefor it will always find a way to be distributed even if the current major distributors all off of the face of the Earth.

-Chris

 

[sholling]

This about equal to instituting the death penalty for speeding. Let's have $10,000,000 fines for jaywalking - it's against the law. 70,000,000 for being late with a library book - per day. How about a $700,000,000,000,000 fine for operating a cartel like say RIAA? The United States Constitution bans excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. If we're tossing that aside what next the rack? Boiling in oil? Putting eyes out with hot pokers?

 

[3db]

This is so incredibly ignorant...

Noo, not ignorant. Just very blunt but accurate. Artists of teh futur will no longer onw the rights to their music. It is now soley owned by the record companies accoridng to the new bill that was passed by the US government. Its a very sad day for artists and just goes to show that the almight buck dictates what is right and not ethics.

Sheep, I heard that in 2008, it will be no longer to download music legally in Canada. Can you confirm this?

 

[jinjuku]

Local artist weighed in a couple of years ago. She said her CD sales went up significantly when she made her music available on her own web page. Seen several artists complain how little money they actually get from record labels, hence this particular artist is not associated with a label.

Personally I got tired of buying disks filled with junk music and two good songs. Industry was way too slow to the single piece purchase

You seem to be implying something... Could you simply come out and say it? It is PERFECTLY ok for an artist to make available their OWN works online. That is the WHOLE point. If their sales go up because the distribute them with some other licensing mechanism GREAT! But it still isn't ok to distribute another artists works when they have chose to place it under copyright.

 

[jinjuku]

This about equal to instituting the death penalty for speeding. Let's have $10,000,000 fines for jaywalking - it's against the law. 70,000,000 for being late with a library book - per day. How about a $700,000,000,000,000 fine for operating a cartel like say RIAA? The United States Constitution bans excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. If we're tossing that aside what next the rack? Boiling in oil? Putting eyes out with hot pokers?

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. You have an over the top reply with nothing substanative to say. Come back when your rights are trampeled upon and let me know how much they are worth. I am a software developer that for 5 years now poured my heart and soul into a few products and have had it stolen. I am in court with one of the $#!holes now. Cost me over $60K this year in lost revenue. It doesn't matter if I make $600K or $6 million. Some of you seem to intimate that since an artist has a ton of cash that it is some how 'ok'. It really isn't. It definately didn't help sales to have an unprotected, freely available version of our product out there.

Yes the Constituion does ban excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. This ain't it. 12 jurors awarded in the LOWEST 6th percentile of the award range. A jury took FIVE minutes to convict. 12 people that is a cross-section of Americana, a representation of 'The People' decided the award. I think you will find your opinion very much in the minority. Your opinion is not right, it's not wrong, but it is certainly not widely shared.

 

[jinjuku]

Noo, not ignorant. Just very blunt but accurate. Artists of teh futur will no longer onw the rights to their music. It is now soley owned by the record companies accoridng to the new bill that was passed by the US government. Its a very sad day for artists and just goes to show that the almight buck dictates what is right and not ethics.

Sheep, I heard that in 2008, it will be no longer to download music legally in Canada. Can you confirm this?

You are absolutely full of it. Artist don't have to enter into ANY contract with any label they don't want to.

 

[3db]

You are absolutely full of it. Artist don't have to enter into ANY contract with any label they don't want to.

Sounds like your a corporate kiss *** with no back bone to hold you upright.

Why pass a bill like that in the 1st place except to line the fat cat's wallet.

You disgust me!!

 

[AdrianMills]

Yes the Constituion does ban excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. This ain't it. 12 jurors awarded in the LOWEST 6th percentile of the award range. A jury took FIVE minutes to convict. 12 people that is a cross-section of Americana, a representation of 'The People' decided the award.

Yeah, you're right, there is no such thing as a successful frivolous lawsuit is there? Oh, wait, maybe there is.

 

[jinjuku]

Sounds like your a corporate kiss *** with no back bone to hold you upright.

Why pass a bill like that in the 1st place except to line the fat cat's wallet.

You disgust me!!

Slow down tiger... The only thing legistlation like that is going to do is benefit the independent labels...

 

[jinjuku]

Yeah, you're right, there is no such thing as a successful frivolous lawsuit is there? Oh, wait, maybe there is.

And your point in relation to the RIAA vs Thomas lawsuit is? Oh wait, absolutely nothing! Nothing frivolous about the lawsuit. It was a lawsuit that didn't even need to come about. Again, Americanitist: What MY fault?

There are always exceptions to the rule, thanks for pointing it out Mr. Obvious. Or is it Mr. Oblivious?

By the way, the lawsuit's that you linked to are urban myth. I have $100 dollars if you can find the actual docket # from lets say the Woman who threw the soft drink on the floor or the Terrance Dickerson case. PM me to collect. I will consider this last paragraph contractual between you and me. If you are able to do that I will post it all publicly with a picture of the $100 money order.

There is one thing that you now lack: Credibility. To think you became discredited all by your self.

 

[3db]

Slow down tiger... The only thing legistlation like that is going to do is benefit the independent labels...

True enough. Thats my thinking too. Its the principle behind the law passed that's bothering me. That industry has dealt artists a bad deal since its inception. I hope the RIAA suffers an agonizing death and I hope the indie producers don't follow suit of the old dinosaur.

 

[AdrianMills]

Actually, I thought my point was pretty much obvious but whatever dude, it seems like that chip on your shoulder is making you a little blind to common sense and it's usually pointless talking to people in that state of mind.

Merry Christmas.

And your point in relation to the RIAA vs Thomas lawsuit is? Oh wait, absolutely nothing! Nothing frivolous about the lawsuit. It was a lawsuit that didn't even need to come about. Again, Americanitist: What MY fault?

There are always exceptions to the rule, thanks for pointing it out Mr. Obvious. Or is it Mr. Oblivious?

By the way, the lawsuit's that you linked to are urban myth. I have $100 dollars if you can find the actual docket # from lets say the Woman who threw the soft drink on the floor or the Terrance Dickerson case. PM me to collect. I will consider this last paragraph contractual between you and me. If you are able to do that I will post it all publicly with a picture of the $100 money order.

There is one thing that you now lack: Credibility. To think you became discredited all by your self.

 

[jinjuku]

Actually, I thought my point was pretty much obvious but whatever dude, it seems like that chip on your shoulder is making you a little blind to common sense and it's usually pointless talking to people in that state of mind.

Merry Christmas.

Hold on a second, don't try back peddling now. You held out that poor excuse in all seriousness. I can back up what I say. You got called out on it. Don't like it, stay on the porch. I may have a chip on my folder, but you stuffed your foot in your mouth.

The arrogant Ms. Thomas brought all this down on herself. She is again the one that chose to share content. You need to read up a little bit about her before feeling any pity. She is hardley innocent in all of this. Yes, potentially distributing hundreds of thousands of copies of works that aren't yours just may net you a $220,000 fine. I wish that RIAA and the MPAA would also dry up and blow away. Doesn't mean I am going to go into the wrong to help make it happen.

 

[jinjuku]

True enough. Thats my thinking too. Its the principle behind the law passed that's bothering me. That industry has dealt artists a bad deal since its inception. I hope the RIAA suffers an agonizing death and I hope the indie producers don't follow suit of the old dinosaur.

You and I hope for the same thing...