WASHINGTON (AP) -- The embattled music industry disclosed plans
Wednesday for an unprecedented escalation in its fight against
Internet piracy, threatening to sue hundreds of individual computer
users who illegally share music files online.
The Recording Industry Association of America, citing
significant sales declines, said it will begin Thursday to search
Internet file-sharing networks to identify music fans who offer
"substantial" collections of mp3 song files for downloading.
It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking
financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.
Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group
that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a
user's computer might qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes
just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet
providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing
music and movie files.
The RIAA's president, Carey Sherman, said tens of millions of
Internet users of popular file-sharing software after Thursday will
expose themselves to "the real risk of having to face the music."
"It's stealing. It's both wrong and illegal," Sherman said.
Alluding to the court decisions, Sherman said Internet users who
believe they can hide behind an alias online are mistaken. "You
are not anonymous," Sherman said. "We're going to begin taking
names."
Shopping at a Virgin Megastore in San Francisco, Jason Yoder was
planning to delete file-sharing software he uses from his home
computer because of the new lawsuit threat. He acknowledged using
the Internet recently to find a copy of a rare 1970s soul
recording, but he agreed that illegal downloads should be
curtailed.
"It's sort of like a serial drunk driver has to have their
license taken away at some point," said Yoder, 30.
Country songwriter Hugh Prestwood, who has worked with Randy
Travis, Tricia Yearwood and Jimmy Buffett, likened the effort to a
roadside police officer on a busy highway.
"It doesn't take too many tickets to get everybody to obey the
speed limit," Prestwood said.
Critics accused the RIAA of resorting to heavy-handed tactics
likely to alienate millions of Internet file-sharers.
"This latest effort really indicates the recording industry has
lost touch with reality completely," said Fred von Lohmann, a
lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Does anyone think
more lawsuits are going to be the answer? Today they have declared
war on the American consumer."
Sherman disputed that consumers, who are gradually turning to
legitimate Web sites to buy music legally, will object to the
industry's latest efforts against pirates.
"You have to look at exactly who are your customers," he said.
"You could say the same thing about shoplifters -- are you worried
about alienating them? All sorts of industries and retailers have
come to the conclusion that they need to be able to protect their
rights. We have come to the same conclusion."
Mike Godwin of Public Knowledge, a consumer group that has
challenged broad crackdowns on file-sharing networks, said
Wednesday's announcement was appropriate because it targeted users
illegally sharing copyrighted files.
"I'm sure it's going to freak them out," Godwin said. "The
free ride is over." He added: "I wouldn't be surprised if at
least some people engaged in file-trading decide to resist and try
to find ways to thwart the litigation strategy."
The entertainment industry has gradually escalated its fight
against piracy. The RIAA has previously sued four college students
it accused of making thousands of songs available for illegal
downloading on campus networks. But Wednesday's announcement was
the first effort to target users who offer music on broadly
accessible, public networks.
The Motion Picture Association of America said it supported the
efforts, but notably did not indicate it plans to file large
numbers of civil lawsuits against Internet users who trade movies
online.
MPAA Chief Jack Valenti said in a statement it was "our most
sincere desire" to find technology solutions to protect digital
copies of movies.
Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who has proposed giving the
entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated
music and movies, said the RIAA's actions were overdue. "It's
about time," Berman said in a statement. "For too long ...
file-traffickers have robbed copyright creators with impunity."
The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against
people with the largest collections of music files they can find
online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000
for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman
said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.

I'm not scared as a person that trades music, I'm scared as a person who loves music and the industry as a whole.

Slave2daGroove said:

Yep, this from an industry that rips off its artists.

I posted this earlier on NPGMC forums. I am so sick of the RIAA and the music industry as a whole. I used to record musicians and used to think back then that things sucked. Now, they are just WAY out of control. For what it is worth, here are my thoughts...

===

Seems to me the RIAA is asking for a world of hurt. Hit the wrong people and there may be huge counter-suits, bad press, hackers will take over all of their sites, and on and on... Just wait until they sue some lawyer.

As for downloading music, I personally hate Kazza and the likes. I would rather spend my time listening to my CDs in high quality than scouring the 'net to find the songs that I want. I think the music industry is a criminal organization in respect to how they abuse the artists as well as the fans, but that does not mean you should steal from them. I might not like the price of gasoline for my car and think the oil companies are corrupt, but I have no right to just pull up the the gas station and steal gas either. That is why I buy all of my music. I hate the prices, but it is the right thing to do.

Record companies need to actually listen to the hand that feeds them - us. If they did that, changed their ways, offered electronic downloads of out-of-print material (like Apple's iTunes Store) and just treated everyone with respect, people would buy their music. It is so simple really. Instead, this will spew more theft and resistance. When I stop and think of all of the lost revenue from thier mis-management and lack of "changing with the times", I am amazed that they don't see this.

The reason for their loss of revenue is NOT the downloading of MP3s. If you took away downloads, people would just resort to the old-fashioned methods like borrow and record CDs and record from the radio for free (which, by the way, is legally protected under the Home Recording Act of 1992). There are a group of people out there that never will buy anything no matter what - even for a penny. They seem to confuse that with lost sales. How can they be lost if they never would have happened anyway? How do you even measure that?

The real problem is their business model. They have artificially inflated CD album prices, killed the single, and done everything in their power to get people to want to screw them and steal music. If they had their way, you would pay for each listen of a song. If I owned a label and had revenue losses like that, you bet I would take a step back and try to figure out what is really happening. We are talking BIG money here. Unfortunately, they think this kind of crap (lawsuits) actually does something.

Every day, more and more artists record without a major label. They are realizing that the new medium is the Internet. We no longer really need record labels. Soon, they will be extinct (as we know them today). Only in the end will they understand. I guess ignorance in not bliss in this case...

holy shit. My Grokster days are over.

Scare tactic? I am scared actually. With my luck, they'd find me in the midst of millions and sue me.

I've just removed all files from the folder I share on Grokster. And no, I will not download Ginuiwine's In Those Jeans, even though I like that song, but not enough to buy the album.


Man, I'm angry. I don't consider this equal to driving up to a gas station, stealing gas, and then driving off without paying. This is like my cousin buying a CD, then allowing me to copy it so I won't have to spend my money.

Sooner or later, if a like the album, I'll get rid of my crappy copy and buy a legit recording.

I'm not going to be forced into buying high priced albums because of this.

Damn! I'm sooo mad, how can they stop others from sharing music with me!!!

I do want artists to be paid,but come on. I have hundreds of CDs. Downloaders still buy sometimes.

Sidewinder said:

Awesome points! Another thread was started in GD. Check it out!

http://www.prince.org/msg...&tid=53384

stymie said:

YES!!!

I wish they'd stop assuming that every person who uses P2P networks is doing it for the wrong reasons. I have never downloaded a full album, then burned it onto CD. I go out and buy it. I download stuff to discover new music. If it wasn't for Napster and WinMX, I wouldn't have bought as many CDs as I have these past couple of years.

Raven said:

WORD