dslreports logo
RIAA Just Can't Stop Suing
Because to stop existing cases just wouldn't be fair...
The RIAA was criticized last week for continuing to sue P2P file traders, despite claims that they were turning the page on such heavy-handed tactics. While some might simply call this dumb, Ars Technica hunts for a more complicated answer, asking three sources why the RIAA is still in court and getting three answers. One entertainment industry attorney argues that the RIAA doesn't want to drop cases en masse because it could anger the courts and hurt future cases. The EFF argues that the RIAA simply doesn't want to admit error. The RIAA? They say it's about fairness:
quote:
"We're obviously pleased to transition to a new program going forward but that doesn't mean we can give a free pass to those who downloaded music illegally in the past," (says RIAA Spokesperson Jonathan Lamy). "How fair would it be to the thousands of individuals who took responsibility for their actions and settled their case while others are let off the hook? We're still in the business of deterrence and it must be credible."
Nothing quite says credibility like filing thousands of suits against your customers based on flimsy or non-existent evidence, then claiming you'll stop doing so -- only to continue the cases in the name of fairness.
view:
topics flat nest 

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

1 recommendation

dadkins

MVM

Downloading?


Downloading is not illegal, the uploading/sharing is a no-no.

No wonder they keep choking and puking - they cant even keep it straight themselves!

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Downloading?

said by dadkins:

Downloading is not illegal, the uploading/sharing is a no-no.

No wonder they keep choking and puking - they cant even keep it straight themselves!
If you're downloading torrents 9/10 times you're uploading too.

otty
join:2008-10-24
Revelstoke, BC

otty

Member

Re: Downloading?

True but much of music sharing is not done by torrent. That's for bigger files (movies and tv).

pfak
Premium Member
join:2002-12-29
Vancouver, BC

pfak

Premium Member

Re: Downloading?

Uh huh. OiNK, the largest private music file sharing site wasn't BiTorrent?

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: Downloading?

Music files are so small there is no point to a torrent site for music.

I never downloaded music with a torrents site. Actually the best thing to use to download music is google.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA

NormanS to pfak

MVM

to pfak
I have never used OiNK. I have download, maybe, four complete albums using BitTorrent. At least as much with a standard web browser. Most of my downloading, nearly 1 TB in the last four years, has been animated TV shows.

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

dadkins to fifty nine

MVM

to fifty nine
I don't use BT.
DDL is much better!
And no, when downloading I never upload.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Downloading?

Then (here's the other side of the coin):

You're a leech! Leechers are killing p2p!

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

dadkins

MVM

Re: Downloading?

said by fifty nine:

Then (here's the other side of the coin):

You're a leech! Leechers are killing p2p!
Here's something for you - DDL!
I don't do P2P!
I download from servers!

Rookie!

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

battleop

Member

Re: Downloading?

I still don't understand the love of bittorrent. It's slow and a resource (connection wise) hog. I have tried BT from time to time and have never been happy with it compared to NNTP. I tired to download a NIN album a few days ago using BT and after an hour I decided to hell with it and grabbed it in under 5 minutes via giganews.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: Downloading?

Yeah, that's always been a problem. NNTP seems to be getting easier to use while bittorrent just gets more annoying.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984 to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
Bit torrent slow?
You are obviously a Newb.
Especially since you pay for newsgroup access.

Cthen
Premium Member
join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI

Cthen

Premium Member

Re: Downloading?

They defiantly noobs, how is BT slow when I can max my full DL speed with BT?

Takes them over an hour to DL an album? Hell takes me less time using the same method to get my hands on a Blu-Ray title.

Lol yeah, noobs!

knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN

knightmb to battleop

Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

I still don't understand the love of bittorrent. It's slow and a resource (connection wise) hog. I have tried BT from time to time and have never been happy with it compared to NNTP. I tired to download a NIN album a few days ago using BT and after an hour I decided to hell with it and grabbed it in under 5 minutes via giganews.
BT is a tit for tat system, so if you set your upload to nothing, you get almost nothing in return. On the flip side, if your computer/firewall/router/whatever can't handle a lot of connections or can't map any inbound ports, you'll have poor performance as well since no one can connect to you to exchange data and you can't connect to them. BT is the fastest way to get files large or small because paying for a web server that has 100 M/bs speed cost too much, but put together enough clients and you'll quickly get a large speed boost. I have yet to see any web server do more than 9 M/bs on downloads, but I can easily max BT to over 20 M/bs with about 300 simultaneous connections.

Most routers usually choke on that though, another limitation for BT is poor,cheap routers that can't handle a lot of connections at once, that may also be your bottleneck. Then finally, down to the ISP, if they doing something to BT, that could also explain slow performance. Use the encryption setting to get around that.

Basically BT works really well until you factor in all the groups and people that are working against it, LOL.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: Downloading?

I am in control of the ISP part (I work for one) so it's more likely my firewalls that are causing the problem since I have never opened anything up for BT. I am content with the 60Mbps+ I get from giganews so I probably won't put much effort into opening anything up.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA

NormanS to battleop

MVM

to battleop
Interesting. I don't use BT on music, for the most part. A couple of anime soundtrack albums were offered, though, and downloaded in minutes.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to battleop

Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

I still don't understand the love of bittorrent. It's slow and a resource (connection wise) hog. I have tried BT from time to time and have never been happy with it compared to NNTP. I tired to download a NIN album a few days ago using BT and after an hour I decided to hell with it and grabbed it in under 5 minutes via giganews.
If you have a good firewall/router, bittorrent is pretty good. I get pretty good DL speeds when downloading (Linux ISOs of course!!! ) but that's because I front my network with pfSense and not a Linksys router.
geowil
join:2008-04-20
Laveen, AZ

geowil to battleop

Member

to battleop
BT is all about your upload speed and how many seeders are active and how fast they are uploading.

for the most part anyway.

I can usually pull about 400 to 600 kbps while downloading Bleach and Naruto from [DB].

overall though I get maybe 200 to 700 kbps as an avarage, with outliers of course, those being 0kbps and the high being 1.5 mbps for a single download.

if you connection is good, above 5/2 mbps, you have your ports forwarded for tcp/upd, and you have your upload speed around 20 to 40kbps, then your downloads should fly.

Sean K
@rogers.com

Sean K to battleop

Anon

to battleop
Depends on your setup. Sometimes, some network configs are out of your control, but if you are some of the lucky many who have been able to configure their network properly, nothing beats BT. Last night I was downloading the latest episode of 24 only 2 hours after it aired at 600 KBs and uploading it at 1.2 MBs.

Granted, Ive never used BitTorrent for single MP3 files. Mainly because I dont know where to look, and also because other alternatives work pretty good (Google, Frostwire, etc).

james16
join:2001-02-26

james16 to fifty nine

Member

to fifty nine
One could argue that when you're downloading via torrent you're sharing as an unintentional byproduct of your actions, acting almost as a caching or proxy server would on a network. Furthermore you aren't uploading an entire functional file in most cases, so if a court actually looked at the exact data you transmitted, it may not be able to charge you with anything as what you transmitted is not usable or viewable (depends upon the format, mp3s would still work partially, but .rar files wouldn't for example).

You couldnt really make that same argument for seeders and definitely not for the original uploader though.
dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Crystal Lake, IL

dfxmatt to fifty nine

Member

to fifty nine
This is something that hasn't been addressed by courts. It's something that easily will not hold legal muster, the "you're uploading if you're downloading" especially "parts of a file".

Mostly because its not a complete file that has been uploaded the. These laws and all that require actual uploading/evidence. Otherwise this is like "you have a piece of glass and I am accusing you of making a bong with it".

canesfan2001
join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

3 edits

canesfan2001 to dadkins

Member

to dadkins
I never really understood that, it seems to me like the opposite would be true. Making it available to others doesn't seem like a crime to me, its a crime when the copying occurs, which is initiated by the by the person who copies, of course then you would have to prove that the downloader intended to download a copyrighted work and didn't just download it and realize it wasn't what they intended. I definitely agree that there is crime occurring, but who and how you prove it are more difficult questions.

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

dadkins

MVM

Re: Downloading?

If there was no source available for uploading, there could be no download.
One uploader can(theoretically) distribute to millions of people.
In actuality, 10-20 is the most any one uploader ever gets hit for an entire upload.

Millions sounds grander though.
You will see descriptors used quite often.
Possibly, potentially... never actual numbers.
I have had things available before - rarely did I see anyone request them - and when I dod see it, it was *NEVER* millions!
5 - 10, once or twice - a million? LOL! No.

canesfan2001
join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

canesfan2001

Member

Re: Downloading?

Here's the thing, I understand that one uploader can be involved in more incidents of one copyrighted work being infringed, but that doesn't make it the crime.

To draw from the tired VCR analogy, just because you make the crime possible, doesn't make you the criminal.

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

1 recommendation

dadkins

MVM

Re: Downloading?

Distribution - the part of copyright that irks the xxAAs.
They like to claim lost sales in the hundreds to millions.
They also like to charge $10,000 per song.

VCR got shot down. Recording isn't a crime.
Just as downloading isn't a crime.
Mass producing something is what they want to bitch about.

Me opening a folder to the world they consider mass distribution - regardless of the actual amount of people pulling the file... if any!
Downloading can happen from all kinds of sources, including private, protected, FTP, and even good ole RapidShare.

Downloading isn't the crime, making available is - so they say.

footballdude
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

1 recommendation

footballdude to canesfan2001

Premium Member

to canesfan2001
said by canesfan2001:

I never really understood that, it seems to me like the opposite would be true. Making it available to others doesn't seem like a crime to me, its a crime when the copying occurs
That's the way the music/movie people would like it, but fair use allows you to copy things for your own use. It's distributing to others that is a violation of the law. If this were not the case, you wouldn't be allowed to use a vcr or even a tape recorder with a radio built in. The **IAs don't control the music/movies, the control the distribution of music/movies. Otherwise any Schmoe could just make copies of music/movies and sell them in the mall without paying royalties.

canesfan2001
join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

canesfan2001

Member

Re: Downloading?

Forgive me for not making the what-I-thought-was-obvious exception for personal use copies.
I'm merely stating that when you copy something that doesn't belong to you and keep it, that would be a reasonable definition of a crime.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to footballdude

Member

to footballdude
said by footballdude:

said by canesfan2001:

I never really understood that, it seems to me like the opposite would be true. Making it available to others doesn't seem like a crime to me, its a crime when the copying occurs
That's the way the music/movie people would like it, but fair use allows you to copy things for your own use.
provided you PAID for the orginal source to begin with. If back in the day you dubed you cassette tape you paid for, that was prefectly legal. If you let your friend borrow your tape so he could dub it that always has been illegal for BOTH of you to do.

footballdude
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

footballdude

Premium Member

Re: Downloading?

said by 88615298:

provided you PAID for the orginal source to begin with.
Nope. You can legally tape things off the radio and television that you didn't pay a dime for. You just can't turn around and distribute those tapes to friends.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to canesfan2001

MVM

to canesfan2001
Copyright is about reserving control of distribution of 'intellectual property' to the owners of the property. If the owners reserved the right to be sole distributors, or licensed a distributor, and you are neither the owner of the property, or the licensed distributor, you are in violation of the law.

nixie21
Premium Member
join:2004-08-19
Harrington Park, NJ

nixie21 to dadkins

Premium Member

to dadkins
Is this true? I was never sure about this..Downloading is not a crime?

••••••

cypherstream
MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA

cypherstream to dadkins

MVM

to dadkins
What if you use Peer Guardian and keep it up to date. So you never upload evidence to the RIAA.

•••••

Pirate515
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY

Pirate515 to dadkins

Premium Member

to dadkins
said by dadkins:

Downloading is not illegal, the uploading/sharing is a no-no.
Downloading is actually illegal as well; however, catching those who download only is difficult and/or impractical. Uploaders, on the other hand, are a lot easier to track down and catch, and once caught, they can be charged with unauthorized distribution, which is a far more serious offense than simply downloading. Then given the seriousness of the offense, most of these uploaders are very easily scared into settling.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

2 edits

Transmaster

Member

Damn

I just had the feeling I have just stepped in a soft warm pile of aromatic puppy crap. and I can feel it squising up between the toes at the same time the smell hits me. What must it be like to be a member of such a well loved organization
Rob_
Premium Member
join:2008-07-16
Mary Esther, FL

Rob_

Premium Member

why?

they are the thieves, the people need to wake up. stop buying their products, the RIAA is no longer needed.

-Rob

odnc
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Richmond, VA

odnc

Premium Member

Why?

Why, with to-day's technology, do artists sign on with a record label?

•••••••••

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel

Member

Well, duh...

If they don't understand "fair" use, then one really shouldn't expect them to understand "fair"-ness either... it just wouldn't be "fair" to expect that.

Logan 5
What a long strange trip its been
Premium Member
join:2001-05-25
San Francisco, CA

1 recommendation

Logan 5

Premium Member

I corrected the quote from the original article....

It had some 'errors'....
said by some RIAA Stooge :
"How fair would it be to the thousands of individuals who took responsibility for their actions we coerced under direct threat of prison time and settled their case while others are let off the hook? We're still in the business of deterrence extortion and it must be credible."

The Gnome
join:2008-01-27
USA

1 recommendation

The Gnome

Member

One-Click Hosting

I don't download music from torrents, that's a pain in the butt.

one-click hosting such as Rapidshare, Megaupload, Mediafire, etc. are the way to go.

If those guys want to stop music piracy, well lower cds prices.

LOL

mdaddyrabbit
Premium Member
join:2004-02-05
Clinton, NC

mdaddyrabbit

Premium Member

Who Cares?

Who cares what is shared....? This is the same argument that was staged when the VCR came out and what did it accomplish. The record industry as well as the movie industry should find ways to reinvent themselves. Its a known fact that for a business to be successful it must diversity or it will die. There are other ways to capitalize on music and entertainment. I could not give a rat's a$$ what anyone does. I personally have always thought the tapes, CD's and DVD movies were over priced. Everyone can't afford these items of entertainment. Dadkins comments as well as some others here are dead on. The RIAA will never succeed with this endeavor. They waited to late to start and have too many battles to fight to win the war. Take for instance when DVD-X-Copy got sued and finally gave in; what if anything did this accomplish, there are more programs out there now that copy DVD's than ever before. The point is music came out before DVD and is was copied then with dual tape cassette decks, DVD's came out and were copied by computer. Bit torrent, P2P, and any other ways to pull files down will always exist. Some retarded bunch of good-doers won't stop it or actually slow it down.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA

2 recommendations

NormanS

MVM

Re: Who Cares?

Most other businesses understand "adapt or die"...
karsan2007
join:2007-01-28
Glendale, CA

karsan2007

Member

RIAA

I am not using a bt I am using a legal music service like real Rahpspody it wrong with using a legal music service to listen to music I pay 15.00 a month for it.

mdaddyrabbit
Premium Member
join:2004-02-05
Clinton, NC

mdaddyrabbit

Premium Member

Redirection

It's amazing how things work in our lives today. The RIAA is actively hunting down people that download and upload music. At this point, what will it accomplish, can they totally wipe it out? I don't think so! The act of pulling down music is here to stay. If the RIAA wants to help society why don't they go after the dead beats that use the system to manipulate government help. The free stuff that goes out to people that are as able to work as me but collect government assistance while sitting on their butts all day downloading some of this music. More and more of these dead beats jump on the bandwagon everyday to collect free income. The RIAA is a group of people that need to find a different way of generating income.

non lawyer too
@arcor-ip.net

non lawyer too

Anon

you non lawyers are all wrong!

those of you that are in the US of A and claim that downlaoding is not a crime/illegal are simply dead wrong!

Google "Net-Act". The No Electronic Theft Act which makes DOWNLOADING for personal use also illegal.
That's why Harvard Charlie is battleing at the moment for Tenenbaum where he claims that it is unconstitutional that the enforcement of a criminal statute is putin the hand of a private entity the RIAA.

On the other hand only "making available" is NOT a crime in the US of A. Your copyrightlaw does not know an exclusive making available right at the moment. Some european countries have such exclusive right enumerated into their -recently by EVIL4 bought- copyright laws. But the US of A has not. See for yourself!
»www4.law.cornell.edu/usc ··· 00-.html

Ray Beckerman
@verizon.net

Ray Beckerman

Anon

Letter to congressional committees

Here is the letter to several congressional committees, where they falsely represented: "we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August":



»recordingindustryvspeopl ··· 86648210

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958

Premium Member

BT is stupid

I pretty much do as Dadkins does also. Strictly download from servers and NEVER upload stuff and I am NOT a leech as NONE of my downloading is done from ANY individual.

Have tried BT a few times. I consider that the NOOB way of getting stuff. Rookies!!
Gongo19
join:2002-02-09
Calgary, AB

Gongo19

Member

Apples and Oranges

A high resolution photograph is equal to that same photograph printed on newspaper in a newspaper? At what pixel resolution does this comparison become a ridiculous joke?!? The same can be argued for music. Are they going to say that recording monophonic music on cassette tapes from AM radio broadcasts while building a collection is the same thing as stealing brand new unopened compact discs off the shelf in a retail store? Forgive me while I cough and choke on that.
A trend recently has seen some people returning to vinyl in favor of good old higher quality sound. Would they be doing this if they hadn't been bombarded with all of this low resolution music coming from I-Tunes and satellite radio??? Bit rates below 128 are absolutely insulting to me as well as completely embarrassing considering our advanced technology these days. Straight off of the CD, at a bit rate of over 1500, almost nobody complains its 'jagged'. Even at a 320 bit rate, seldom would likely complain... but how low can you go? Bandwidth costs money, so they've set the bar as low as they figure that they can get away with and you're supposed to like it. I say it's not nearly good enough but that is indeed my opinion. I suppose if people were downloading 32 bit rate music files that they'd still want to sue their asses off and haul them all off to jail (for Frank's sake).
Why can't they simply celebrate all of this mass free promotion that they get from all of these low resolution promos floating around. People may even find the music grows on them and seek out the album in its full and finest form, not to mention all of the free promotion they supply when they rant and rave and suggest to all of their friends that they go out and buy it as well. Oh and as far as paying a dollar for a cheap crummy I-tune, I'm not that rich or even half that foolish.