my personal friend's parents were one of the 261 victims of the riaa. here's his rant about the whole thing. when will the record industry get it? when something like the chicago sountrack cd is only 2$ less than the chicago dvd... you think suing your customers will make them want the cd more?


-----Original Message-----
From: Laurent Piol
Subject: RIAA SUBPOENA BULLSHIT


Greetings Everyone,

As a few of you have known or may have read in newspapers and over the Internet, RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has launched "SUE 'EM ALL" campaign in which people who use such music trading programs called Kazaa, Morpheus, Grokster, etc. etc. will be sued for the copy right infringement [censored]. Last Monday the 8th of September, the RIAA started subpoenaing those who were basically supplying music to others to download off of the trading programs. In the whole USA, 261 subpoenas were sent out to those who had over 1000 files and such in their programs to share. Of 261 subpoenas, 24 were sent to LA county. Of those 24, 1 was sent to my parent's residence. They are being subpoenaed cause of people downloading from our computer. The funny part is that we've stopped using Kazaa for quite some time now ever since it had been announced that RIAA would sue whoever was still using it. But the problem was that every time anyone turned on the computer, KAZAA automatically popped up. My brother and I were in Huntington Beach and didn't realize this. And that's how this whole misbegotten mess began.

Now, the reason for my e-mail is not only to warn all you KAZAA users that it CAN happen to any of us, but also to ask for your help. I am angry! I am truly angry! I am angry that these RIAA people could actually stoop so low as to go off and sue anyone and everyone. Just lately, a 12 year old girl had to settle with RIAA and paid a sum of $2000 dollars. There will be many more like her. And then there are us folk who just didn't even know it was going on until we realized we were being sued?no warning no nothing. My parents are a mess, my brother is stressed to hell, and I'm just plain ANGRY! I am not going to stand for this! I may have downloaded music, but I've also bought the CDs of the artist that I really like?and there just aren't many of those now a days. One good song and the rest of their damned CD sucks! Plus these CDs are like 16-20 bucks a pop. And how much of that actually does go to the artist? About 2 cents from what I've heard. They should do more concerts anyways! But if their suffering, imagine the people who they'll be sueing. We could be sued for as much as "$150,000 for each song downloaded." As if they don't have enough money, they are going to take what little money we have! And the worst part about this is that these are my PARENTS! Any loving child would sympathize with me when it comes to your parents. It weren't even responsible for any of this. But to the RIAA, they don't care, as long as they get your money and [censored] you over!!!!! If I or my family are to go down, I am going to take those assholes down with me. I know this is a lot of wishful thinking, but I am going to do what I can do. What am I asking? I ask that we stand against these pigs and hit them where it hurts! No mass murders or anything?.just stop buying their CDs. Stop supporting their campaign against us normal people. I just can't let them do this to me and my family. If you guys can help me with that, it would be great. I mean I've never been a real political person or so defiant as to send out such an e-mail. But what I am is angry! And my blood is boiling. They call this place the land of the free, and for the longest time I believed it. But now, it's become the land of the greed and I'm not gonna stand around and let another family go down as my family may. And whether this works or not, at least I tried.

So to end, I ask that you pray for myself and my family and hopefully this does all blow over and maybe I'm mistaken about this whole ordeal. But if not, I've got a tough road to face and will need your support to make it through. If anyone has any information or even knows of anyone or any lawyers than can help us out, please let me know. I have here a link to BOYCOTT-RIAA which better explains their cause of boycotting RIAA. It helped open my eyes to all of this. Here also is the article in which my parents were interviewed about the RIAA and the subpoena http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/2466052/detail.html .

Thanks for listening and for all the help. If you like, please forward a shorter version to others and maybe I stand a chance in making some sort of a difference. But regardless, thanks for your time.

LP

Support the EFF. And they might actually be able to help. They have a couple of top-shot cyber-lawyers.

While I have little time for the RIAA, I do wonder how people can be surprised that they are facing consequences for carrying out mass piracy in such a public way. People have shared music with their friends since the invention of the cassette and that activity is even accommodated within legislation and media taxation in many cases - but putting over a thousand tracks on the net for anyone in the world to help themselves seems like a pretty stupid thing to do.

I'm not sure I could say that the Napster generation is any less greedy or unprincipled than the RIAA.

Rob

Well said Rob.

In my mind, it's an extension of the community cooperation that exists in open-source software. Sure, there are going to be leeches who never do anything other than take, but many people are looking to help out other folks.

Not all of us can or even want to buy a CD based on nothing more than a single, or even on a print review. But if all your friends feel the same way, how are you supposed to ever hear the rest or any of it? It might be the best thing you've ever heard, but if you never have the chance to hear it, then you'll never know.

If the RIAA combined their argument against unfettered distribution with some idea that people could really listen to the music before they buy it, they might be taken more seriously. But the closest they've come is presented as a way to restrict what we've already got, not a way to create what we don't have. Time-restricted demos make sense. Suing 12-year-olds does not. (It also seems at this point that they're targeting minors in hopes that their parents will capitulate instead of going after folks who might want to stand up for what they believe their rights to be, but that's another point altogether.)

I don't really disagree with what you say, but I think there are several other sides to it.

There's a lot to this whole mess that is just isn't coming to play.

Beware, this is going to be a long post.

First off, it's been pretty much established, that if you don't know something is happening on your computer it isn't your fault. We've seen this in cases where people had child porn, and they blamed it on a virus and got off. Or in the case of a virus, if you get one, it isn't your fault that your box was used in a DDoS.

Many people don't know that Kazaa searches their hard drive for ANY usable media, and places it for sharing. Either downloaded, or legitimately ripped. These companies that produce these programs also have very shady business practices, and it comes along in the software (I mean come on, these guys are promoting piracy, no matter how you look at it). And due to these shady practices, these people don't know that there's spy ware going on the system, that it's sharing every single file on their hard drive, or that it installs something that allows Kazaa to sell your computer to be used in a Distributed Computing system.

Not everyone is as geeky, and computer savvy, and reads the EULA and readme’s like we do. But yet, we can't say that "ignorance is bliss" either, cause if that was the case, then anyone could get off any crime by saying they didn't know what they were doing was wrong (which a lot of people are saying in this). So where is the line drawn on things like this?

Well first off, the media has been reporting that these are music DOWNLOADERS, which is not correct. In general, these are music sharers. Whether they downloaded something or not cannot be proven in a court of law, as there is no method to see who downloaded what. You can only see what songs someone is having if they are sharing. So it's the nice people that share their songs that are getting raped here, not the ass holes that don't want to get caught, and have a [censored] load of Pirated MP3's. The RIAA also needs to go after huge piracy groups like RNS, that release high quality (unlike the crap you get on Kazaa), full CD's, usually a week before they hit the shelves. They have an internal leak, that leads to full albums getting posted to newsgroups.

The point is, is that it isn't these people that are sharing MP3's that should be sued, but they are. They only reason that they are, is that this is the only way the RIAA has any evidence to state that they downloaded something, which may, or may not be the case.

But hey, I'm just a low life, in general, Pirate.

Arr! baby.

removed some misc crap

I agree with you 100%, Rob. What is truly amazing is how many people I speak with are mystified when I use the word "illegal" about Napster and its kind. I kind of get the "well, that's what you think, but I have no problem with it" kind of reaction. And moreover, these are people who have no desire to buy any music at all if they can get it for free. I've tried to point out more than once that this is stealing, but I just get a shrug of the shoulders and that's the end of the conversation.

I do see benefits in sharing for responsible individuals who want to try before they buy. I often put music from friends on my Empeg and try it out for a while before either deleting it or purchasing the music. I think this is a legitimate use for file sharing; however, most of the people I know don't use it that way. I really don’t understand why people think they should be able to get music for free without paying anyone for the hard work that went into creating it.

The thing with the RIAA, however, is that they are not educating people, they are making enemies. This is not good business sense, and I'm not sure what they really hope to gain. From day one they have attacked people, acted threatening, and not acknowledged any responsibility for problems they have created themselves (like putting out bad music). And these lawsuits are making things worse: the people I talk to now say things like "I never thought about downloading stuff, but after these lawsuits I'm not buying anything from them again, that's for sure." I'm not sure how much conviction these comments carry, but the sentiment certainly isn't good for the RIAA.

Anyway, the cause is probably hopeless for people on both sides of the issue: some users will never understand that what they are doing is wrong, and the RIAA has set itself at odds with its customer base. Heaven only knows how this is all going to end up.

Heaven only knows how this is all going to end up.

Remember Grasshopper,...... the answer as always, is in the question.

First, it's not illegal. It's in violation of copyright, which is a civil matter, not criminal. (Or at least should be, the Patriot act, DMCA, et al. may have changed that.)

Second, I don't see how Napster is (legally) in the wrong at all. It's certainly questionable, but making a product that can be used illegally (for lack of a better word here) is not in itself illegal. It would seem the corporation-loving officials we've elected, though, disagree, and like to subvert the law to make it so.

First, it's not illegal. It's in violation of copyright, which is a civil matter, not criminal.

I can see that. I wasn't making the proper distinction between civil and criminal. It still isn't right to violate a copyright, which was my point.

Second, I don't see how Napster is (legally) in the wrong at all.

I was a little ambiguous here, but I wasn't meaning to say that Napster was illegal; I meant that using it was. A duel deck VCR is not illegal, but copying copyrighted VHS tapes is.

Anyway, for me the concern is more the morality then the actual law. There’s no way they can crack down of everyone downloading. And morally I think that taking something that you didn’t pay for is wrong. However, as I mentioned, I think that using something for a trial period is a good thing and only benefits all parties (including the RIAA, because there are things I won’t buy without trying them out first).

Okay, follow that thought through. If it's okay to listen to music before you buy it, and the only way to listen to it is to use P2P networks, then how are the people sharing the files the problem? If it weren't for them, your good thing wouldn't be possible.

Exactly! So my point was (or I meant for it to be) that P2P networks aren't bad, but misusing them is. Plenty of people are misusing them which is screwing up the game for the more responsible parties (and the fact that I do believe the RIAA would still be up in arms even if people were responsible).

Looking back at my origional post, I did say

I think [try before you buy] is a legitimate use for file sharing; however, most of the people I know don't use it that way.

They can't prove that people who share files are in violation of copyrights. Afterall, other people are taking those files from them. I say to hell with the RIAA. this is a free country. nobody is profiting off their music except for them. The market has changed. Music isn't worth as much as it used to be, yet the RIAA continues to raise the prices. They can go suck a cock, just like their music.

They can't prove that people who share files are in violation of copyrights/

Right and wrong isn't about proof. I think most people agree (though perhaps not you judging from your other posts) that taking benefit from another person's labor and not compensating that person is wrong unless that person gives permission for the use of their labor. That's part of living in a free market society.

I've tried to point out more than once that this is stealing, but I just get a shrug of the shoulders and that's the end of the conversation.

Is the shrug, perhaps, shorthand for "Stealing is immoral because it deprives the owner of something they previously had; copyright violation does no such thing, and so if the only reason you believe copyright violation to be immoral is because it's stealing, then that's an unconvincing argument"?

Peter

Is the shrug, perhaps, shorthand for "Stealing is immoral because it deprives the owner of something they previously had; copyright violation does no such thing, and so if the only reason you believe copyright violation to be immoral is because it's stealing, then that's an unconvincing argument"?

Perhaps! However, I'd disagree with the statment that stealing is immoral because "it deprives the owner of something they previously had". Stealing is immoral IMHO because it is taking something you didn't pay for that the owner did not wish for you to have. In the case of a copyright we aren't talking about the physical file, media, etc.. We're talking about the information contained therein. Whether that is protectable is debatable, but this society says that it is (as I think it should be).

I suppose different understanding of morality is what it comes down to. I just don't understand why people would consider something that someone else creates to be of no protectable value because it comes from the mind rather than a factory. But that's where this disagreement lies, I suppose.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If you put a water fountain in a park, don't expect people to come ask permission before they take a sip.

In reply to:

---

I just don't understand why people would consider something that someone else creates to be of no protectable value because it comes from the mind rather than a factory. But that's where this disagreement lies, I suppose.

---

I think you are right. Things that come from someone's mind can be easily copied by another mind. I don't like the idea of ownership of thoughts and ideas. I believe copyrights were intended to protect profits. Ok, that's a good thing. But when it restricts personal use it crosses the line.

Copyrights don't guarantee profits; they just guarantee that others won't profit off of your creation. The fact is these days, CD's are almost worthless. If they can't profit off of the goods they provide, then that's their problem. Nobody else is either.

Exactly. It's no more stealing than sneaking into a ball park. Wrong, maybe. Stealing, definitely not.

(It's also a little hard to take when the little guys, the ones that really need the money, are begging you to download their music and it's only the artists making millions of dollars that are the ones telling you it's wrong.)

I agree with your redifinition of stealing... well said.
The problems with P2P software's shady dealings and the RIAA's lunacy is well documented... even in this thread. What seems to be lacking is the individuals ability to show the RIAA exactly what would be helpful in a non-theoretical way. For example what would happen if a p2p network charged a dollar a song and then used the funds to pay off legal fees of those prosecuted... I realize this is not a long term fix. However it shows that users are most willing to pay reasonable fees for music. We all know they are, and you would think that the Apple site would have already proven it, but I guess not. Another possibility would be for a peer to peer group to charge and send money directly to artists downloaded.

Before I get bombarded I realize that these ideas are a bit far fetched, however I would like to see a rebellious way to protest the RIAA without sacrificing my ethics...

If they can't profit off of the goods they provide, then that's their problem.

And everyone else's too. Because, you see, the problem is that if I produce something and anyone can duplicate it easily without my involvement, then I have no incentive to produce it in the first place. Sure that may work in a communist environment, but not a capitalist one.

They can't prove that people who share files are in violation of copyrights.

No, so (at least in this country) they created a new criminal offence of allowing others to commit civil offences by their violation of the copyrights of shared files.

Peter

(It's also a little hard to take when the little guys, the ones that really need the money, are begging you to download their music and it's only the artists making millions of dollars that are the ones telling you it's wrong.)

Very true. I had a friends band that had "please copy this cd and distribute it freely" on both of their selfreleased albums before they got signed. Once signed, though, they had to be very clear with their fans that this was not a policy that they could continue. What's really crazy is that these guys sold an amazing amount of CDs all across the U.S. before they got signed.

if a p2p network charged a dollar a song

Apple has shown that people are willing to spend money on downloadable music. (I'm mostly not; I want a CD, dammit, because CDs don't get erased accidentally.)

But that's not the point. The P2P thing is about listening without charge. Whether for nefarious or curious purposes is up to the end user. All I know is that the only time I ever use P2P is when I don't know if I want to pay money for the CD (and, to be honest, sometimes when the CD is out of print). I'm not going to spend money on something in order to find out if I want to spend money on it. That just doesn't make any sense.

On the other hand, a P2P-style music store might be a good idea. It would assure the definite legality, but also allow one to see what people that liked the one thing also liked -- the browsing aspect of P2Ps.

Well if anyone can duplicate it, then is it really worth anything? It's like urine...anyone can make it. Should we all pay royalties to the first guy to ever take a leak? Maybe the incentive to make something new should be the enjoyment you get out of making it. If you can make money off of it, great. The copyright should only keep someone else from making money from it. It shouldn't stop people from copying your idea and making their own for their own use. That is anti-productive, and it goes against the very thing this country was founded on - freedom.

You're (intentionally) conflating the duplication of a CD and the recreation of the music. Your argument means that since anyone can duplicate a CD, then the duplication process is worthless (which is obviously untrue on it's face).

Well if anyone can duplicate it, then is it really worth anything?

Why do you download music if it isn't worth anything to you? Of course it's worth something, whether you can duplicate it or not.

The copyright should only keep someone else from making money from it.

We do not allow people to take possessions if only for their personal use; it's wrong no matter how it's used.

it goes against the very thing this country was founded on - freedom.

Depends on what you mean by "freedom". We are not "free" to rape, steal, or do whatever we like. In fact we are "free" to compete on the basis of what we produce (capitalism) instead of who or what we swear allegiance to. What you want sounds like capitalism for physical products and communism for intellectual ones. I see that as being counterproductive and definitely NOT the very thing our country was founded on.

I just don't understand why people would consider something that someone else creates to be of no protectable value because it comes from the mind rather than a factory. But that's where this disagreement lies, I suppose.

Yes, I suppose it does. I just don't like the idea of victimless crimes, and I don't see any victimhood in theft other than the victim being deprived of their property, a victimhood not present in the Napster case, as the artists clearly still kept their own copies of the files. I view the protection offered by laws against theft, as being protection against deprivation; the protections offered by copyright laws obviously are far wider (as a matter of law), but I don't believe them to have the same moral foundation.

Suppose, as a thought experiment, someone invented a machine that could construct replicas of any object out of thin air -- so that grain, for example, could be "copied" at essentially no cost. Would it solve Third World famines for good, or would it be sued out of existence by the Farming Industry Association of America? If the latter, would you be rooting for the farmers to win?

Peter

what if I encode a bunch of random bytes by hand, and it just happens to make a file that sounds like WHO LET THE DOGS OUT. I made this, why is that illegal? Why is it illegal for my friends to do the same, whether they copied mine or not? What if I want to paint a picture of a copyrighted work of art to hang on my wall? Should that be illegal? Then what if my "peer" comes over, sees the painting and "uploads" the mental image into his memory, and paints his own version of it? Should I be sued for that? Or is the fact that paintings aren't easily copied a natural protection of the original artist's investment?