As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

RIAA now suing downloaders.

Lord JezoLord Jezo Registered User regular
edited February 2007 in Games and Technology
It seems like anyone downloading music will be served lawsuits soon..

Man sued for downloading 5 songs
Hinds faces a minimum civil penalty of $750 per song. There can be criminal penalties as well.

If guilty, Hinds would hardly be the first person found downloading music on the Internet; the Internet has been chockablock with sites offering free music almost since there have been browsers and bandwidth.

Now while this is illegal and stuff, it's going to get a bit scary for everyone out there if all you need to do is download a song and get sued. If the stories of grandmothers and pre-teen kids getting sued bothered people before, just imagine how many lawsuits will start flying now.

Clipboard03.jpg
I KISS YOU!
Lord Jezo on
«134

Posts

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Does the RIAA actually think that doing this will stop pirates?

    Couscous on
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    one out of millions

    i suspect flying in an airplane is more dangerous

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but:

    The only way they know he downloaded the songs rather than ripping them himself is if he downloaded them from an RIAA plant.

    If it was indeed an RIAA plant, that means that that plant had the legal right to distribute those songs, and therefore the downloader had the right to recieve them.

    ???

    Profit?

    Daedalus on
  • agoajagoaj Top Tier One FearRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but:

    The only way they know he downloaded the songs rather than ripping them himself is if he downloaded them from an RIAA plant.

    If it was indeed an RIAA plant, that means that that plant had the legal right to distribute those songs, and therefore the downloader had the right to recieve them.

    ???

    Profit?
    He didn't just download, he shared them too.

    agoaj on
    ujav5b9gwj1s.png
  • SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2007
    Filesharing actually helps combat piracy because more people downloading music means less people buying bootleg CDs. So filesharing prevents pirates from earning money.

    If you don't share your music, you're effectively supporting organised crime, drugs cartels and probably terrorists.

    Szechuanosaurus on
  • KKprofitKKprofit Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Filesharing actually helps combat piracy because more people downloading music means less people buying bootleg CDs. So filesharing prevents pirates from earning money.

    If you don't share your music, you're effectively supporting organised crime, drugs cartels and probably terrorists.

    Thats brilliant.

    RIAA Why do you hate America?

    KKprofit on
  • XenoXeno Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    You are probably more likely to get zapped by lightning twice in the same spot while hiding in an underground bunker.

    This is just another scare tactic. People will see that someone is being sued over 5 songs, think "holy shit! I've downloaded 6! I better stop!" and then possibly stop for a little while. Dunno, I'm not scared.

    Xeno on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    agoaj wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but:

    The only way they know he downloaded the songs rather than ripping them himself is if he downloaded them from an RIAA plant.

    If it was indeed an RIAA plant, that means that that plant had the legal right to distribute those songs, and therefore the downloader had the right to recieve them.

    ???

    Profit?
    He didn't just download, he shared them too.

    So he's being sued for offering music for upload, just like every other lawsuit thus far. Where's the news item?

    Daedalus on
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    agoaj wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but:

    The only way they know he downloaded the songs rather than ripping them himself is if he downloaded them from an RIAA plant.

    If it was indeed an RIAA plant, that means that that plant had the legal right to distribute those songs, and therefore the downloader had the right to recieve them.

    ???

    Profit?
    He didn't just download, he shared them too.

    So he's being sued for offering music for upload, just like every other lawsuit thus far. Where's the news item?
    Stupid man fails to disable his upload, sued by RIAA
    Claims he never even looked at the settings

    UncleSporky on
    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • LudiousLudious I just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    So here's my question, seeing as BT forces you to upload while you download, it's always a basis for a lawsuit.

    What about these sharing methods (I won't name them, and honestly, I do not fileshare) that do not require you to share if you don't want to?

    Is there any legal recourse for copyright holders, or do you HAVE to upload? That's always seemed fishy to me.

    Ludious on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Ludious wrote:
    So here's my question, seeing as BT forces you to upload while you download, it's always a basis for a lawsuit.

    What about these sharing methods (I won't name them, and honestly, I do not fileshare) that do not require you to share if you don't want to?

    Is there any legal recourse for copyright holders, or do you HAVE to upload? That's always seemed fishy to me.

    Most sharing networks that don't force uploads die after a short amount of time for obvious reasons.

    The real safe thing to do is have a private network that you only allow trusted users to join. There's a DC++ hub at my university that only allows connections from on-campus IP addresses, for instance, essentially making it impossible for an RIAA/MPAA/ESA/BSA member to attack directly (although they could probably go after the people that use another sharing program at the same time).

    Daedalus on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Ludious wrote:
    So here's my question, seeing as BT forces you to upload while you download, it's always a basis for a lawsuit.

    What about these sharing methods (I won't name them, and honestly, I do not fileshare) that do not require you to share if you don't want to?

    Is there any legal recourse for copyright holders, or do you HAVE to upload? That's always seemed fishy to me.

    Well, if a copyright holder (like, say, a plant) is allowing downloads, they really have no recourse for a guy that's just downloading.

    Typically though, yeah, if you could *prove* that Joe Smith was downloading a copy (even without uploading) of the latest Linkin Park album, without owning it, then yes, they'd probably be able to win the case. This has yet to happen though, and I believe it's largely because it's easy to nail uploaders...nailing a downloader would require them to have pretty solid evidence that said downloader has no license to listen to that music.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Burtletoy on
  • KKprofitKKprofit Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    They are still using the same model for enforcement as they use on bootleggers. In theory, they are stopping the distributors rather than the customers. In this day and age... most "customers" are also "distributors".

    Rather than being able to arrest the guy selling celine dione cds on the corner (god help us), they are pinching pete down the hall sharing mp3's as he downloads them.

    (my understanding is) It is much harder to pin downloading a song on a person... and the penalties are less severe... than if the person is distributing the files.

    KKprofit on
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited February 2007
    Is there anyone alive who doesn't know that file sharing can get you in trouble? Face it, it's like breaking the speed limit. There's no one to blame but yourself, especially now there are cheap alternatives.

    Tube on
  • mausmalonemausmalone Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    agoaj wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but:

    The only way they know he downloaded the songs rather than ripping them himself is if he downloaded them from an RIAA plant.

    If it was indeed an RIAA plant, that means that that plant had the legal right to distribute those songs, and therefore the downloader had the right to recieve them.

    ???

    Profit?
    He didn't just download, he shared them too.

    So he's being sued for offering music for upload, just like every other lawsuit thus far. Where's the news item?
    Area man fails to disable his upload, sued by RIAA
    Claims he never even looked at the settings
    fix'd for Onion~esqe.

    Anyhow, isn't there some huge loophole established with these cases that basically the RIAA has to show that each time the song was copied cost them $750 when they demand compensation? I seem to remember some guy getting off with only having to pay a $0.99 fine per song because that was the value of each individual song on the open market (i.e. iTMS).

    I don't even know where to look to find the article that would support that, but does anybody else remember that case?

    mausmalone on
    266.jpg
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mausmalone wrote:
    agoaj wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but:

    The only way they know he downloaded the songs rather than ripping them himself is if he downloaded them from an RIAA plant.

    If it was indeed an RIAA plant, that means that that plant had the legal right to distribute those songs, and therefore the downloader had the right to recieve them.

    ???

    Profit?
    He didn't just download, he shared them too.

    So he's being sued for offering music for upload, just like every other lawsuit thus far. Where's the news item?
    Area man fails to disable his upload, sued by RIAA
    Claims he never even looked at the settings
    fix'd for Onion~esqe.

    Anyhow, isn't there some huge loophole established with these cases that basically the RIAA has to show that each time the song was copied cost them $750 when they demand compensation? I seem to remember some guy getting off with only having to pay a $0.99 fine per song because that was the value of each individual song on the open market (i.e. iTMS).

    I don't even know where to look to find the article that would support that, but does anybody else remember that case?

    I remember one woman challenging the courtcase on that basis. I haven't actually heard of a single case get far enough to be ruled on by a judge. The RIAA will settle out of court everytime.

    Rook on
  • sir_pinch-a-loafsir_pinch-a-loaf #YODORegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    My understanding of why they can't sue for simply downloading is that it would imply that the RIAA plant is making the copyrighted material freely available and are thusly not taking proper actions to protect said copyright. It would be similar to a warehouse being unable to press charges of theft for leaving a box of PS3's outside and unprotected.

    sir_pinch-a-loaf on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mausmalone wrote:
    agoaj wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but:

    The only way they know he downloaded the songs rather than ripping them himself is if he downloaded them from an RIAA plant.

    If it was indeed an RIAA plant, that means that that plant had the legal right to distribute those songs, and therefore the downloader had the right to recieve them.

    ???

    Profit?
    He didn't just download, he shared them too.

    So he's being sued for offering music for upload, just like every other lawsuit thus far. Where's the news item?
    Area man fails to disable his upload, sued by RIAA
    Claims he never even looked at the settings
    fix'd for Onion~esqe.

    Anyhow, isn't there some huge loophole established with these cases that basically the RIAA has to show that each time the song was copied cost them $750 when they demand compensation? I seem to remember some guy getting off with only having to pay a $0.99 fine per song because that was the value of each individual song on the open market (i.e. iTMS).

    I don't even know where to look to find the article that would support that, but does anybody else remember that case?

    I don't recall that instance, but the bulk of these cases have never even made it into the courtroom. Most people are so intimidated by the prospect of being sued by such a large corporation that they just settle, and never fight it.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • KKprofitKKprofit Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ALso, with the world in general knowing so little about computers... seems like it would be a simple task to blame it on a virus and move on. OH! and you could prove it was possible in court! Get 2 computers and set up a web page with something similar to how netbus used to work... have the judge go to that website... and then make his computer download an mp3 using your computer. Case dismissed.

    KKprofit on
  • ZackSchillingZackSchilling Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Man, now I'm disappointed. Had the man been sued for straight downloading, I would have found a P2P network monitored by the RIAA, disabled uploads, and set a script to downloaded songs I already own hundreds of times over. Anything to waste as much of their time as possible.

    ZackSchilling on
    ghost-robot.jpg
  • KKprofitKKprofit Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    My understanding of why they can't sue for simply downloading is that it would imply that the RIAA plant is making the copyrighted material freely available and are thusly not taking proper actions to protect said copyright. It would be similar to a warehouse being unable to press charges of theft for handing out PS3s to passers by

    KKprofit on
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited February 2007
    My understanding of why they can't sue for simply downloading is that it would imply that the RIAA plant is making the copyrighted material freely available and are thusly not taking proper actions to protect said copyright. It would be similar to a warehouse being unable to press charges of theft for leaving a box of PS3's outside and unprotected.

    You'd still be able to press charges. People aren't allowed to steal things. If you leave your house unlocked, that doesn't make it legal for people to steal from you.

    Tube on
  • GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Hinds faces a minimum civil penalty of $750 per song.
    Wouldn't shit like this violate some sort of proportional response safety checks? I mean, you're literally fined 750x the cost of what you stole. Does anyone have an upload ratio anywhere near that figure?

    Glal on
  • ZackSchillingZackSchilling Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    My understanding of why they can't sue for simply downloading is that it would imply that the RIAA plant is making the copyrighted material freely available and are thusly not taking proper actions to protect said copyright. It would be similar to a warehouse being unable to press charges of theft for leaving a box of PS3's outside and unprotected.

    You'd still be able to press charges. People aren't allowed to steal things. If you leave your house unlocked, that doesn't make it legal for people to steal from you.
    Leaving your house unlocked is one thing. Posting a giant listing of all your possessions in the newspaper, heading the section with "TAKE MY FREE SHIT", and then leaving your house unlocked is another entirely.

    ZackSchilling on
    ghost-robot.jpg
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    My understanding of why they can't sue for simply downloading is that it would imply that the RIAA plant is making the copyrighted material freely available and are thusly not taking proper actions to protect said copyright. It would be similar to a warehouse being unable to press charges of theft for leaving a box of PS3's outside and unprotected.

    You'd still be able to press charges. People aren't allowed to steal things. If you leave your house unlocked, that doesn't make it legal for people to steal from you.
    Leaving your house unlocked is one thing. Posting a giant listing of all your possessions in the newspaper, heading the section with "TAKE MY FREE SHIT", and then leaving your house unlocked is another entirely.
    What if somebody else knew you left your house unlocked and put that listing in the paper?

    UncleSporky on
    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    True, but then they wouldn't be able to use plants to track downloaders.

    Glal on
  • KKprofitKKprofit Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    My understanding of why they can't sue for simply downloading is that it would imply that the RIAA plant is making the copyrighted material freely available and are thusly not taking proper actions to protect said copyright. It would be similar to a warehouse being unable to press charges of theft for leaving a box of PS3's outside and unprotected.

    You'd still be able to press charges. People aren't allowed to steal things. If you leave your house unlocked, that doesn't make it legal for people to steal from you.
    Leaving your house unlocked is one thing. Posting a giant listing of all your possessions in the newspaper, heading the section with "TAKE MY FREE SHIT", and then leaving your house unlocked is another entirely.
    What if somebody else knew you left your house unlocked and put that listing in the paper?


    Is that even a crime? It would be awesome.. I know that.

    Accessory to unlawful entry and larceny... there.. thats the crime.

    KKprofit on
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited February 2007
    My understanding of why they can't sue for simply downloading is that it would imply that the RIAA plant is making the copyrighted material freely available and are thusly not taking proper actions to protect said copyright. It would be similar to a warehouse being unable to press charges of theft for leaving a box of PS3's outside and unprotected.

    You'd still be able to press charges. People aren't allowed to steal things. If you leave your house unlocked, that doesn't make it legal for people to steal from you.
    Leaving your house unlocked is one thing. Posting a giant listing of all your possessions in the newspaper, heading the section with "TAKE MY FREE SHIT", and then leaving your house unlocked is another entirely.

    Precisely. The issue is whether people are being entrapped.

    Tube on
  • ZackSchillingZackSchilling Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    My understanding of why they can't sue for simply downloading is that it would imply that the RIAA plant is making the copyrighted material freely available and are thusly not taking proper actions to protect said copyright. It would be similar to a warehouse being unable to press charges of theft for leaving a box of PS3's outside and unprotected.

    You'd still be able to press charges. People aren't allowed to steal things. If you leave your house unlocked, that doesn't make it legal for people to steal from you.
    Leaving your house unlocked is one thing. Posting a giant listing of all your possessions in the newspaper, heading the section with "TAKE MY FREE SHIT", and then leaving your house unlocked is another entirely.
    What if somebody else knew you left your house unlocked and put that listing in the paper?
    Then... then you would go after them?

    But applying that extension of the analogy back to the original discussion doesn't make sense because computer programs are tools, not legally responsible people. As long as the program is working as it's supposed to as described to you by the documentation, the person legally responsible for a program is the person running it.

    ZackSchilling on
    ghost-robot.jpg
  • KKprofitKKprofit Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    And this is why I run all my illegal downloads thru sealand.


    not really..

    But yeah.. somebody needs to find a way to download songs directly from these Riaa plants...

    Problem solved! free mp3s for everyone.

    KKprofit on
  • DelzhandDelzhand Hard to miss. Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Hey RIAA, read this:
    http://www.cartome.org/foucault.htm

    Guess what? The king using public torture as a spectacle to reaffirm his power and focus attention on himself as a disciplinary measure went out of practice about the time of the black plague.

    Seriously, the world has moved on, and your practices only serve to convince the world that you're an obsolete and unnecessary relic.

    (Note: I'm not really advocating panoptic discipline, especially in the extreme, but you have to admit it's more effective)

    Delzhand on
  • GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    KKprofit wrote:
    But yeah.. somebody needs to find a way to download songs directly from these Riaa plants...
    Oh man. That would be glorious.

    Glal on
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Glal wrote:
    KKprofit wrote:
    But yeah.. somebody needs to find a way to download songs directly from these Riaa plants...
    Oh man. That would be glorious.
    The music is probably all shitty.

    UncleSporky on
    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • ZackSchillingZackSchilling Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    KKprofit wrote:
    And this is why I run all my illegal downloads thru sealand.


    not really..

    But yeah.. somebody needs to find a way to download songs directly from these Riaa plants...

    Problem solved! free mp3s for everyone.
    Turn PeerGuardian's blacklist into a whitelist!
    Glal wrote:
    KKprofit wrote:
    But yeah.. somebody needs to find a way to download songs directly from these Riaa plants...
    Oh man. That would be glorious.
    The music is probably all shitty.
    Yes, I suppose that would be the downside.

    ZackSchilling on
    ghost-robot.jpg
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Something to note, is that the RIAA always wants to settle with these defendants, because if it gets to court, and they lose, precedent has been established and they will potentially lose more cases in the future.

    Seriously, the RIAA does not want these things to go to actual court, where their strong-arm, mafia-like perversions of the law may come to light.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Glal wrote:
    KKprofit wrote:
    But yeah.. somebody needs to find a way to download songs directly from these Riaa plants...
    Oh man. That would be glorious.
    The music is probably all shitty.
    It doesn't matter, you're both taking up their bandwidth and filling their lists with false potencial positives. You're being a pain and they can't do anything about it. lol sticking it to the man etc etc.

    Glal on
  • OtakingOtaking Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Anyhow, isn't there some huge loophole established with these cases that basically the RIAA has to show that each time the song was copied cost them $750 when they demand compensation? I seem to remember some guy getting off with only having to pay a $0.99 fine per song because that was the value of each individual song on the open market (i.e. iTMS).

    I don't even know where to look to find the article that would support that, but does anybody else remember that case?

    That's pretty interesting. You'd think they would try to recoup their legal fees in that number too which would have the side benefit of making a bigger scarier number for the press to report to everyone are trying to make an example of this guy to.

    I wonder if fair market value of legal fees ever makes it into cases like this?

    Otaking on
  • mausmalonemausmalone Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mausmalone wrote:
    agoaj wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but:

    The only way they know he downloaded the songs rather than ripping them himself is if he downloaded them from an RIAA plant.

    If it was indeed an RIAA plant, that means that that plant had the legal right to distribute those songs, and therefore the downloader had the right to recieve them.

    ???

    Profit?
    He didn't just download, he shared them too.

    So he's being sued for offering music for upload, just like every other lawsuit thus far. Where's the news item?
    Area man fails to disable his upload, sued by RIAA
    Claims he never even looked at the settings
    fix'd for Onion~esqe.

    Anyhow, isn't there some huge loophole established with these cases that basically the RIAA has to show that each time the song was copied cost them $750 when they demand compensation? I seem to remember some guy getting off with only having to pay a $0.99 fine per song because that was the value of each individual song on the open market (i.e. iTMS).

    I don't even know where to look to find the article that would support that, but does anybody else remember that case?

    I don't recall that instance, but the bulk of these cases have never even made it into the courtroom. Most people are so intimidated by the prospect of being sued by such a large corporation that they just settle, and never fight it.

    Actually they never make it to the courtroom because of other RIAA dirty tactics that judges don't really want to put up with anymore, ... including bringing up charges against "unnamed defendants" and sending out court summons to nobody because they haven't gotten your name or address.

    It may be a little hard to find, but you can bookmark it ... http://info.riaalawsuits.us/howriaa.htm ... it's a lawyer's run-down of how exactly the RIAA's legislation works, and why a lot of judges are starting to see it as an abuse of the system.

    mausmalone on
    266.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mausmalone wrote:
    Anyhow, isn't there some huge loophole established with these cases that basically the RIAA has to show that each time the song was copied cost them $750 when they demand compensation? I seem to remember some guy getting off with only having to pay a $0.99 fine per song because that was the value of each individual song on the open market (i.e. iTMS).

    I don't even know where to look to find the article that would support that, but does anybody else remember that case?

    To my knowledge, there is no such loophole...so I doubt any such case went down. The entire point of the $750 figure is that it's supposed to be punitive...it's not just about recouping lost sales, but also harming those they catch to prevent others from doing so. Now, the problem is that the amount of punitive damages they can inflict right now was designed to be used against the kind of pirates who are actually profiting, such as CD bootleggers. Using them against the average filesharer is excessive. But if all they could get was $0.99 per song, who would give a shit?

    mcdermott on
Sign In or Register to comment.