Neowin.net - RIAA declares war on silver surfers

RIAA declares war on silver surfers

Posted by Sleeper on 28 July 2003 - 08:34 · 46 comments & 4951 views

People likely to be most at risk from RIAA's war on downloads will be parents. Parents and grandparents are in the firing line as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) ramps up its fight against the downloading of music files from peer-to-peer (P2P) sites.

According to Associated Press, one 50 year-old grandfather in California was shocked to learn this week that the RIAA had subpoenaed his ISP to provide his name and address for downloading songs from the internet. But the man was not the downloader - it was a member of his family.

News source: vnunet.com

The RIAA is unmoved by such instances, however, and declared that lawyers will pursue downloaders regardless of personal circumstances in order to deter other users.

"The idea really is not to be selective, but to let people know that if they're offering a substantial number of files for others to copy, they are at risk," said RIAA president Cary Sherman. "It doesn't matter who they are."

With an estimated 60 million people in the US alleged to have downloaded songs from P2P sites such as Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster, cases such as this will not be unusual.

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: vet

Sleeper
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 0

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

#1 Posted by aquadark on 28 Jul 2003 - 08:46: RIAA'll never learn...

(3 replies) #2 Posted by Quick Reply on 28 Jul 2003 - 08:46: i dont know how what the riaa is doing is legal/ethical, they have taken their stupidity too far

#3 Posted by Fubar on 28 Jul 2003 - 08:47: another dumb move by the riaa going fter a person that isnt d/l copywritten stuff now ? christ i wish some one would nuke that place

#4 Posted by Zerosignull on 28 Jul 2003 - 08:54: "The idea really is not to be selective, but to let people know that if they're offering a substantial number of files for others to copy, they are at risk," said RIAA president Cary Sherman. "It doesn't matter who they are."

so the poor sod that was sharign 8 songs was substantial. i thought they said they would sue ne one when that peace of news hit the fan

#5 Posted by werejag on 28 Jul 2003 - 11:07: instead of providing "safe" cheap under a buck per song alternative. the riaa is spending billions to sue "joe nobody" . great plan there. keep up the good work riaa.

(3 replies) #6 Posted by Jugalator on 28 Jul 2003 - 11:15: Well, I'd assume that the guy paying for the internet account would be liable. Anything else would be just sick -- anyone could say "no, another guy was here and d/l:ed the copyrighted music, not me!" and get away. lol

As long as the parents are paying for the internet account, I'd say they're responsible for how it's used. What else would be able to be proven in court? An IP address doesn't look different if John the 10 year old kid is leeching from Kazaa. However, something is of course seriously wrong if a guy pays for his ISP account and still has his/her parents fined.

#7 Posted by session™ on 28 Jul 2003 - 11:19: stop already, riaa!

#8 Posted by DJ^TuRKiYe on 28 Jul 2003 - 11:38: RIAA is just f**ked, There gonna go after the parents cause they no they can't do nothin to the kids.

#9 Posted by obsolete_power on 28 Jul 2003 - 11:39: Holy shiit!! When will those fukking bastarrds be shut down! RIAA, if you see this, just be sure that as long as you are in business, ppl will never stop pirating!! Some will do it purely for entertainment purposes and others will do it just to show you how pathetic your chances are of stopping this. When will you understand that downloading music is not a crime you incompetent mooks!

Last edited by 22518 on 28 Jul 2003 - 11:44

#10 Posted by hobsgrg on 28 Jul 2003 - 11:48: This is getting ridiculous now, they don't know when to stop.

#11 Posted by dj_alex_m on 28 Jul 2003 - 11:57

QUOTE

Parents and grandparents are in the firing line

Why? Cause these are the only people with money. Most users are teenagers where the RIAA can't do squat but ask them to stop sharing files.

#12 Posted by dmbandfan22 on 28 Jul 2003 - 11:59: The RIAA is just going to run laughing to the bank with all the money they're taking away from these people by suing them. It'll just make the economy worse.

#13 Posted by poind on 28 Jul 2003 - 12:05: I don't believe the RIAA is being smart in the slightest overall.

However, they're going after those at the point of responsibility. Establish an internet account, and you're responsible for how it's used by those who have (knowing) access.

Businesses themselves can be held responsible for the actions of employees during employment. Taliban was held accountable for their "residents".

If those being sued by the RIAA in these things want to hold *others* accountable, they'll likely just have to follow-up with their own lawsuits against *them* if need be.

Realistically, a lot of teens may lose their college funds as these things get carried out, all so the RIAA can scare people rather than reevaluate their business models, while a lot of attorneys stuff their pockets. Dumb and unnecessary. A lot of potential future customers are just never going to want to listen to music again.

If only the RIAA could pay more attention to the responsibility of its *own* members in the first place....

#14 Posted by m4ch1n3g0d on 28 Jul 2003 - 12:58: I let my dad borrow a cd i bought the other day, is the riaa going to sue me and my dad now if they find out?

#15 Posted by radink on 28 Jul 2003 - 13:35: but of rich retards.. greedy ****ers. Die RIAA!

(2 replies) #16 Posted by TheDeputy on 28 Jul 2003 - 13:43: I guess he should move to Canada. That way his family won't be bothered by idiots like the RIAA.

#17 Posted by DaveMode on 28 Jul 2003 - 13:55: Well, I think this shows that the RIAA is truly hitting rock bottom. These are very desperate times for them and they are proving their desperation with these actions.

Keep in mind though that this organization exists because of support from record companies. It's not their job to create new ways to download music legally, etc. They exsist to protect copyrights and that's about it.

(1 reply) #18 Posted by Prelude76 on 28 Jul 2003 - 14:08: i'm calling RIAA's bluff. first, this causes a HUGE problem, trying to pinpoint who was using computer at the time; the parents or the kids. but secondly, how can they sue over a LIST of shared songs? wont there have to be proof that those songs were really copyrighted songs, such as the songs will haave to be downloaded in FULL from that one person, and played? how is this possible if Kazaa downloads from multiple sources, and why cant people who get sued just claim they renamed their friend's garage band mp3s to name of popular bands? seems to me its pretty impossible to sue based on an IP address and a text list of songs shared.

#19 Posted by sheer on 28 Jul 2003 - 15:00: Peer-to-Peer sites? I was under the impression that peer-to-peer meant ppl connecting directly to other ppl...

#20 Posted by Trust on 28 Jul 2003 - 15:40

QUOTE

Parents and grandparents are in the firing line as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)

lol RIAA burn in HELL!

#21 Posted by Krux on 28 Jul 2003 - 15:42: that 50 year old man was in my city haha

#22 Posted by Joshie on 28 Jul 2003 - 16:21: Was it ever ruled that parents and guardians have a legal responsibility to regulate their children's internet activity?

(2 replies) #23 Posted by mealbundy on 28 Jul 2003 - 16:29: kazaa has a release with a p2p ip snooping block. Very nicely done, going after senior citizens. Good by pension plans. Man, it must suck to live in the US. You guys have no rights to protect yourself from crooked organizations.

#24 Posted by Lighter on 28 Jul 2003 - 16:53

QUOTE

Posted by Joshie on 28 Jul 2003 - 12:21

Was it ever ruled that parents and guardians have a legal responsibility to regulate their children's internet activity?

Actually, it was and it is. But that's not the point here. The RIAA doesn't seem to be interested in who's responsible, they're just making sure someone's wallet is held liable for the slightest suggestion of infringement.

I can't begin to imagine the legal fees involved. If I wanna save money (or my rear), the last thing I'm going to do is spend millions sueing everyone around me. I'd sooner compromise to help satisfy both ends. How's this for a productive sales slogan: "Buy two albums at regular price, download a 3rd for free!" You catch more flies with honey than vinegar...

#25 Posted by Yvo on 28 Jul 2003 - 17:36: This will all stop when they accidentally subpoena either 1. a celebrity or 2. a political figure such as a senator

#26 Posted by betax on 28 Jul 2003 - 18:24: This is nuts, the process of verifing if song xyz is really xyz is a huge issue, a low density format of one's hard drive (a few times) will even remove their ability to 'verify' that song xyz is song xyz.

The concept with wireless networks and the problem of finding the 'leach' using kazaa on a 'hot-spot' is very real and may be the end of RIAA's entire plan.

It IS wrong to download music and not pay for it, that is a constant. However, the RIAA's way of enforcing this... is very very flawed.

#27 Posted by kazgor on 28 Jul 2003 - 19:58: ok here a question, we all know about all the crap fake files put on Kazaa via Riaa poodles.. if all my downloads are of these fake files, just because i have a share folder full of say Metallica tracks i can be sued.. doesnt matter these tracks are fake files provide by Riaa.. all they care about is the filename..

Where's the logic in that?

#28 Posted by kazgor on 28 Jul 2003 - 20:02: Heres another thing.. shouldnt the RIAA be sueing the person incharge of Madonna's website.. wasnt it just a few months ago where her new Album was freely avialiable to download for all.. Doesnt matter how the files got there.. the website allowed access to copyright material...

(1 reply) #29 Posted by wd40 on 28 Jul 2003 - 23:45: They shouldn't go after the users but after the creators of the software and the networks and shut them down. The way they are doing it now won't do anything. We will still trade files and what not with the software available to us freely. Shutting down the software and the networks will fix that. The problem they have with that is some of that software is created overseas and don't comply with our copyright laws so they are going the route of trying to sue the users. Very stupid but oh well...

As for music released by the original creators, they have it in their copyright that it can be downloaded but not distributed. Of course it's copyrighted but it's all in their copyright what we can do with that software or music.

#30 Posted by cannhawk on 29 Jul 2003 - 02:39: The RIAA try to sue Kazaa & Morpheus and Grokster and it was throw out of court due to the fact that the files are not on there servers so the dumbass at riaa are going after the users of the programs and try to stop them from using it. riaa ass nines don't care if your rich or poor they want to own all the music online.

#31 Posted by jivemastert on 29 Jul 2003 - 05:09: what i dont understand is, why? the riaa claims that their record sales are down... so? the ecconomy has been down, and the riaa is in denial. they figure that it will really help them by suing their customers? basically, if i wont buy cds because, um, the bands they are promoting suck, or because i dont have the money, then they will extract it from each and everyone one of us. its broken and twisted logic and i dont know what they think they will get out of this.

on another note, arent we due for another riaa website hacking? its been a while

#32 Posted by fred666 on 30 Jul 2003 - 00:06: Doing a "I'm Feeling Lucky" on Google for Kazaa Lite will end you up here which will allow you to DL a version a Kazaa that, at least, claims to block the IP address of RIAA.

#33 Posted by nicedreams on 30 Jul 2003 - 06:36: The bottom line to all of this is pricing like that has been brought up in the past. The prices for movies and music is way way to high. They need to lower the prices of all this.

Come on now. The labels are getting so much money that it it rediculous to even hear how much money they get. Every time a movie comes out it seems like they are making more money than Bill Gates.

Why can't they just lower the damn prices and make fans and consumers happy. That is the only way to get people from downloading from P2P. I download from P2P because it sucks buying a CD for $13.00 and only 1 or 2 songs was worth it and you can't find the single.

The pay for a single thing that Apple has started is a good idea though, but still they need to lower prices. Not everyone makes a lot of money to spend over $20.00 on a movie.

#34 Posted by powaking on 30 Jul 2003 - 17:16: I say just go to a store and steal a CD. Whats the worse that can happen? A misdemeanor? But if you download that crappy mp3 you go to jail. I don't see Playboy or Hustler complaining about all the porn on the web causing people to not buy adult magazines? I don't hear Time magazine or any newspaper company complaining about all the free news on the net. I do see companys filing for bankruptcy, people losing their jobs because of the economy but somehow the RIAA believes that they should always make a profit each and every year regardless of anything else.

Hey RIAA, kiss my A$$.

[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Scroll to the Top