• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Music Industry Subpoenas Downloaders

ShiningIce

3rd Level Green Feather
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
4,704
Points
36
Music Industry Subpoenas Downloaders

WASHINGTON - The music industry has issued at least 871 federal subpoenas against computer users this month suspected of illegally sharing music files on the Internet, with roughly 75 new subpoenas being approved each day, U.S. court officials said Friday.



The effort represents early steps in the music industry's contentious plan to file civil lawsuits aimed at crippling online piracy.


Subpoenas reviewed by The Associated Press show the industry compelling some of the largest Internet providers, such as Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Cable Communications Inc., and some universities to provide names and mailing addresses for users on their networks known online by nicknames such as "fox3j," "soccerdog33," "clover77" or "indepunk74."


The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) has said it expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within the next eight weeks. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but the RIAA has said it would be open to settlement proposals from defendants.


The campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to readily identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites) permits music companies to force Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected music pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office, without a judge's signature required.


In some cases, subpoenas cite as few as five songs as "representative recordings" of music files available for downloading from these users. The trade group for the largest music labels, the Washington-based RIAA, previously indicated its lawyers would target Internet users who offer substantial collections of MP3 song files but declined to say how many songs might qualify for a lawsuit.


"We would have to look at historic trends, but that is a very high number," said Alan Davidson of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group that has argued against the subpoenas. "It doesn't sound like they're just going after a few big fish."


Music fans are fighting back with technology, using new software designed specifically to stymie monitoring of their online activities by the major record labels.


A new version of "Kazaa Lite," free software that provides access to the service operated by Sharman Networks Ltd., can prevent anyone from listing all music files on an individual's machine and purports to block scans from Internet addresses believed to be associated with the RIAA.


Many of the subpoenas reviewed by the AP identified songs from the same few artists, including Avril Lavigne (news), Snoop Dogg and Michael Jackson (news). It was impossible to determine whether industry lawyers were searching the Internet specifically for songs by these artists or whether they were commonly popular among the roughly 60 million users of file-sharing services.


The RIAA's subpoenas are so prolific that the U.S. District Court in Washington, already suffering staff shortages, has been forced to reassign employees from elsewhere in the clerk's office to help process paperwork, said Angela Caesar-Mobley, the clerk's operations manager.


The RIAA declined to comment on the numbers of subpoenas it issued.


"We are identifying substantial infringers and we're going to whatever entity is providing (Internet) service for that potential infringer," said Matt Oppenheim, the group's senior vice president of business and legal affairs. "From there we'll be in a position to begin bringing lawsuits."


A spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said the clerk's office here was "functioning more like a clearing house, issuing subpoenas for all over the country." Any civil lawsuits would likely be transferred to a different jurisdiction, spokeswoman Karen Redmond said.


Verizon, which has fought the RIAA over the subpoenas with continued legal appeals, said it received at least 150 subpoenas during the last two weeks. There were no subpoenas on file sent to AOL Time Warner Inc., the nation's largest Internet provider and also parent company of Warner Music Group. Earthlink Inc., another of the largest Internet providers, said it has received only three new subpoenas.


Depaul University in Chicago was among the few colleges that received such subpoenas; the RIAA asked Depaul on July 2 to track down a user known as "anon39023" who was allegedly offering at least eight songs. The recording group sent two subpoenas to Boston College to identify "TheLastReal7" and "Prtythug23."


There was some evidence the threat of an expensive lawsuit was discouraging online music sharing. Nielsen NetRatings, which monitors Internet usage, earlier this week reported a decline for traffic on the Kazaa network of one million users, with similarly large drops across other services.
 
This is a shame, but we all saw it coming. Artists and their labels want to be paid for their work just like the rest of us. I hope this results in a reasonably priced service that lets you download music and such like we do now, but where the musicians and others are compensated.

Bella
 
The music industry can't stop all the music swapping. The need to share info and the fast pace of technology will be one step ahead.
 
The morons can't stop it, no matter what they do they have no chance in hell of ever stopping it.
 
Ok, this may sound like a stupid question, but are they just going after those that are getting the freebie stuff? Morpheus is a paysite now, although it's insanely inexpensive. Is the stuff I'm getting off of there going to land me in court now? If that's the case, why bother paying for a service?
 
The whole thing stinks,IMHO

Smacks of Big Brother. This is gonna get worse before it's over.
 
Re: The whole thing stinks,IMHO

AffectionateDan said:
Smacks of Big Brother. This is gonna get worse before it's over.


I agree with you on that-the only way to avoid the Big Brother dealie is for folks to stop stealing, and that ain't gonna happen (it would be nice though).

Bella
 
Maybe if they would stop raising the price of CDs people wouldnt feel the need to "steal"
 
Limeoutsider said:
Maybe if they would stop raising the price of CDs people wouldnt feel the need to "steal"

That works both ways, Lime. The prices go up to make up for the revenue lost due to theft-both in stores and online. I'm insanely cheap, I only buy CDs used from CD warehouse and Half Price Books. I agree $20 is a lot for a CD, but I'll gladly pay $8 or so and make an honest purchase. And I *do* think there should be an inexpensive way to download music and burn your own CDs without stealing.

I was raised that if you can't afford something, either you don't buy it or you save up 'til you can; the price of an item doesn't justify theft unless it's a life or death situation, and last time I checked no one has died from wanting the new Linkin Park album🙄 😎 .

Bella
 
I can't subscribe to the point of view that it's "stealing"

What people share on the internet is their own damned business, unless we're talking about parties who are mass-marketing the music that they're DL'ing. Is it stealing if you record the same songs as they're played over the radio? I don't think so... I could be wrong, but you're sure as hell not gonna catch someone who's doing it. Where do they draw the line? The only difference that I see is that it's a helluva lot better sound quality this way. And what about music that's so old, it's Public Domain? You telling me that these music industry fascists can sue me for having Beethoven or Mozart on my computer? I think not. But yeah, the only valid way I can give any ground on this is if people are burning CD's of hot new music and selling them, now THAT I can see them getting their knickers in a twist over. But the vast majority of people doing this are only doing it for personal use. Grrrrrrr! :disgust:
 
Speaking as someone that actually intends to make a carreer out of music, I am all for these attempts at regulating the amount of music downloaded over the net. I don't want to completely wipe out music on the internet... thats just stupid and counter productive... but I do want to stop all my music being avaliable for free (ie, I know several people that downloaded the new System of a Down and Metallica CDs before they were even released here).

What people share on the internet is their own damned business, unless we're talking about parties who are mass-marketing the music that they're DL'ing. Is it stealing if you record the same songs as they're played over the radio?

Well... actually the TMF is against the sharing of non-public domain stuff... for example, Myriads would probably do some level of moderation if someone posted a free link that would download a complete Magic Touch Productions video without thier consent. I'm sure the same applies to ever other medium.

Also, there is a difference between downloading a song off Kazaa and taping a song off the radio. For starters, the artist (or label) is paid each time a song of theirs is played on a radio (no royalties through Kazaa)... and I am yet to hear a radio station play an entire album in succession, or even over a few days.

The great thing about the radio is that the artists, by having a popular song played, can encourage consumers to go and buy the album which contains that song and many others. The thing about the sharing across the net is that if someone likes a particular song... yeah they can download it... but they can also download every other song off an album... and if the artist is popular enough, they can download pretty much their entire carrer. And the only people that made money out of that was some internet service provider.

That is what I think the law is trying to prevent... they weren't trying to block all sharing of music, just excessive sharing.

Mind you, if you don't want to pay $20 for a cd (U.S. money I'm assuming)... check out your local gig guide and go find a decent unsigned band. In general, the cds that they sell will often be quite alot cheaper, even if they are not... you at least know that they will be getting close to %100 of the profits (rather than 5¢ for most signed bands)... whats more, the cds are normally avaliable after a live gig, so when buying the cd you already know if you like the music or not.... and even if you don't buy the cd, you are supporting the band by just being there.
 
What's New

2/27/2025
See some Spam? Report it! We appreciate the help! The report button is on the lower left of the post.
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top