|
Great article in LATIMES about file sharing, music business...
Two great articles in the LATIMES today about file sharing and the future of the music industry. Two great reads:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...lines-business Song Swappers Face the Music The record industry sues 261 Internet users. Thousands more cases are expected in the labels' latest attempt to dissuade file sharers. By Jon Healey, James S. Granelli and Joseph Menn Times Staff Writers September 9, 2003 Vonnie and Scott Bassett say they try to set good examples for their children. On Monday, though, the major record companies sought to make examples out of the Bassetts. In their most aggressive and controversial bid to stamp out online piracy, the labels on Monday sued Vonnie Bassett and 260 others around the country who allegedly offered large libraries of songs for copying on five popular file-sharing networks. The cases — the first of thousands the labels expect to file in federal courts — mark a turning point in the music industry's four-year battle against rampant piracy on the Internet. For the first time, the recording industry is training its considerable legal firepower on individuals, not the companies profiting from the public's hunger for free music. One quirk in the process, though, is that the defendants named aren't necessarily the people using file-sharing networks. That's because the Recording Industry Assn. of America's investigation identified only the people whose Internet access accounts were being used to share files. They might be the parents, roommates or spouses of the alleged pirates. Scott Bassett said neither he nor his wife used the family PC in Redwood City, Calif., for music, but their teenagers and dozens of their friends do. Had he known what was going on, he said, "I would have pulled the plug." "I don't know what I'm going to do," said Bassett, a former junkyard operator. "Do I really need to hire a lawyer? Can I just call them up and say I'm sorry and give them back all the music that was downloaded? I'm just a little guy." The lawsuits allege that users of Kazaa and four other networks violated the labels' copyrights by downloading or sharing songs without permission. The defendants were accused of offering an average of 1,000 songs each for others to copy, exposing them to damages of $750,000 to $150 million each. With such huge potential penalties, many defendants are expected to concede instead of fight. A handful already have agreed to pay about $3,000 to settle claims before they were filed. The RIAA also offered amnesty Monday for file sharers who turn themselves in before they are targeted. RIAA President Cary Sherman said the association has sought the identities of more than 1,500 people it considered to be "egregious" offenders, those who shared a significant number of songs on peer-to-peer networks. The first defendants were chosen based on their location, Sherman said, so the RIAA could file suits simultaneously against multiple people in a region and save on legal fees. At least two dozen cases were filed in Los Angeles. The suits drew praise from groups of songwriters, session musicians, independent record labels, recording studios and music retailers. But they drew criticism, too, from others who argued that there were far better ways to convert file sharers into paying customers. File-sharing advocates accused the labels of trying to crush a technology that threatened to end their dominance over the music industry. "What we're seeing is an industry in its death throes, and these extreme actions aren't going to get them anywhere," said Holmes Wilson of DownhillBattle.com, a Web site that supports file sharing. Sherman said the vast majority of those sued had been warned that what they were doing was just as illegal as shoplifting, but they didn't stop. Music industry executives say they were reluctant to sue but saw no other way to stem the relentless file sharing that they say is the biggest factor in the prolonged slump in CD sales. Sherman declined to identify the people sued, and said the RIAA didn't try to learn anything about them other than their names and addresses. It expects some to contend that they weren't the ones downloading or sharing music, and it's prepared to amend its claims to name the actual infringers — even if they are minors. "Nobody likes playing the heavy," Sherman said, "but when you are being victimized by an illegal activity, there comes a time when you have to stand up and take appropriate action." With an estimated 60 million Americans using networks such as Kazaa and Gnutella, critics of the RIAA say the major labels can't possibly sue enough people to make a dent in file sharing. Senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said the industry is "almost certain to make some mistakes" and sue people who are innocent. The San Francisco-based cyber-liberties group is trying to round up attorneys who will defend file sharers for free. "We're hoping that lawyers will step forward, not necessarily to litigate but at least to advise people on their rights and help them negotiate settlements, if that's the road they choose to take," Von Lohmann said. "These are not going to be fair fights." Sherman said he would welcome cases going to trial because it would help establish for the public that file sharing is illegal. The proceeds from any trials or settlements will be kept by the RIAA to cover the cost of its anti-piracy campaigns, he said, rather than being used to compensate labels and artists. Several lawyers warned that the RIAA's amnesty offer may be a bad deal. Those who apply for amnesty from the RIAA must confess their past transgressions, but that won't protect them from being pursued by music publishers, independent labels or even federal prosecutors. "There may be ramifications that people just don't foresee," said Glenn Peterson, an attorney for a woman trying to shield her identity from the RIAA. "Don't put yourself in a position where the RIAA is the guardian of your interests. It's a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation." In addition to Kazaa users, the lawsuits targeted people who shared files on iMesh, Grokster, Gnutella and Blubster — despite Blubster's claims that it could hide the identities of its users. Said Grokster President Wayne Rosso: "By attacking users for uploading, they're trying to attack our network." A federal judge ruled this year that Grokster did not violate copyright law because it did not control what its users did online — even though many copied movies and music without permission. The case is on appeal. Scott Bassett was bewildered by the whole thing. He said he wasn't really aware of what his 17-year-old son, Scott, and 15-year-old daughter, Brooke, were doing on the family's computer, although he often heard music blaring out of the speakers. "They're good kids, moral kids. We get 15 to 20 kids over here on a Friday night, and I buy them all pizza. I keep a clean, safe environment: no dope or alcohol." Bassett, 45, said he had a prescription drug and alcohol problem for years but kicked the habit and has opened a recovery program. He said he tells his children's friends about his mistakes so they won't do the same things. "We have good family morals," he said. "If they did something wrong, I'm sure they didn't know about it." Piracy Gets Mixed Reviews in Industry File sharing is seen as a burden and a boon By Alex Pham and P.J. Huffstutter Times Staff Writers September 9, 2003 By going to court, the major record labels are showing a united front against music piracy. But the bootlegging of songs online isn't universally reviled by the thousands of people who make their living in the $14-billion U.S. recording industry. To the chief executive of a rap music label, every pirated song means less money in his pocket. To the bass player in an independent band, however, file-sharing networks provide far more exposure than traditional outlets, such as radio. And to the musician who tours with acts such as Beck and Sheryl Crow, the popularity of Kazaa, Morpheus and other online networks ought to persuade the record labels to embrace the Net to reach customers. A sampling of what rank and file members of the industry had to say: * Ariana Murray Bass player for Earlimart, an independent band Los Angeles People today have new expectations about being able to browse music before they buy. If people are downloading our music, we look at it as a positive thing. For us, it just seems to be a promotional tool. If anything, it's helping us at this point. Maybe my opinion will change when our record sales start to have a more direct effect on our personal incomes. At this point, I like the fact that people can listen before they buy the product. Not everyone has the disposable income to go out and buy everything. I still believe that if a band is really good — if you're writing great songs and you work real hard and tour like crazy — people will buy your record and that's going to help your income. We put a lot of art into our work. Our record is an enhanced CD with videos on it. That's not something you can download, at least not yet. So we hope that's an incentive for people to own the record. My reservations about downloading is really an aesthetic one. Imagine if Pink Floyd's "The Wall" came out now. There's this whole idea of concept records, the idea of a record that has a beginning, a middle and an end. There are some records that should be listened to that way. If people download individual tracks, they miss out on the artistry that goes into making the whole. * Tha Realest Songwriter/rapper Chief Executive of 2 Real Entertainment, a rap label I've been writing songs since I was in a talent show in fourth grade. That was back in '84 or '85. It was a way to have a conversation with people in the streets, a way to reach out with words. And it got me paid. I don't download music at all, but bootlegging's been around forever. I know a lot of the kids don't understand it. They don't understand that whole publishing thing. That's what you eat off of, because you don't make huge money when you sign up with the labels. It's the other things that help you get paid. It's the clothing lines and the producing and the publishing. It's the songwriting and the licensing you get from that. The kids don't see that. I have college kids come up to me all the time, saying, "Hey! I've got this hot bootleg mix CD with your music on it." What he doesn't figure out is he's taking food off my table. They sell the tapes for $10 a pop. At first, I got mad. Now, I roll with it and use the tapes as a promotional avenue. I go down to the studio once or twice a month, and knock out three to four songs that will just be for these mix tapes. One of these mix tapes might get the word of mouth going, and that's good for me. * Marc Weinstein Co-owner, Amoeba Music stores, Berkeley For our business, it's been as equally helpful as hurtful. If people [who use file-sharing services] are listening to things they otherwise wouldn't listen to, it's great for us. People who are into music need a way to discover artists, because the radio isn't a very good way to do that. File sharing can be helpful in educating the public. I'm 46 years old. People [from] my generation have been alienated from the music world. Nothing is played on the radio for us. We have no way of finding out what's new and cool. NPR maybe breaks about one or two interesting things a year that percolate through my generation. But there are so few examples of that. Stealing — I'm certainly not a proponent of that. Everyone loses out, especially the artists. But the music industry long ago should have developed a system to help listeners learn about music so they can look up artists and hear what they sound like. Then they can go out and buy what they're interested in. As far as Amoeba goes, we're doing OK, because people come here to find the unusual stuff, the broad catalog. It's the chain stores that are hurt by this. People who listen to pop are more likely to shop at chain stores, and they're more likely to take it off the Internet. No one wants to spend $20 to get one song. * Roger Joseph Manning Jr. Band member, co-founder of Jellyfish and TV Eyes Session and tour musician for Beck, Blink 182, Sheryl Crow Woodland Hills The world of recorded media is changing at lightning speeds, and nobody knows what to do about it. I am on the fence right now about this whole thing. I see where it can be a powerful tool for promoting small and medium artists. On the other hand, all the artists are being ripped off to a degree. But it's the medium-sized bands and smaller acts that suffer the most from piracy. That scene relies incredibly on sharing and word of mouth. It's not the Limp Bizkits and the Metallicas. Sure, they can argue losses on paper. So what does that mean? They can't buy their sixth Mercedes? I make a lot of my living through session work. Many of the bands that I work with are so big that piracy doesn't affect them. The multi-platinum acts still hire me. I don't see them hurting. But I'm painfully aware and sad about the current state of the business. We've all been living with the old design where bands sign up with record labels, and musicians end up losing control. In my opinion, that model has ripped off more from musicians [than piracy]. Why not try something else? What have I got to lose by jumping in and experimenting with doing a selected release on a few Web sites? There has to be some kind of alternative that omits the recording labels so the artist becomes the salesman for his wares. And the Internet could be the vehicle by which he can do that. * Steve Stoute Concert promoter and musician manager Co-creator of the "Roc Tha Mic" concert tour with rap artists Jay-Z and 50 Cent I think this tactic is not going to stand up in court. Someone in Omaha, Neb., is going to get sued and go to jail because they swapped a Linkin Park song? They'll sue, the RIAA will sue, everyone will sue, and it'll all come down to being one big scare tactic. Maybe people will learn something. We can only hope. Look, there's not a direct tie between the health of concert promoting and downloading on the Internet. If an act's popular, and a song's popular, people are going to download it. If there's a connection, it's small. The big thing is making sure an act's not overexposed on TV or anywhere else. For us, in concerts, the big thing we deal with is keeping the mystique of an act going. As live performances on TV shows, and behind-the-scenes and [MTV's] "Cribs" and stuff go up and up, an act's giving more than their music. They're giving bits of themselves away. They're making themselves a lot more accessible to the public now than they did years ago. The more access you provide to the public, the less there is of the magic of seeing them live and in front of your face. The whole phenomenon of concerts is that you get to see an act live. But if you see them "live" on TV, what's the draw? What's the point? * (Begin Text of Infobox) The Players The fight over online music includes a range of industries and interests. * Chris Gorog Title: Chairman and chief executive, Roxio Inc. Position: Pro-digital music technology Stake: Runs a legal music service and sells CD-burning software "Anything that Roxio will do in this space will be respectful of artist rights and will be working toward a commercial solution." * Fred von Lohmann Title: Senior intellectual property attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation Position: Pro-file-sharing technology Stake: Advocates civil liberties online "The American public has really spoken on this, and the idea of suing them all into submission is a dead loser." * Janis Ian Title: Singer, songwriter Position: Pro-file sharing Stake: Sells songs and collects royalties "The Internet, and downloading, are here to stay Anyone who thinks otherwise should prepare themselves to end up on the slag heap of history." * David Schlang Title: Chairman, National Assn. of Recording Merchandisers Position: Anti-piracy Stake: Sells CDs "Without exception, we believe artists have the right to be compensated. For that to happen, their work must be protected." * Jack Valenti Title: Chief executive, Motion Picture Assn. of America Position: Anti-piracy Stake: Sells movies "It is not sharing. It's stealing." * Wayne Rosso Title: President, Grokster Position: Pro-file sharing Stake: Runs a file-sharing network "We're a massive distribution arm. It's very powerful, and we happen to have their customers." * Cary Sherman Title: President, Recording Industry Assn. of America Position: Anti-file sharing, anti-piracy Stake: Sells recorded music "The seriousness of this problem requires us to act quickly and send a loud and clear message that this kind of activity is illegal and has consequences." * Sarah Deutsch Title: Vice president, general counsel, Verizon Communications Inc. Position: Believes RIAA subpoenas violate privacy rights, endanger anonymous speech and threaten public safety by giving a powerful tool to stalkers and other abusers Stake: Company sells Internet access "Anyone can claim to be a copyright holder, and anyone can use this process to obtain your identity, whether you've infringed a copyright or not." * Nobuyuki Idei Title: Chairman, Sony Corp. Position: Pro-technology and anti-piracy Stake: Sells computers, CD burners, digital music players, music and movies "They have to change their mind-set away from selling albums and think about selling singles over the Internet for as cheap as possible — even 20 cents or 10 cents — and encourage file sharing so they can also get micro-payments for these files. The music industry has to reinvent itself; we can no longer control distribution the way we used to." * Steve Jobs Title: Chief executive, Apple Computer Inc. Position: Pro-technology Stake: Sells computers, digital music players and downloadable songs "People keep their music collections on their computers. They want to burn CDs and to put their music on portable players. Why shop at a record store?" * Bill Gates Title: Chairman, Microsoft Corp. Position: Pro-technology, anti-piracy Stake: Sells software and digital media technology "It reminds me of the early days of the PC industry. The hobbyist clubs would get together and swap the software, and I wrote an open letter — this was back in 1975 — saying, 'Gee, come on, you guys, license some of this stuff. It would sure help in terms of invention and new software coming along.' Well, I didn't write that letter in the most politic form" |
My reservations about downloading is really an aesthetic one. Imagine if Pink Floyd's "The Wall" came out now. There's this whole idea of concept records, the idea of a record that has a beginning, a middle and an end. There are some records that should be listened to that way. If people download individual tracks, they miss out on the artistry that goes into making the whole. The Wall? Great, cohesive concept album. 99.99999% of the crap today? One good single, 11 tracks of crap. The RIAA will not stop until we stop buying CDs period. Show them what a real decline in sales is. |
I haven't bought a new CD in over a year. Why? Not because of downloading. But because I haven't found anything that I wanted to listen to. That's what the real problem is.
Like I've said before, it's simple economics at work AGAINST the RIAA: Market Saturation : There are too many acts that sound the same. How many guys with deep voices who sound like Creed complaining about how much life sucks do I have to endure on the radio? The market place is now flooded with inferior product. It's no wonder why sales are down ANOTHER 10% in August alone. More competition: I have more choices for my entertainment dollar now. I don't have to buy CD's and for alot of people like me, CD's are a BAD entertainment value. I recently purchased SOCOM US Navy SEALS for PS2. I paid $19.99. I know I'm going to get at least a good 30-50 hours of entertainment of that game. And if you added in the online play the hours of entertainment grow exponentially. For $17.99 I could have bought a CD with about 12 tracks and 45 minutes of music on it. Factor out the throw aways, and you cut that down to about 12 minutes of entertainment. Simple fact. People think DVD's and video games are a better entertainment value now than CD's. So what's next? Is the RIAA going to sue Sony because the PS2 cuts into their profits. So why is the industry trying to squash downloading. One word : FEAR. They fear a time when they will actually have to give artists a real stake in record sales. They fear a time when there will be no Gulf Stream jets, no luxury condos in Jamaica, no hangers on, no groupies, no Yes-Men and no unlimited streams of money. They fear the time that they can no longer "laugh at the little people". They fear that the industry will cease to be the huge party that it is and will actually have to be run like a business. |
My reservations about downloading is really an aesthetic one. Imagine if Pink Floyd's "The Wall" came out now. There's this whole idea of concept records, the idea of a record that has a beginning, a middle and an end. There are some records that should be listened to that way. If people download individual tracks, they miss out on the artistry that goes into making the whole. |
Originally posted by Captain Harlock I haven't bought a new CD in over a year. Why? Not because of downloading. But because I haven't found anything that I wanted to listen to. That's what the real problem is. Market Saturation : More competition: FEAR. 1. When a double DVD with excellent picture and sound and 4 hours of extras costs as much as a standard CD, what do they think people are going to buy? Add the insanely good quality of video games these days and it's not hard to see why people have given up. CDs should either cost about $7 or offer tons of extras (e.g.: a free dvd of extras with each purchase). That would raise sales very quickly. 2. The centralized distribution, album focused recording industry is simply obsolete. The internet empowers artists to reach millions of listeners without having to sell their souls and sign on the dotted line. Look at Wilco: YHF went multi-platinum when it was released because it had built up a huge following online. They offered the whole album for free dl and STILL made money. P2P has been around long enough now that it's mainstream, no longer the province of nerds. People don't want to schlep to stores to buy overpriced albums that are 80% filler. Because the recording industry has continually refused to offer a reasonable alternative (even ITunes blows donkeys compared to Kazaalite), they've shot themselves in the foot. It's their own damn fault. However, I disagree that there's no good music around right now. As an ex-compulsive cd buyer (over 2500 in my collection, about 30% of which are OOP), I can safely say there hasn't been this much good music around since the mid eighties/early ninties heyday of the "alternative" scene (when lables like SST, Blast First, Homestead, Shimmy Disk were in thier prime). IMO, the root cause of this perception of lack of quality is: 3. Commercial radio has NEVER been worse. Everything is incredibly homogenized and heavily formated. You hear the same eight songs across the country. I NEVER listen to the radio these days, it's unbearable. People are not stupid and radio has forced them to seek new tunes elsewhere. The RIAA should sue Clear Channel instead for dealing their percieved quality a huge blow. |
Originally posted by Captain Harlock I haven't bought a new CD in over a year. Why? Not because of downloading. But because I haven't found anything that I wanted to listen to. That's what the real problem is. Like I've said before, it's simple economics at work AGAINST the RIAA: Market Saturation : There are too many acts that sound the same. How many guys with deep voices who sound like Creed complaining about how much life sucks do I have to endure on the radio? The market place is now flooded with inferior product. It's no wonder why sales are down ANOTHER 10% in August alone. More competition: I have more choices for my entertainment dollar now. I don't have to buy CD's and for alot of people like me, CD's are a BAD entertainment value. I recently purchased SOCOM US Navy SEALS for PS2. I paid $19.99. I know I'm going to get at least a good 30-50 hours of entertainment of that game. And if you added in the online play the hours of entertainment grow exponentially. For $17.99 I could have bought a CD with about 12 tracks and 45 minutes of music on it. Factor out the throw aways, and you cut that down to about 12 minutes of entertainment. Simple fact. People think DVD's and video games are a better entertainment value now than CD's. So what's next? Is the RIAA going to sue Sony because the PS2 cuts into their profits. So why is the industry trying to squash downloading. One word : FEAR. They fear a time when they will actually have to give artists a real stake in record sales. They fear a time when there will be no Gulf Stream jets, no luxury condos in Jamaica, no hangers on, no groupies, no Yes-Men and no unlimited streams of money. They fear the time that they can no longer "laugh at the little people". They fear that the industry will cease to be the huge party that it is and will actually have to be run like a business. YES, we know "sharing" is stealing. But instead of getting your rocks off by litigation, how 'bout working towards fixing the problem and sharing some of the responsiblity? No one's come out and said "Yes, we realize the HIGH price of CDs are part of the reason people download." Or, "Yes, we realize the HIGH price of CDs are part of the reason small businesses [aka "Mom & Pop stores"] and now BIG CHAIN stores are slowing becoming extinct." |
I live in a rural area and my shopping choices are rather limited.
( Wal- Mart and a sam goody's) I went in to both of these stores witha list of several CD's that I was looking to purchase and I had previously downloaded some songs, and really liked them and wanted the best quality. here is what I was looking for. Sigur Ros anything badly drawn boy about a boy soundtrack jeff buckley anything Bjork vespertine radiohead the bends and pablo honey Did I buy any CD's ? no Why not? neither store had anything at all on my list. come on RIAA guys get a clue. and quit making your lawyers very happy. |
12-Year-Old Girl Sued for Music Downloading
12-Year-Old Sued for Music Downloading
Tuesday, September 09, 2003 NEW YORK — The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers — including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun. Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country. "I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother. "I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?" The Recording Industry Association of America (search) — a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits — couldn't answer that question. "We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss. Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals." Brianna's mom, Sylvia Torres, said the lawsuit was "a total shock." "My daughter was on the verge of tears when she found out about this," Torres said. The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge. Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said. When reporters visited the apartment last night, Brianna — who her mom says is an honors student — was helping her brother with his homework. Brianna was among 261 people sued for copying thousands of songs via popular Internet file-sharing software — and thousands more suits could be on the way. "Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action." At the same time, the RIAA offered amnesty to file-swappers who come forward and agree to stop illegally downloading music over the Internet. People who already have been sued are not eligible for amnesty. Brianna and the others sued yesterday under federal copyright law could face penalties of up to $150,000 per song, but the RIAA has already settled some cases for as little as $3,000. "It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud." |
|
As indicated in the post above, Other is the regular place for this kind of topic.: the music forum is more for the discussing of actual music and performers as opposed to ethical issues. We can stand about one thread on the topic but that is it - so I'll be merging , moving and closing if I see a preponderance.
Benedict Moderator, Music Talk |
MSNBC article: How the evil RIAA catches file swappers
The Recording Industry Association of America sued 261 alleged file swappers Monday, launching a legal campaign against ordinary Internet users that could ultimately result in thousands of additional lawsuits.
But are you at risk? If you or a family member have used Kazaa or any other file-swapping application recently and have left your computer open to the Net, the answer is possibly--although the odds of being singled out among an estimated 60 million people using peer-to-peer software remain small. If you've kept thousands of songs in the file you're sharing with other file swappers, then the odds are a little better, though still slim. Here's a quick look at how the RIAA has done its investigations and what kind of information it has used to find people and file Monday's lawsuits. Step one: Finding file-traders isn't hard. Anybody who opens a shared folder on Kazaa, Morpheus or any other file-swapping network is susceptible to potentially prying eyes. In the most recent wave of investigations, the RIAA has used automated tools that look for a relatively short list of files. When it finds a person sharing one or more of those files, it downloads all or many of them for verification purposes. A complete list of these target files is not available, but a sampling of files cited in the early lawsuits includes the following artists and songs: • Bobby McFerrin, "Don't Worry, Be Happy" • Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now" • Eagles, "Hotel California" • George Michael, "Kissing A Fool" • Paula Abdul, "Knocked Out" • Green Day, "Minority" • UB40, "Red Red Wine" • Ludacris "Area Codes" • Marvin Gaye, "Sexual Healing" • Avril Lavigne, "Complicated" This is far from a complete list, but if you've downloaded and shared any of those songs recently, you may be at greater risk of finding your way onto the RIAA's list. Step two: The RIAA uses features within Kazaa, Grokster and some other software programs to list all the files available within a person's shared folder and takes screenshots of that information. As filed in court, that provides a record of what in some cases has been thousands of songs shared at once. Step three: The RIAA's software records the Internet address associated with a computer that is sharing one of the copyrighted songs the organization is investigating. Some file-swapping programs try to hide this by using mechanisms such as proxy servers, but most downloads still expose this information. Step four: According to information filed as part of a related lawsuit, the RIAA also has the ability to do a more sophisticated analysis of the files that have been downloaded. The group checks the artist's name, title, and any "metadata" information attached to the files, looking for information that may indicate what piece of software has been used to create the file or any other. Some files swapped widely on the Net include messages from the original person who created the MP3 file, such as "Created by Grip" or "Finally the Real Full CD delivered fresh for everyone on Grokster and Kazaa to Enjoy!" The RIAA has also analyzed in detail some files' contents. The trade group has databases of digital fingerprints, or "hashes," that identify songs that were swapped online in Napster's heyday. Investigators check these fingerprints against those found in a new suspected file swapper's folder, looking for matches. A match means the file has almost certainly been downloaded from the Net, likely from a stream of copies dating back to the original Napster file. Step five: The RIAA files a subpoena request with a federal court. The subpoena allows the group to go to an Internet service provider and request the name and address of the subscriber who's associated with the Net address that was used to swap files. A few Internet service providers (ISPs) have fought back against these requests, but most have been forced to comply with the RIAA's request. Many ISPs notify their subscribers when a subpoena comes in that targets their information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has set up a database that allows people to see whether their online screen name has been the target of one of these subpoenas. The RIAA said it has filed more than 1,500 of these subpoenas to date. Step six: Once the identity of the ISP subscriber has been exposed, the RIAA puts together all the information gleaned through the earlier technical investigation and files a lawsuit. In earlier cases, it has accepted settlement agreements that range between $12,000 and $17,000. In this case, it has accepted some settlement agreements for as little as $3,000. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.