Recording Industry takes a hit

[Donutboy 0]

RIAA: Shot Through the Heart?

By Cynthia L. Webb

washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Monday, December 22, 2003; 9:57 AM

The top brass at the Recording Industry Association of America probably have "I Don't Like Mondays" on heavy rotation this morning, especially after a weekend where every story about their legal campaign against music piracy started off with words like "setback," "sharp blow," "struck down" and "stinging rebuke."

That's because a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on Friday that the RIAA can't force Internet service providers to drop the dime on their customers who are suspected of illegally trading songs online.

The Washington Post took the "sharp blow" approach in its front-page story, while the Associated Press reported that "The ruling does not legalize distributing copyrighted songs over the Internet, but it will greatly increase the cost and effort for the Washington-based Recording Industry Association of America to track such activity and sue those who are swapping music online."

"Stinging rebuke" honors went to the the San Jose Mercury News editorial board, which opined today that the ruling "is also an invitation to Congress to fix copyright law not only to protect the entertainment industry but also consumers whose rights have been trampled." In a separate article on Saturday, the Mercury News said the ruling "means the secret identities of thousands of file swappers are safe for now."

• The Washington Post: Recording Industry Curbed on Music Suits

• The Associated Press via the New York Times: Record Industry May Not Subpoena Providers(Registration required)

• The San Jose Mercury News: Music File Swappers Prevail In Ruling

• The D.C. appeals court's ruling (PDF)

The Post provided more background on the case. "The ruling throws out two lower-court decisions that gave the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) the right to subpoena the names of thousands of suspected users of file-sharing software programs without first filing lawsuits," the Post reported, explaining that the RIAA used the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act as a tool to slap consumers with subpoenas to gather evidence for file-swapping lawsuits. The RIAA has sued hundreds of file-swappers and used the threat of more suits to get people to switch from free file swapping to shelling out dough for music. More on the ruling's effects from the Post: "Consumer advocates and Internet providers hailed yesterday's ruling as an affirmation of privacy rights for Internet users in the face of a mass attack by a single industry. The recording association said it would not be deterred from protecting the business of its members and promised additional lawsuits, saying it would seek the names in a more time-consuming way," the newspaper reported.

The Merc's opinion piece said with the advent of the DMCA, Congress created a "streamlined subpoena process" and "understood that copyright holders need a quick and efficient way to counter electronic theft. But it wrote the digital copyright law in 1998, before the birth of Napster and its file-sharing offspring. So it's not surprising the law no longer meshes with technology. Unless it wins on appeal, the recording industry will lobby Congress to extend the subpoena power to theft via peer-to-peer networks. Before it consents, Congress must add protections, including notifying the individual involved, requiring judicial review and imposing penalties for abuse," the paper wrote.

• San Jose Mercury News Editorial: Consider The Digital Consumer

Meanwhile, the ruling is "likely to hamper one of the industry's most important strategies: lawsuits against illegal file sharers," The Wall Street Journal said today. "The court struck down a lower court's ruling that had ordered Verizon Communications Inc. to turn over the identities of customers suspected of sharing music via Internet peer-to-peer services. The ruling will make it more cumbersome for the recording industry to learn the identities of major online music swappers -- and thus significantly impede the record labels' ability to quickly file large batches of lawsuits against these individuals," the newspaper reported today.

• The Wall Street Journal: Music Industry's Move Against Swappers Hits Snag (Registration required)

The Shape of Lawsuits to Come

Despite the legal indigestion, the ruling does not mean that the RIAA has to figure out a Plan B. "While the appeals court decision means nothing for those already sued, it does make it more difficult for the record industry to identify others it suspects of online piracy, said Megan Gray, a Washington, D.C., attorney who specializes in intellectual property. Before, under specific provisions of the law, music industry attorneys simply had to ask a U.S. District Court clerk to issue a subpoena - without requiring a judge's signature - to the ISP for the identity of anyone they suspected of copyright infringement," Newsday said.

The AP said "[l]egal experts said they did not expect the appeals ruling to affect 382 civil lawsuits the recording industry has filed since it announced its campaign six months ago. It also was not expected to affect financial settlements with at least 220 computer users who agreed to pay penalties from $2,500 to $7,500 each," the article said.

end of page one of three

RIAA: Shot Through the Heart?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i don't mean to hijack this thread, but i think that file-sharing/swapping, etc., over the internet is one of those things where people suspend their beliefs about breaking the law because they think that (1) it shouldn't be illegal, and/or (2) they don't think they'll be caught.

much of the file-sharing is clearly illegal, but otherwise law-abiding citizens regularly take part in it.

does anyone else find that odd/intriguing?

ct

[WarTiger 4,014]

As a user that regularly downloads music(SSSSHHHHHH), I obviously have no problem with it. Although is has been several weeks since i downloaded any. My take on it is this: 1.) cost of music CD's in stores. When i was growing up, we could buy a full length CD for around $10, now a CD will cost users $20 or more. I know the cost of producing these CD's has increased, but likewise the quality of music has severely declined. Why would i want to go drop $25 for a CD that has ONE or TWO quality songs on it out of 14?? 2.) The only reason the recording industry is so up in arms over this song swapping, is because its taking money out of THEIR pocket. The artists that record these CD's make very little off the sale of their CD's..The record company is the one thats losing money not the artist. The artist(i use that very loosely in todays crap, i mean music) makes their money off touring, through ticket sales for their concerts and merchandise sales at these concerts. So, in summary, If the artist wants people to BUY their CD's instead of downloading them, improve the quality of the music, so we get more than 2 good songs per disc.

[jaydubb121 22]

I have downloaded music regularly for over a year now and while I realize it's illegal I don't think it produces the negative consequences that the RIAA states. I mean the people like Britney and J-Lo and others that have dominated the charts seem to still be making a little dough here and there, and in my case I am more likely to go buy a CD by an obscure artist after getting turned on to a couple of downloaded cuts. I'm not afraid of getting caught because I can afford a decent lawyer and think the Industry's claims are bogus and I think ISP's could stop you from doing it if they thought it was a big deal, but it's obvious they don't. So upload 'em if you got 'em and download 'em if you don't and remember it's the file sharing that makes it a successful hobby for all involved.

[Ranger12 53]

Guys, think about it. It is millionaires and billionaires whining about supposedly losing what amounts to pocket change for most of them. What the RIAA does not tell you is that most up and coming artists support file sharing because that is how the most people hear their music. People hear their music, then they will pay the ticket prices to go to their concert. I agree with aupcolatiger, why should I be force to pay $15-$20 dollars for at most 3 good songs on one CD. Nowadays, you are lucky to get two good songs. They last few CDS that I actually purchased, I was very disappointed in. Take for example Toby Keith's new CD, Shockn' Ya'll. I am a TK fan, but the Cd only has about three good songs on it and the rest is just time filler. Also, when looking for old songs that is hard to find or songs by one artists but on many different albums, why shoud I have to pay for $100 or more for a bunch of CDs that I only need one or two songs. I have about 1300 songs on my computer. Half are uploaded from my personal CD collection and half were downloaded. I listen to alot of Classic Rock (70's and 80's) and some country. I don't want to even think about the money it would have took for me to buy all those CDs for 70s and 80s. Heck just think about the CDs purchased just for all those one hit wonders back then, when music was better. Seeing how IMO, the music is worse now and there seems to be more one hit wonders, just imagine all that money blowed on music now.

I think it is funny how musicians call themselves artists, and artists are always saying that art should be free for all to experience and share. They are the loudest for crying "save our music in the schools, give money!". They say music is art and needs to be saved. But then they turn around and say it is a business and they need to get paid. Which way is it going to be? Anybody else see the hypocrisy in that? Again, they are the same as pro athletes whining that they do not make enought money. The can kiss my butt. If they started putting out a better product, then maybe I would change my mind. Of course, the RIAA keeps putting out the numbers of how much money is being lost, but those numbers are never verified. It's all about control, not about morality.

[WarTiger 4,014]

Guys, think about it. It is millionaires and billionaires whining about supposedly losing what amounts to pocket change for most of them. What the RIAA does not tell you is that most up and coming artists support file sharing because that is how the most people hear their music. People hear their music, then they will pay the ticket prices to go to their concert. I agree with aupcolatiger, why should I be force to pay $15-$20 dollars for at most 3 good songs on one CD. Nowadays, you are lucky to get two good songs. They last few CDS that I actually purchased, I was very disappointed in. Take for example Toby Keith's new CD, Shockn' Ya'll. I am a TK fan, but the Cd only has about three good songs on it and the rest is just time filler. Also, when looking for old songs that is hard to find or songs by one artists but on many different albums, why shoud I have to pay for $100 or more for a bunch of CDs that I only need one or two songs. I have about 1300 songs on my computer. Half are uploaded from my personal CD collection and half were downloaded. I listen to alot of Classic Rock (70's and 80's) and some country. I don't want to even think about the money it would have took for me to buy all those CDs for 70s and 80s. Heck just think about the CDs purchased just for all those one hit wonders back then, when music was better. Seeing how IMO, the music is worse now and there seems to be more one hit wonders, just imagine all that money blowed on music now.

I think it is funny how musicians call themselves artists, and artists are always saying that art should be free for all to experience and share. They are the loudest for crying "save our music in the schools, give money!". They say music is art and needs to be saved. But then they turn around and say it is a business and they need to get paid. Which way is it going to be? Anybody else see the hypocrisy in that? Again, they are the same as pro athletes whining that they do not make enought money. The can kiss my butt. If they started putting out a better product, then maybe I would change my mind. Of course, the RIAA keeps putting out the numbers of how much money is being lost, but those numbers are never verified. It's all about control, not about morality.

Ranger, I'll add another point. What about all the music from the '70's and 80's that is OUT OF PRINT, and thus, no longer available? If the CD is out of print, not even the record company is making any money off of it. BTW, if you want any '80's rock...I've got a bunch...lol.. I've got about 30 gig worth of mp3's.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

guys/gals, i'm no prude...well, i'm not a huge prude anyway, but your posts pretty much reflect what i'm talking about...justifications or rationalizations for doing something that is illegal.

sure, we all speed, and that's illegal... and there are a few other examples, but the fact remains that otherwise law-abiding citizens are partaking in aberrant behavior when they download music...

no one else finds this interesting?

<<note, i'm trying very hard not to sound judgmental or condescending, just intrigued>>

ct

[Donutboy 0]

i don't mean to hijack this thread, but i think that file-sharing/swapping, etc., over the internet is one of those things where people suspend their beliefs about breaking the law because they think that (1) it shouldn't be illegal, and/or (2) they don't think they'll be caught.

much of the file-sharing is clearly illegal, but otherwise law-abiding citizens regularly take part in it.

does anyone else find that odd/intriguing?

ct

No. I agre with you CT. Theft of copyrighted material is no different to me than walking into Best Buy and stealing the CD. My son had Napster on our computer and I made him remove it. However, I think the tactics the recording industry used was a bit harsh, going after children in their lawsuits. Even though it is illegal, bootleging of CDs and file swapping has brought down the prices on CDs.