RIAA to stop suing individual file traders

We are months away from coming full circle to Shawn Fanning presenting the RIAA with a fat check to license Napster trading.  Thanks for all the wasted time and money RIAA….

Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits 

By SARAH MCBRIDE and ETHAN SMITH

After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.

The decision represents an abrupt shift of strategy for the industry, which has opened legal proceedings against about 35,000 people since 2003. Critics say the legal offensive ultimately did little to stem the tide of illegally downloaded music. And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl.

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers. The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

As always, there's more... 

vansmack wrote:
We are months away from coming full circle to Shawn Fanning presenting the RIAA with a fat check to license Napster trading.  Thanks for all the wasted time and money RIAA….

now now. . .all of that publicity got hilary rosen a pundit spot on cnn and on huffington post . .so it wasn't all for nothing. . .at least for her career

It's about time they woke up.


I don't think anything can save them at this point, though.

In the back of my mind, I thought they may be kidding.

Turns out they may be serious this time:

RIAA dumps evidence gathering firm

vansmack wrote:
In the back of my mind, I thought they may be kidding.

Turns out they may be serious this time:

RIAA dumps evidence gathering firm

from that article: "The RIAA said it would replace MusicSentry with DtecNet Software ApS–a Copenhagen-based company the trade group has worked with before, according to the newspaper."

the war isn't over…

True, except that as I understand it, DtecNet monitors traffic without invading servers (unlike MediaSentry) meaning that they are now trying to point out to ISP's to block certain servers rather than go after individual file traders.

Or so that's how DtecNet was explained to me from members of the MPAA as to how it's monitoring differed from the RIAA.

This is a clever move….

Defendants in Music-Industry Lawsuit Ask for Trial to Be Broadcast Online

A Harvard Law professor representing some students sued by the recording industry for illegally downloading music has filed a motion to broadcast online the proceedings of two cases being heard by the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. The professor, Charles R. Nesson, argues in the motion that to stream the court proceedings over the Internet – or as the students put it in their request, "admit the Internet into the courtroom" – would help the public understand the legal issues at play in the industry's lawsuits against thousands of computer users, many of whom are college students. The plaintiff, the Recording Industry Association of America, which announced last month that it would stop bringing new cases against students in favor of working with Internet Service Providers to take action against repeat offenders, has described its lawsuits as an educational effort focused on illuminating the consequences of illegally sharing music – something Mr. Nesson takes a jab at in the motion. "Surely education is the purpose of the Digital Deterrence Act of 1999, the constitutionality of which we are challenging," the motion reads. "How can RIAA object? Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them." Mr. Nesson said in an interview Monday that no action has been taken on the motion, though he said that lawyers for the recording industry have indicated that they will oppose it. Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, declined to comment. –David Shieh

Good! Maybe next the government will stop prosecuting individual murderers and only prosecute gun companies. Or stop ticketing individual speeders and only fine car companies.

This is a terribly flawed model.  They have the technology to bust every file trader out there, but they know it's a losing battle, will cost more than they will gain, and would be a PR nightmare.  It's wrong for the industry to pick and choose which individuals they sue, especially when the point is to make an example of them (totally contrary to the Rule of Law).

They asked individual Universities to adopt Firewall's that specifically monitored certain types of files and traffic that would either report violations or block the files all together.  We said no problem, just send us the check for the hardware and implementation (around $100K).  Multiply that by the number of Universities in America and you can see why they didn't follow through on that idea.  Why should their problems be on our dimes?

Putting the power to block file traders in the hands of the ISP's is the last alternative to the industry finding a model of music distribution that works with today's technology - something that was proposed to them from the first time they talked of suing.

Forgive me if I find little sympathy for an industry that had a very viable alternative from the beginning.  TV is free, but I pay $70 a month for an enhanced version.  I have proven to be more than willing to pay $15 a month for access to an entire catalog of 10 Million songs - they could have done this from the very beginning and made a mint - but they balked at the new technology and took this route instead.  There is no doubt in my mind that the ISP blocks will fail unless then come up with a new DRM-free distribution model based on a license fee.  Combine that with the ISP blocks and most people will find the $15 charge worth it.

vansmack wrote:
This is a terribly flawed model.  They have the technology to bust every file trader out there, but they know it's a losing battle, will cost more than they will gain, and would be a PR nightmare.  It's wrong for the industry to pick and choose which individuals they sue, especially when the point is to make an example of them (totally contrary to the Rule of Law).

A police officer cannot ticket every speeder who flies down the road. If someone breaks the law, which downloading mp3s illegally is no matter how unhipster it is to admit it, they get zero sympathy when they're punished for it, even if 1000 other people did it and got away scot free. I cannot believe the intellectual disconnect and divorce from logic that every 20-and-30-something seems to have on this.

If you know so much about the best way to run a music company, go start one. I'm all with you on the "they can't force university's to do yadda yadda yadda" part of this, but to act like because you think it's smarter for them to accept an alternative way of selling music they therefore must or people have carte blanche to break the law is ridiculous. I think it's stupid hot dogs come in 6 packs and hot dog buns come in 8 packs, but that doesn't give me the right to remove 2 hot dog buns from the pack and insist the grocery store charge me 75% of the stated price. Come on.

Julian, wrote:
Good! Maybe next the government will stop prosecuting individual murderers and only prosecute gun companies. Or stop ticketing individual speeders and only fine car companies.

i hear the government is too busy botching the trials of luxury umbrella destroyers.  there really is no justice in this world.

sweetcell wrote:
i hear the government is too busy botching the trials of luxury umbrella destroyers.  there really is no justice in this world.

That still makes my feel sick to my stomach.

Julian, wrote:
A police officer cannot ticket every speeder who flies down the road. If someone breaks the law, which downloading mp3s illegally is no matter how unhipster it is to admit it, they get zero sympathy when they're punished for it, even if 1000 other people did it and got away scot free. I cannot believe the intellectual disconnect and divorce from logic that every 20-and-30-something seems to have on this.

Are you telling me that the technology to put Radar on every highway overpass and mail a check to the offender does not exist?  Or on every stop light for red light runners?  Please…..

There's a reason why we haven't done that.  Why don't you, Mr. 20-something, spend some time to figure out why, and you'll understand the crux of the argument.

This isn't about defending my own downloading habit (or the 18 year old kid in our dorms) - I DL substantaily less than you think - I've had a Napster Pass for quite a while and now switched to a Zune pass.  I have access to 10 Million songs for $15 a month - why do I need to DL?  Sure occassionally I get excited about a bands new album leaked before it's released and DL it, but I pay my $15 so I get a legit copy when it's finally released.

This about an industry going after it's bread and butter, the consumer, when all it needs to do is take a long look in the mirror and realize the real problem was them and their draconian business strategy from day one.  The times have changed, why haven't they?

Julian, wrote:
Good! Maybe next the government will stop prosecuting individual murderers and only prosecute gun companies. Or stop ticketing individual speeders and only fine car companies.

that comparison is invalid.  the RIAA is NOT the government.

vansmack wrote:
This about an industry going after it's bread and butter, the consumer, when all it needs to do is take a long look in the mirror and realize the real problem was them and their draconian business strategy from day one.  The times have changed, why haven't they?

Prada shoes cost $500. I can argue that Prada shoes only cost about $30 to make, so they'd probably sell way, way more if they priced them at $200 and make a bigger profit. Their business model is out-of-date, even. Still, if I go into Nordstrom's and steal a pair because their business model is out-of-date, no one should feel bad when they turn on their consumer and charge me with larceny.

Julian, wrote:
If you know so much about the best way to run a music company, go start one….but to act like because you think it's smarter for them to accept an alternative way of selling music they therefore must or people have carte blanche to break the law is ridiculous.

This isn't some brilliant idea on my part.  Shawn Fanning stood at the table of the music exec's after they sent him a cease and desist letter, with a multi-million dollar check, a mulit-billion dollar business plan, and they told him to fuck off and sued him.  They have never recovered since.

His plan was simple.  He said look - I have investors.  Here is a check for $XXX Milllions.  This should cover what you've lost because of Napster in the past year if you drop your suit and we go into business together.  And here's my plan - I have 26.4 Million subscribers worldwide.  We'll charge them a monthly/yearly fee to have access to your entire catalog on the service and split the proceeds.  I'll get rich, you'll get rich and we'll all be happy.  Even with a 50% recitivism rate (13.2 Million subscribers) and a fee of $10 a month (where the industry is headed), that's $1.5 Trillion in revenue.  The industry has never been close to this, before or after Napster.   

They said no and have to yet succeed in finding a model that works.  The industry has lost millions every year since, they've pissed off their consumers, enjoyed a PR nightmare, and where are we 9 years later?  The most popular digital music library, iTunes, at the industries request, changed to a DRM-free purchase to catch up with the rest of the industry, and to balance their negotiating power with Steve Jobs, because if there's one thing industry hates more than losing money, it's someone making money while they're losing money.

Those sued by the RIAA are being unjustly punished (and rather haphazardly which raises due process/equal protection issues), the industry has gained nothing from it but a black eye, and they had all the power and chose this failed route - so no, I have zero sympathy for the industry and all the symapthy in the world for those being sued simply because it didn't have to be this way, and it won't be - it's just a matter of time.

Julian, wrote:
Prada shoes cost $500. I can argue that Prada shoes only cost about $30 to make, so they'd probably sell way, way more if they priced them at $200 and make a bigger profit. Their business model is out-of-date, even. Still, if I go into Nordstrom's and steal a pair because their business model is out-of-date, no one should feel bad when they turn on their consumer and charge me with larceny.

You're not hurting Prada in that instance - if anything you're helping them by making their shoes more popular.  You're hurting Nordstrom because they already paid Prada for them.

So yes, record stores were suffering - but they were already suffering with a different new business model supplied by Amazon and other online retailers.  Even with the Industry's defense of their old model - where are record stores now?  They weren't savable because people were switching to digital music anyway.  Tangible media is a dying breed no matter how you look at it since the birth of the internet. 

vansmack wrote:
Those sued by the RIAA are being unjustly punished

What's unjust about committing a crime and then being punished for it? Answer that, and don't go off on a tangent about business models.

Julian, wrote:What's unjust about committing a crime and then being punished for it? Answer that, and don't go off on a tangent about business models.

I should have used the word "unnecessarily", not unjust.  The only way to defend "unjust" would be to write a thesis about the Rule of Law the lack of due process, and I'm just not going to do that for a message board.

I would think its up to the entity whose had their rights infringed upon to determine necessity, not Joe Q. Public.