Know Your Rights: What to do when the RIAA comes calling
By Nilay Patel 
posted Aug 31st 2007 7:37PM
posted Aug 31st 2007 7:37PM
Know Your Rights is Engadget's new technology law series, written by our own totally punk copyright attorney Nilay Patel. In it we'll try to answer some fundamental tech-law questions to help you stay out of trouble in this brave new world. Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.
Preface: There's been a lot of discussion about the RIAA's, shall we say "controversial" (and we're being generous here) tactics in suing P2P users who download copyrighted content; especially this week, what with the EFF releasing its "RIAA v. The People: Four Years Later" report. But it's never been easy to find information about the nuts-and-bolts of what happens when you get that first letter from the RIAA. We're not going to get into our feelings about the RIAA and MPAA (you probably already know what we think), but since we've (read: Nilay) been involved in a couple successful defenses -- and a lot of unhappy settlements -- we thought we'd try and break down the process for you. We're not telling you how to avoid or get out of trouble with the RIAA, just how it is that trouble usually operates.
Help! I'm being sued by the RIAA!
Wow, bad luck for you. The RIAA really only sues about 6,000 people a year, mostly those who use FastTrack clients like Kazaa. Users of other networks have been sued, of course, but it's by far Kazaa users who get sued the most often, and generally those who have been unknowingly sharing files. That's a drop in the bucket compared the to estimated nine million people who use P2P software every month.
That doesn't help me at all.
Well, it's important to think about these things in context. Also, it's important that you take a moment to ask yourself a really essential question.
What's that?
Did you do it?
What? No!
Look, if you REALLY didn't share anything, you can skip on a couple paragraphs. But it's really important to be honest with at least one person here, even if that person is just yourself. If you really did share files, you're really not going to gain anything by fighting some noble battle. Especially if money is important to you. Did we mention how much money the RIAA's legal team has? If the RIAA's logs show the IP address associated with your internet connection as having downloaded certain files, chances are you're going to end up paying one way or another.
Whatever, sellout.
Look, at this point it's not really a moral issue, it's a financial one -- if you did what they say you did, you're vastly better off paying the money and moving on. It's not a criminal charge, and the terms of the settlement will be most likely be confidential, so it won't come up again in your life. Paying a lawyer to fight and lose for you will likely just cost you more money, because the RIAA will get at least $750 for each track you've shared, and for the average P2P user that adds up fast.
There have been cases where users with open Wi-Fi networks have had their cases dismissed, but those are fairly rare -- maybe half a dozen of the tens of thousands cases filed. Although it's a sad truth, the reality is that once you get caught -- really caught -- infringing copyrighted materials, very few people have sympathy for you, least of all the courts. So, take a moment, convince yourself that sharing the entire a-ha back catalog was worth it, and call a lawyer who's handled RIAA cases before to take care of your settlement, which is usually somewhere between three and five thousand dollars. It's by far the cheapest option.
Well, that's great, but I didn't do anything wrong.
In that case, the first thing you should do is check and see what kind of letter you've gotten from the RIAA. Who is it from? If you're a college student, there's a good possibility it's from your school, saying you might be sued. In that case you should STAY AWAY FROM THE RIAA. Don't visit the settlement website, don't call the hotline. The RIAA doesn't know exactly who you are yet, so don't up and go telling them.
Of course they know who I am! I got this letter, didn't I?
The only thing the RIAA knows is that your IP address was sharing files -- that letter was from your school. Every school deals with this differently, but you need to be in touch with the legal department at your school in order to begin clearing this up -- not necessarily the RIAA. Again, don't give the RIAA any more than you need to.
Good for the college kids, but I'm sitting here holding a notice of an actual lawsuit, and I didn't share any files either.
In that case, you need to act right away. Make sure you've got documentation showing what kind of internet service you have, how long you've had it, and what kind of computers you have hooked up to your router. It would also be good to catalog all the music on your machines. Generally this information is all you'll need to give a lawyer to get started on your case -- and although the RIAA is stubborn, they will drop cases once it's obvious that they'll lose, because they are terrified of losing in court. Don't wait one extra second to do this, however -- the longer you hold off, the less likely the RIAA is to dismiss your case, and the less likely it is that you'll get your attorney's fees back if you end up going to court.
Man, this is really depressing.
It is, but the more information you have about this, the better. We're not big fans of the RIAA's scare tactics -- and we're pretty certain those tactics aren't having any effect on filesharing -- but we're not trying to sugarcoat reality, either. Stay safe, stay respectful, and most of all -- know your rights.
Nilay would like to thank Len Rubin of Reed Smith for his help with this article.
Preface: There's been a lot of discussion about the RIAA's, shall we say "controversial" (and we're being generous here) tactics in suing P2P users who download copyrighted content; especially this week, what with the EFF releasing its "RIAA v. The People: Four Years Later" report. But it's never been easy to find information about the nuts-and-bolts of what happens when you get that first letter from the RIAA. We're not going to get into our feelings about the RIAA and MPAA (you probably already know what we think), but since we've (read: Nilay) been involved in a couple successful defenses -- and a lot of unhappy settlements -- we thought we'd try and break down the process for you. We're not telling you how to avoid or get out of trouble with the RIAA, just how it is that trouble usually operates.Help! I'm being sued by the RIAA!
Wow, bad luck for you. The RIAA really only sues about 6,000 people a year, mostly those who use FastTrack clients like Kazaa. Users of other networks have been sued, of course, but it's by far Kazaa users who get sued the most often, and generally those who have been unknowingly sharing files. That's a drop in the bucket compared the to estimated nine million people who use P2P software every month.
That doesn't help me at all.
Well, it's important to think about these things in context. Also, it's important that you take a moment to ask yourself a really essential question.
What's that?
Did you do it?
What? No!
Look, if you REALLY didn't share anything, you can skip on a couple paragraphs. But it's really important to be honest with at least one person here, even if that person is just yourself. If you really did share files, you're really not going to gain anything by fighting some noble battle. Especially if money is important to you. Did we mention how much money the RIAA's legal team has? If the RIAA's logs show the IP address associated with your internet connection as having downloaded certain files, chances are you're going to end up paying one way or another.
Whatever, sellout.
Look, at this point it's not really a moral issue, it's a financial one -- if you did what they say you did, you're vastly better off paying the money and moving on. It's not a criminal charge, and the terms of the settlement will be most likely be confidential, so it won't come up again in your life. Paying a lawyer to fight and lose for you will likely just cost you more money, because the RIAA will get at least $750 for each track you've shared, and for the average P2P user that adds up fast.
There have been cases where users with open Wi-Fi networks have had their cases dismissed, but those are fairly rare -- maybe half a dozen of the tens of thousands cases filed. Although it's a sad truth, the reality is that once you get caught -- really caught -- infringing copyrighted materials, very few people have sympathy for you, least of all the courts. So, take a moment, convince yourself that sharing the entire a-ha back catalog was worth it, and call a lawyer who's handled RIAA cases before to take care of your settlement, which is usually somewhere between three and five thousand dollars. It's by far the cheapest option.
Well, that's great, but I didn't do anything wrong.
In that case, the first thing you should do is check and see what kind of letter you've gotten from the RIAA. Who is it from? If you're a college student, there's a good possibility it's from your school, saying you might be sued. In that case you should STAY AWAY FROM THE RIAA. Don't visit the settlement website, don't call the hotline. The RIAA doesn't know exactly who you are yet, so don't up and go telling them.
Of course they know who I am! I got this letter, didn't I?
The only thing the RIAA knows is that your IP address was sharing files -- that letter was from your school. Every school deals with this differently, but you need to be in touch with the legal department at your school in order to begin clearing this up -- not necessarily the RIAA. Again, don't give the RIAA any more than you need to.
Good for the college kids, but I'm sitting here holding a notice of an actual lawsuit, and I didn't share any files either.
In that case, you need to act right away. Make sure you've got documentation showing what kind of internet service you have, how long you've had it, and what kind of computers you have hooked up to your router. It would also be good to catalog all the music on your machines. Generally this information is all you'll need to give a lawyer to get started on your case -- and although the RIAA is stubborn, they will drop cases once it's obvious that they'll lose, because they are terrified of losing in court. Don't wait one extra second to do this, however -- the longer you hold off, the less likely the RIAA is to dismiss your case, and the less likely it is that you'll get your attorney's fees back if you end up going to court.
Man, this is really depressing.
It is, but the more information you have about this, the better. We're not big fans of the RIAA's scare tactics -- and we're pretty certain those tactics aren't having any effect on filesharing -- but we're not trying to sugarcoat reality, either. Stay safe, stay respectful, and most of all -- know your rights.
Nilay would like to thank Len Rubin of Reed Smith for his help with this article.
What to do *WHEN* the RIAA comes calling. Edit!
Speaking of WHEN, I think it's a matter of WHO.
The RIAA would have better luck suing Apple for their iPods. Guess how many people have them? Getting one implies that you need to have illegal music.
iPOD + iTUNES = iLLEGAL DOWNLOADING
But waiownsyou, I _totally_ bought a new iPod video this year! My iPod mini was completely full of the songs I bought from iTunes, you know:
4GB= 1,000 songs x $0.99 = $990
Now I always take 2,152 of my fav songs with me, EVERYWHERE. (And movies too!)
2152 x $0.99 = $2,130.48
*note sarcasm*
Incorporate a shell business, put your broadband under that business DBA. Let them sue (and win by default) your corporate front that has no income or assets.
My best advice is to live in Russia. LOL
Nice legal information that MIGHT help, although the entire thing basically yells, "don't tell the RIAA n00bs anything."
And it seems to imply that only people who share are sued. I don't share, but I download a boat load of MP3s weekly. Do you think I would get pwnt by the RIAA?
Leecher.
If you don't share, the you're a leech. We don't like leeches. I think I speak for the vast majority of file sharers when I tell you to get the fuck out. So here I go:
Get the fuck out.
You guys are idiots, he could be using usenet or rapidshare
Leech = someone who takes but does not give.
He is not giving, only taking. Doesn't matter how.
In terms of logistics, it's much better for the RIAA to go after heavy seeders (which they tend to do), because A) the people who are spreading the files around are - as a rule - vastly outnumbered by the people downloading their music, and so it's far more effective to get rid of a seeder than a leecher. It's also very difficult to track downloads compared to uploads - incoming data can be spread over a variety of ports, but outgoing tends to stick in one piece, so it's easier to figure out what people are putting out there as opposed to taking. Finally, someone using plenty of upstream bandwidth is much more suspicious than a heavy downloader; while a youtube user could pull a gig or more of data in a day with a little bit of determination, you'd be hard pressed to think of why someone would be uploading that much.
I would also guess that suing someone who just downloaded music would earn them penalties that aren't so stiff as for someone who was uploading, but that I'm not sure of.
So, can they sue you for downloading? Absolutely. Will they? The odds are against ANYONE getting sued (as the article says, 6000/9000000 or 1 out of every 1500), but given the extra difficulties, it's a good bit less likely for a downloader to get hit than a seeder.
Keep in mind this mainly applies to music; movies are rather different due to their size and the fact that the MPAA and not the RIAA is after you.
I wrote a very long and detailed comment about why seeders are less likely to get hit than leechers, which I guess was too long for engadget's taste, but basically it boils down to that it's harder to track what files you are downloading as opposed to uploading, and the seeders are almost always outnumbered by the leechers (sorry, it's true) and so it's more effective to go after the seeders.
I believe there was a previous court battle which effectively said that downloading for whatever reason wasn't against the copy-right or it was not very significant (perhaps limiting their payout).
As such they go mostly after people who share, I assume they might be able to collect their $750 per song per downloader which means that someone sharing just a few songs might have downloads might have thousands of downloader’s a song, thus letting the RIAA claim 'millions'.
(I'm not totally sure on the first part, but it think that’s the jest; the second is just a guess.)
Fishju,
Get out, we know you've been sued. =)
The General:
"Leech = someone who takes but does not give.
He is not giving, only taking. Doesn't matter how."
..
Well, go on and seed then, big man!
I hope you get caught by the RIAA now. *teases*
Seriously. I will download and then do my part by seeding too. But, I'm not gonna seed a file 24/7 or anything like that. That's the job of the person in charge of the original download.
I'll seed on private networks, but helping seed a popular video or album? Not likely. As I've said, I'll do my part and move on.
There's no way I'm getting in trouble all because of some unwritten "downloading" rule. Come on, FFS!
How likely is it that the RIAA could win a case against somebody with open wifi, running a tor node and peacefire proxy, that has a lot of friends over very often? It's just a question :P
Well my dear fishjew,
Open wifi is no defense. Just like ignorance is not.
In other words, you are responsible.
Signed,
Your Accomplice :P
The funny part is he says he has friends.
I LOL'ed.
If I leave my car unlocked and the keys in the ignition, some guy comes along and steals my car, crashes it, and kills three people - should I be responsible?
If I leave the door open to my house and someone comes in at night and steals my stuff, is it my fault?
No, I should have closed the door or locked my car, however, that gives no right or defense to the other person using my internet connection
"The funny part is he says he has friends."
Projecting again, are we? ;)
@Zach: "And as soon as my name is cleared, I vow to search for the real uploader"
Heh, why are OJ references still so damn funny?
Can the RIAA sue you if you're under 18?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settlement/
Nobody is exempt from the wrath of the RIAA.
No, they sue your legal guardian, which in most cases, is your parent(s).
and now you owe the people you live with 400k USD$.
A significant debate is underway in the courts, the Congress and federal regulatory agencies regarding decisions that are being made within the electronics, content and computer industries - about how to best protect copyrighted material in a digital world. Right now the internet is not safe for users to view or download files without potentially infringing on copyrights and suffering large fines, penalties or even worse.
An ever-increasing number of unlicensed downloads are taking place in private homes all over the world. According to recent data, over twelve million people are simultaneously sharing 1.08 billion music, movie, and software files on the Internet at any given moment.
Imagine a person or child sitting down in front of a Television with a remote and selecting a few dozen channels or video on demand selections and finding out later that they have committed copyright infringement and are being asked to pay several hundred thousand dollars in fines. What makes this even worse is there is really no way to determine if a certain piece of content is appropriate for use, copyrighted or not, until the damage is already done.
A typical internet user does not build the internet applications, program the search engines, or manage the internet networks that they use. More could be done with these key elements of the internet to insure that standards are set that provide a higher degree of safety from copyright infringement or exposure to inappropriate content. We live in a society that requires people to wear seat belts; Why?, because they provide an additional layer of protection from unnecessary injury.
A national copyright and rating database could serve as a seat belt for the internet to protect users from injury as well. Copyrighted materiel could be registered along with an associated audience rating of the content allowing internet applications, search engines and network operators to establish national standards for digital rights management.
Now is the time for us all to work together to provide a level of protection from unnecessary injury and make the internet safe again for average citizens in their homes.
Thank you for your leadership in this important social and technological issue.
Don't they have to prove that you actually have the said copyrighted material? Couldn't you just delete it or move it off site?
This is primarily concerned with people who were *sharing* the files... whether you were legally in possession or not isn't the question, it's whether you were sharing them. And the primary tool they use is logs, so no, deleting the files won't save you.
People still use Kazaa? I thought the program died after they started packing spyware in it and when Kazaa Lite sold out and started scamming people... which was like years ago.
oh hey, it just took a long time!
cable in anonymous name
cell phone in anonymous name
anonymous gets sued & tracked
case closed
but for real if you do the crime pay the fine
What about in Canada
We canadians don't have this issue, there is a tax on blank CD-R's that in a roundabout way prevent us from being sued. That and the RIAA is based in the US of A and can't actually sue persons in a foreign country.
if you get sued in canada, you get sued in real life!
http://xkcd.com/180/
yeah what about Canada!?
I believe you mean, what *aboot* Canada.
LMAO John
"It's aboot diplomacy! It's aboot respect! It's aboot... Hey, fuck you, buddy!"
/South Park
//off topic
I dint find this any useful at all,
i mean half the information is about people
saying they dint download anything.
Come on if he is getting sued he is no momma's boy.
It did say that if you knowingly have shared music, pay the settlement! You're not gonna get out of it. And it might cost more to get a lawyer etc...
So wait...you have to pay for music now?
Can't be true. You misread.
I thought I might add my bit of knowledge about how they deal with RIAA notices at U of Michigan. Basically they get a notice that some IP has been sharing and pass that notice on to the student. If they deny it, they have to pass on the student's info to the RIAA. So bad news for the student! If the student doesn't deny the infringement, they go into a process that involves a short copyright quiz the first time, and more serious stuff as he/she gets more notices. You dont want 3 or more, I'll tell you that much. The good news is that you've got at least some protection from the University. I suspect other schools are similar and some are completely leaving the students out of it, but we'll see how long that lasts.
In Canada, "The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act" prohibits companies from disclosing your identity/personal information to third parties (which would include entities like RIAA or marketing companies) without your explicit consent. Which explain why there is no, or very little telemarketing activity... However, some ISPs, having caved to the pressure from RIAA and alike, have added an article to their ToS, specifying that your information may be released for legal reasons if you "agree". So you may want to watch what you sign/agree to and go back and read your ToS agreement.
Personally I now listen to the radio and indy music - since I learned about the RIAA racketeer tactics, I ceased buying any media, merchandise or information that would put money in their greedy pockets. I would much rather support independent artists than record companies that hog all the profits, giving performers single-digit percentage for their art. Consumers should fight back and stop buying the music for a little while to remind RIAA who the customer is.
Does anyone else here use PeerGuardian? I downloaded it a couple months back and leave it on, and every time I see the icon, I wonder if it actually works.
peer guardian does work but it is just an ip blocker with a self updating list of known ips from those bad organizations. it cant completely protect you from the unknown ips so yaa....
nine million?! I can bet there are plenty more
hmmmmmm......this article is my penance for going on Engadget at 10:00pm on a friday night and not the bar....One day, ooonnneee day I'll learn!
The RIAA should be incapable of winning any cases after computer security expert Jayson Street made his declaration in an RIAA case.
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=arista_does1-11_070806DeclarationJaysonStreet
His argument is downright factual, disproving completely what the RIAA's so called "experts" say.
Sweet. I'm going to bookmark that link in case the RIAA knocks on my door and asks me for a condom
What can I say? At times like these I can't help but be happy that I'm in Canada. Then I take a look at the prices and my happiness disappears, but there are happy moments.
And remember kids, knowing is half the battle.
So does anyone know if programs like Hide IP work against what the RIAA uses? It switches your ip to that of another country (normally) and at first I thought, eh, could not be that good, then i stated my Internet (homepage google) and it auto went to google.de I live in the US obviously, and ip hider changed my ip to a german one obviously. Seemed to work well enough. ALthough since I am fairly sure that my constant full bandwidth upload seeding is no longer cpyrighted, I am not too worried anyways...
does the RIAA do anything against downloading international music? (ie.. chinese music?)
I've always wondered if anyone has tried to argue the ambiguity of the $750 per song fine. Does the single from the latest one hit wonder really have the same value as Stairway to Heaven or Satisfaction? Whatever happened to "actual damages" and the need to prove it in a court case?
Does the RIAA only go after the illegal use of music, and the MPAA for movies?
For example if you only download games or TV shows, who would come after you / sue you?
i know i got a letter from my ISP and NBC universal because my roommate was downloading the office... so shows are not kosher either
viacom would sue anyone sharing most cable TV programs.
The MPAA generally covers TV shows as well. Watch for their logo at the end of whatever show you like to watch most. It's considered a motion picture, just like the movies.
I guess I just don't understand the whole downloading music thing. If you like a music artist or movie, don't you want to hear more music from them? Either way you look at it downloading music/movies is stealing. Eventually Media companies are not going to pay artists to produce content because of the lack of $ they get back from it. A 33% loss might not seem like that much to some people but if it were comming out of my paycheck i wouldn't be happy with the consistant downword trend. I'm just saying its not hard to sign up for some monthly subscription and get what you want for like $15 a month. At least then you are giving something back to the artists' music you claim to love.
Stealing? Really?
If I "steal" something... it's not on the shelf anymore. The store can no longer sell that item. If I download Ride The Lightning (the last Metallica album worth downloading imho) how does that prevent anyone from selling it? It doesn't. Making a copy of something is NOT stealing it. It's a brilliant spin that a lot of people seem to swallow but that doesn't make it true. By the way, how much does it cost to make a cd/dvd? What percentage of $s actually make it to the artist? Now tell me again who is "stealing".
This is about control. Over the last decade or two, the content industry has decided to change it's model and use monopolistic tactics to force acceptance of this change on the consumer. Instead of selling you a cd, they think they can get away with charging you $20 to basically RENT their content under conditions that may shock you after a little time with Google.
The next party line argument is inevitably: "but you can choose not to buy their product". If we had realistic alternative sources of distribution I may concede this one. The problem is that when such a vast majority of the existing content distributors are not only allowed, but enabled by the powers that be to act in such collusion, choosing to "not buy their product" would essentially be giving up modern culture. And these greedy crooks should not be allowed to force anyone to make that choice.
It's becoming clear to me that the term Intellectual Property refers not to the type of property, but the individuals that understand it.
@littleshadow:
Stealing may not be the proper term, I concede that point. However, in illegally downloading copyrighted material you are denying the artist from profiting from what is his, her or their livelihood. In effect, you are stealing from what the artist would have profited from.
The true cost of an album isn't solely limited to the cost of each individual reproduction; there are dozens of people that need to be paid for their contribution. A&R, producers, studio technicians, studio owners, mastering studios, etc. In order to create that first pressing may incur costs of $10,000 to $250,000 or more. Of course, the physical medium itself (CD/DVD) only costs pennies, but the entire cost must be spread among entire album sales.
Generally, artists make a small portion (8-14%) on actual sales. Is that unfair to the artist? Kind of, but it's important to note that the labels are making an investment here. They bear the risk by putting up a substantial sum of money, and should fairly reap a substantial portion of the profits.
It's also important to note that artists can recoup up to 100% on their copyright on the musical composition (one of the TWO copyrights in music). Generally, the artist earns only 50-75% but this is earned EACH TIME the song is played, including the times a cover band plays the song.
Additionally, the way the record industry works has not been limited to the last few decades. It has ALWAYS been that a "purchase" is really only a "license." The original copyrights are retained by the artist, label, or publishing company (depending on the contract terms).
Insofar as alternative sources of distribution, go to a show and buy the album there. Generally, the artist buys the copies from the label at a substantial discount (or receives them free), and is entitled to the entirety of the profit.
While you are not stealing per se, it's merely an issue of semantics: in the end, you prevent the artist from fairly profiting from work the artist creates, and thus hurt the artist's livelihood.
You probably wouldn't want somebody messing with the money you're supposed to make at your job, would you?
I'm just happy I was in college during the 'golden age' of file sharing. Ahh, the good ole days....
glad to be the uk. pretty sure they can't touch me for it.
even if i got a letter i would ignore it. i owe thousands to the council tax people,water board and unpaid rent they can't find me, i'm invisible to them so i'm pretty sure i can be invisible to anyone who wants to 'sue' me for downloading anything.
Can i call you BATMAN?!
What to do? Simple solution. Hire someone to lite up their corp HQ. It really has gotten to that point since the gov obviously isn't in the mood to stop the insanity. The counts are somewhere in between. What's left to do other then roll over and pay up. Someone really needs to stick it to these bastards.
That would be courts. Time for bed if I can't even spell. Gah.
When using a p2p...I always run 2 RIAA blocks. One is sherwood, the other is PG2. Never worry about them seeing my ip :)
what is sherwood?
So how safe are you using bittorrent? You are uploading after all, but I have rarely ever heard of the RIAA going after bit torrent users. It seems so easy to catch people uploading on that though...
and like someone else mentioned, peerguardian will block so many IPs. Who are the people behind these IPs if they aren't suing you?
didn't the ipod come out just as soon as napster was shut down?
napster june 99-july 01
ipod oct. 01-current
One word: Newsgroups.
Sherwood is a p2p ip monitoring device that is updated daily and blocks ip's associated with riaa and other info grabbing ip addresses. You can get it from winmxworld website. It works on any p2p program, not only winmx.
I think the whole music Industry "World Wide" have flooded the market with substandard fast food music. Most Artist today, don't have enough talent worth buying their cds, let alone downloading it for free.
By the time I was 18 yrs old in 1984, I had owned well over 28 hundred Lp,s and hundreds more Cassettes tapes, From ACDC to ZZ Top.(Vinyl Records).For those of you who weren't old enough back then to have ever seen a record, they do sound better than Digital Discs.
Most of those records were either lost, stolen or thrown away over the decades. By the time I could finally afford to buy my first CD player it was around 1990,several years before the internet was available,and almost 10 years after the Compact Disc format was introduced on the market in 1982. A music CD back then usually cost about $25 to $30 a pop, back when Grunge music was just starting to take over the music scene, but by that time I was only interested in buying mostly 70s and 80s music.
The only music I download for free today are the albums I previously owned and paid the thousands of dollars for then, which were all 70s and 80s and some 90s music. And as far as I'm concerned, Ive already paid those artist once and I'm sure in hell aint gonna pay them again!
The reality is, today's new artist have to work for their money, and the only way for them to make money is to perform live shows and MTV videos, and if they can't draw a half decent crowd, then they must really suck and maybe it was never meant to be. and therefore the band should consider taking up a different profession because I absolutely have no sympathy for no talented one hit wonders who just twang away on their guitars and "SCREAM" a bunch of meaningless words that I can't understand!
Last but not least,...Hollywood has outgrown it's usefulness and continues to pump out way too many low quality budget movies with overpaid actors in them,...Like Sean Connery once said, Hollywood is full of idiots and I have to agree with him. If I were to add up all the "DUD" movies That Ive rented from my local video store over the past 25 years, I could watch a free movie everyday for a year as compensation for all those shitty movies I watched over the years!
Piracy will never go away, just like the war on drugs. The only way these industries and the completely useless RIAA can come close to defeating the pirates are to convert back to LPs, Cassettes and VHS formats. Because in the end, it all boils down to the music industry greed and the hackers circumventing new digital media formats!
During the days of Napster, it was never illegal to download music. You simply had to delete the files after 7 days. So is that still the case today? It seems like it could be since the RIAA is only going after people who share music.
Could someone explain to me how the 7 day deletion thing relates to today or why it changed?
With all this money that RIAA is making, it makes me wonder where the money is actually going. Do the profits made by RIAA cycle back into the company? Or does it go to the people who made the original content? The most troubling thing about the RIAA is the fact they are suing people for downloading music and then keeping the money made off of the lawsuit for them selves. One would think the money made from the lawsuit, on behalf of the original content maker, would be given to the Artist rather than paying for a money hungry executives' new yacht.
Think about what happens to the person who downloaded this artist's songs. RIAA is suing people for $750 per song. In turn, one album consisting of eighteen songs would end up costing the offender $13,500. Compare this to the cost of the average album cost of $18. Normally the fine would fit the crime. Apparently, the RIAA has a different perception of this.
With this amount of financial debt on the family, it is just a matter of time before they are ruined. College funds would be depleted and instead of going to college the offender would spend his entire life paying off a ridiculous lawsuit made by a money hungry corporation. Someone afflicted by this lawsuit would not have money to spend on further albums by their favorite artists. Naturally, with all the free content available on the internet, this would promote downloading content rather than buying it.
Do you really think the RIAA want to stop people from downloading copyrighted media? The answer is no. If you could make thousands of dollars by suing people over content that you did not make, you would have the easiest job in the world. I know I wasn't given the option in my career choices class to do this. To me it sounds more like theft by the RIAA more than anything.
The RIAA is set up on behalf of artists to prevent loss in sales due to people illegally downloading protected content. However, in the process the RIAA missed the memo that the people they are protecting are given a right to the money made in lawsuits. Since the RIAA keeps the majority or all the money in some cases, is deeply troubling.
I am new to downloading torrents. I am downloading a television show which was produced in Australia from 1979-1986. Since this was produced in another country, is there anyone who could sue me for downloading this?
Also, I am using Azureus and PeerGuardian. I see the IP addresses of everyone I am downloading from, so I assume they see mine. Although I am blocking with PG, couldn't someone just download the torrent and see my IP right on their computer screen just as I do?
Thank you for your help.