I suspect that most of these lawsuits will result in work for lawyers and comparatively little in returned revenue. In some cases it may be completely negative in result. I also have to ask in these days of increasing Global Warming whether John Kennedy could not have used online conferencing rather than a carbon intensive flight to Brazil. Sorry to tell you guys in the record industry, but there are some thinkgs much more important than people swapping tunes without permission. Next time John, ask yourself, Is your journey really necessary?"

P2P in trouble again? wow, who would have figured. The RIAA will only pursue those sharing and only whats in your desiganted "shared files". technically, yes, if they really wanted to, they could veiw your entire HD, but they can only prosecute against what you designate as a shared file. they will take a screenshot of your shared files and usually accompany that with the subpoena. The whole purpose is, you scare enough people away from uploading on P2P, there will be nothing to download, solving the problem at the root. You sure dont hear about any lawsuits aimed at newsgroup users. hmmm...maybe there could be something to that.

You do not have to hire an attorney for this type of BS case. All you have to do is write a letter to whatever attorney served the suit, demanding copies of the "evidence" against you. If it makes it to court, just show up by yourself. It doesn't take a Johnny Cochran to defend cases like this with such weak, easily refuttable "evidence". Otherwise, if you hire an attorney, you're playing right into their hands with the money game where you're going to end up paying a blood-sucking lawyer $20k, just to tell a judge that their evidence is weak. You can tell him that yourself: "Your honor, this evidence is weak and a mistake, and I don't know what they're talking about." Let them get your IP number, let them take a "snapshot" of your hard drive, including the serial number, etc. Who cares? Any of that stuff can be easily falsified or corrupted. I would simply write my own app that used their same reporting format. I would then ask the court for permission to plug my memory stick into the plaintiff's attorney's computer, or maybe the court stenographers, run the app, and then show on the overhead computer display that child porn was being shared over wi-fi on this laptop that's in this court of law. The report clearly shows it, so it must be true.

Weak. The whole thing is weak, and like others have said, all this is doing is giving mediocre and lazy lawyers (both defense and plantiff) money via scare tactics. The law process really isn't that complicated, and the internet and associated ISPs is a completely unreliable place to find credible, unchallengeable evidence.

NewerThnU
So you ask " Now how is it that you bipassed my routers fire wall, my computers firewall and accessed my private computer/electronic domain to aquire your screen shots..." you follow that up with "what is it called when some one bypasses computer security protocols to access information without a court ordered warant?" continue with a few other questions that will force them to admit that they had to do something other than Legal to get their "evidence". I think its something like fruit of the poison tree, evidence collected thru illegal means is not addmissable in court.

One doesn't really have to even worry about talking to a RIAA Lawyer for more than a few moments, all one does is ask for their evidence, even if they offer up Screen shots of what you have on your hard drive follow up with the questions above.

If you are still being sued make sure all the identities of all those who "aquired" their information for them, spam their name all over the net, and allow everyone to know who that person is, someone more vindictive than you will more than likely do something unsavary to that person, electronicly I mean.

Not that I would try to suggest that anyone find those peoples names and other information, and say wrecking their credit or something to that effect, cause that would be wrong, and I would never suggest that. ;)

Downloaded songs have NO quality in comparison to CDs or DVD-A, im my opinion its not worth taking that risk for a song that isnt even close to the quality of the CD.

Music sales are down not because of piracy in my opinion. The greedy robber barons have not yet caught onto the simple fact that MP3 players have taken over the music market and CD's are yesterday's technology. Fix your rotten product, catch up to technology and make a reasonable attempt to market a product people still want to buy. That won't cut out all piracy but it would be a real step in the right direction. People stopped buying as many candles when the electric light bulb was invented. Go figure.

What this looks like to me is that the IFPI caught onto the scam the RIAA and MPAA were running, and wanted a piece of the action for themselves. It is only a matter of time before even more orgs pop up and do the same. What few people realize is that the RIAA and MPAA are self-funding...that is, the recording companies DON'T pay them. This was their sales pitch..."We can increase your sales by reducing piracy, and it won't cost you a thing. All you have to do is join our organization." Anything these companies get goes to lining their own pockets, or to lobbying efforts. The actual media companies don't see a cent from the lawsuits. Get the picture?

The article doesn't say how the IFPI is doing the lawsuits, but the RIAA and MPAA use a collection agency to demand money for about $4000 or so as an offer to make an out-of-court settlement. If you don't pay, the lawsuit begins, and this claim starts at $50,000-$100,000. If you lose, you also pay their atty expenses...another $50,000. Most people choose to pay the $4000 because they don't want to risk losing everything they own, or will ever own over the next 14 to 20 years of their life. (Since the suit is fraud-related, bankruptcy won't wipe out the judgment...which will go away after 14 to 20 years depending upon the laws where you live.)

If it goes to lawsuit, they will move for Summary Judgment. This is a paperwork process prior to any actual trial. If you don't get an atty, and don't know how to defend against it, they win by default. This ain't Judge Judy, and you may never get the chance to actually see a judge or jury. What it comes down to is pay the $4000, or hire an attorney for $50,000...and you still might lose. Since there are no damages possible against them, no atty will accept your case on a contingency basis...so you will need the $50k lawyer fees up front. This is why most bite the bullet and pay the $4000. Also, they don't accept monthly payments, so you better be able to take out a loan, etc. to come up with the cash all at once.

This is how it works with the RIAA and MPAA, and it sucks. In the USA, there are a few congressmen trying to do something about this scam...but they are a small voice in the wilderness.

Concerning the screenshots which show the mp3 files: There has yet to be a case where one of these files was downloaded and checked to see if it was really what it says it is. So, discovery of their evidence should begin with "Can you prove this mp3 file is really the song you claim it is?"

There is, however, confusion over civil and criminal law going on here. These lawsuits are civil, and criminal rules of evidence don't necessarily apply. In most cases, they can break the law to get the evidence they need, and it CAN be used in civil court. "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is for criminal proceedings. They do risk being arrested for various computer crimes, but they know this isn't going to happen. This is because in the US this is the responsibility of the FBI, who is also responsible for copyright infringment! See the conflict? It is similar in other countries. The fact is, these media groups make life easier for the FBI, and so the FBI unofficially supports their activities.

Also, with civil lawsuits, in most countries (and USA) only the majority of the jury needs to decide that you most likely committed the offense. In a criminal case, the entire jury must decide you committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. So, if they can convince more than half the jurors you most likely up/downloaded even 1 copyrighted mp3 file, you will lose. So they really don't have to prove anything to win. And, if you have ever been around civil cases, there is an unspoken assumption of a defendant's guilt whereby you have to prove yourself innocent to actually win. This is wrong, but it is real life.

Unfortunately, as rotten as this situation is, the odds are against a person when accused of internet copyright infringement in a civil lawsuit. It would be much harder proving a criminal case for a lot of the evidence reasons mentioned by others above, and this is why you have yet to see the FBI go after a single person criminally. They tend to go after companies selling the physical media because that is a much easier crime to prove.

Doc409
by the time they burrie you in paper work and hope you fold from it and loss of money they think they can win on that alone.

drathor
i didnt ask any of that crap. you really dont need to bypass firewalls to view another users list of shared files. anyone can do it. the legalities of the RIAA searching the rest of your HD is another question all together. and representing yourself in court with some lame defense line you heard off the internet is the dumbest thing you could do for yourself. far-fetched scenarios where an attorney or stenographer will let you touch their computer to make an example also will not happen, thats more something off my cousin vinny.

NewerThnU
true but you can get them to to show how they got that info if that info is the least bit posined it will get tossed.

But surviving until they are forced to show their cards can be tricky they after al have the best law..er lawyers money can buy.

its not illegal for them to present evidence of shared files that you decided to make public over P2P. copyright
infringement is not less illegal than child porn or a lethal computer virus created by some bored 13 yr old in Bangladesh. its all traceable, and when your ISP is surved with a subpoena because you have been observed sharing, your ISP will not put you in some sort of internet whitness protection program, they will give you up in a heartbeat.

NewerThnU
In some cases like thos that disspaer in a heartbeat once the accused get them to produce all the eveidance against them to be shown,I am saying theres a good 40% chance they cocked up and will not contenuie the case.

i see your point but i believe "a good 40% chance" is an oxymoron.

NewerThnU
MMM
10% chance failing for any reason
20% chance of you winning
30% chance of them winning
40% chance of them cocking up

its almost 50/50 win/lose they should rain in their laywers and only go after cases they can easily win instead of using fear tactics to scare their consumer base sooner or later the goverment will step in and then no one will be happy after that.

NewerThnU said: "...and representing yourself in court with some lame defense line you heard off the internet is the dumbest thing you could do for yourself. far-fetched scenarios where an attorney or stenographer will let you touch their computer to make an example also will not happen, thats more something off my cousin vinny."

Yeah, it's thanks to people like NewerThnU who think this way that results in 99% of people being wrongly sued by the RIAA and other groups affiliated the League of Extraordinary Extortionists to completely and immediately cave to their extortionistic "settlement" offer that rivals a Mafia "protection" scam. It is VERY easy to defend yourself in a court of law, as most of the information, forms, example letters, and precedence reseach is available online and for free.

I've been directly involved in lawsuits three different times, all regarding construction -- twice I was being sued and once I was doing the suing. I was royally screwed by a bad lawyer when I was doing the suing, and ended up just dropping the case because of all the loopholes my attorney did not see (or likely just didn't warn me about), but didn't have a problem taking my money even though I was the one who discovered the loopholes and brought them to his attention. The two cases where I was being sued ended up with me eventually firing my attorneys for each case and representing myself to the conclusion of the case. Neither case ever saw the inside of a courtroom, and I was able to fend off ridiculous requests for discovery, depositions, and even motions for summary judgement, and even negotiate a MUCH better settlement than my stupid lawyers.

Everyone needs to understand this as fact: Lawyers are all in this together. Sure, you can find a couple of bleeding heart, sympathetic lawyers, willing to buck the system and the Good ol' Boys Club to take a crusade for someone, but they're very rare and seldom stay that way for long. It's a frickin' game -- every single court case. Most of these lawyers all know each other, they are not the rivals that you see in the courtoom TV shows. They're actually drinking buddies who do most of their casual negotiating over a steak dinner at a local Hooters. It's all a game to them, they don't care about your case, they haven't take up a crusade or cause -- it's a game with the winner getting to notch his belt buckle and lay in a bed full of money. And the loser isn't crying into his scotch at night, he's simply thinking, "Bummer, lost that one. Ya got me that time!" They don't think anything more of that than losing a game of darts or billiards that they had money on. Oh, well.

As for the My Cousin Vinny movie reference, you obviously don't spend much time in legal circles or have any lawyer/judge friends. I have a few lawyer friends (that I keep at an arms distance), and have a very good friend who is a seated judge. The stories they tell about court cases are actually more crazy and funny than any legal related movie I've ever seen. No, none of the crazy stuff all happens in one case, but where do you think they get the script for movies like My Cousin Vinnie? Bar (no pun intended) stories from lawyers all combined into one storyline/fictional case. Y'know...crazy stuff like using the plaintiff's briefcase in a defence scenario and then not returning it until a day later, or using the judge's gaval to show how a hammer could've been used in the crime. Kind of like using the plaintiff or court's computers in a testimonial demonstration.

It is not difficult to defend yourself. Yes, there will be things that you don't understand, etc., but just search the net or your local library for it, and you'll figure it out. If you can do your own taxes, you can easily defend yourself in court. I would not settle and I would not pay a lawyer to defend me, and I strongly believe that my chances to win would be high.

@Doc409: A motion for summary judgement is actually one of the easiest motions to defend by an unknowledgeable attorney or someone defending themselves, and it is a motion that is usually automatically denied by a judge because it prevents people from having their day in court. Your guilt would have to be pretty obvious. At least according to Florida Law and filing a motion for summary judgement: "The moving party must show that there is a complete absence of any issue of material fact." I don't understand why the RIAA or any plaintiff would ever actually file a motion for summary judgement, since it's to their benefit for the case to go on as long as possible in order to cause the greatest financial damage to the defendent, and causing all attorneys fees to go through the roof. Plus, in most states, a motion for summary judgement will be immediately denied if all motions for discovery have not been met. What is the first thing that was advised for you to do? Demand to see the evidence against you -- that's called discovery. All you would have to do to defend a motion for summary judgement is to write a letter in response that says you have not received all (or even any) discovery requested from the plaintiffs.

In most situations, it's the defendents that file a motion for summary judgement along with a motion to dismiss the case. Coming from the defendent this mostion has a higher success rate because a judge is likely to assume that the plaintiffs have all the discovery they need or they wouldn't have brought the case in the first place.

GernBlan...what you say about summary judgment is correct...if you know what you are doing. A sufficent challenge to the facts presented is enough. In US courts a person must first deny the complaint's allegations, and then challenge the SJ in a manner that conforms to court rule 56. A general denial is not enough...the facts have to be factually disputed...such as claiming a wireless network got hacked into, or, that it is not a screen shot of my computer. And yes, if a person is representing themselves (pro se), the media group will try to prevail at the earliest (summary judgment) to minimize their costs.

Simply writing a letter saying you didn't get the discovery you requested will only postpone summary judgment...if the court chooses to accept the letter as a motion. If the letter is not in the form of a "motion to compel discovery" to the court, you will be lucky if the court accepts it. Rule 7 covers motions, and every state's court rules I have ever seen requires all court action to be in the form of motions. It's how due process is guaranteed. If you don't follow these rules, you lose. Concerning appeal, you can't appeal something that wasn't raised in the trial court procedings...which means if you don't do the summary judgment right, you have nothing to appeal. Therefore the media companies will try to trip one up at the earliest.

I'm glad I'm getting a good education but I have to take some law courses...

In reference to the post that said "just because a file is named as an mp3 doesn't mean that's what it is"...

I received an email from my ISP regarding a complaint from Sony pictures containing proof I had downloaded a file "Superior - The DaVinci Code.avi" from the Gnutella network.
I was given 48 Hrs to reply.
Sure I DID download that file... and promptly invited my ISP to upload it from me and view the contents of it.
It was a documentary about the Da Vinci Code... aired on SKY TV in the UK.
I told them basically that this file was freely available to be recorded from SKY TV since the person who I got it from had recorded it on his SKY Digital Box.
I heard no more about it...
I have now changed ISP.
The scary thing is that SONY endangered my being disconnected from my ISP for the downloading of "the Da Vinci Code movie of which copywrite was owned by Sony"
Although I had turned off the option to allow users to browse my hard drive... they had obviously registered as users to the Gnutella network and watched me download this file.
They had my IP address, and without first verifying the CONTENTS of the file, reported me for illegal downloading.
I then obviously told my ISP that all avi's I had downloaded were either trailers or documentaries, or "the making of the movie".
as I said to be on the safe side I moved to a new ISP.
But this shows that they are on dodgy ground when accusing people... and don't verify the contents of what you are SUPPOSED to have uploaded or downloaded.

Dynochem...very interesting experience you describe, and it shows why the file name and contents should be challenged.

The US legal system has its roots in English common law, and we would do well to adopt the system you have where one could explain things before it costs an innocent person a lot of money.

While your ISP connection was put at risk, if you had been in the US the first notice you received would be a demand for $4000...and if you don't pay, you will be sued for several thousand $$'s. These media companies have even sued people that never had an internet connection!!! As you can see, this is all very heavy-handed.

I would add that a US Federal court has ruled that an ISP MUST turn over the identity tied to an IP address when they get a subpoena for this info...or be in contempt of court. Any attorney can issue one. The court does not have to approve it. And, the ISP may or may not choose to notify the user.

There is little doubt that what the recording industry is doing is wrong with all these lawsuits. I came across a case where a person being sued by the RIAA has countersued, alleging RICO (racketeering) violtions. I don't know where this is right in litigation, but they seem to present a very good case against the RIAA's illegal activities: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA_v_ThePeople/Sony_v_Scimeca/20040204_counterclaim.pdf

I read the 10 page pdf document with great interest.
The counterclaim seems to be very well founded, the main complaint being that of "racketeering" by the record company.
In their many lawsuits they use "the U.S. Mail as a vehicle to extort funds induced by wrongful use of action or threatened force violence or fear".
They also say "your liability under the copyright act is clear".
These wordings are use to create maximum panic and make the "guilty" party feel he has already been found guilty, and going to court would be a waste of time.
They then also issue an enormous fine themselves!!!
This surely is suggesting that when a large company "finds you guilty" they can then bypass the entire legal system and meter out their own punishment.
It is a valid point...
I feel that you're better off going to court, defending yourself, explaining at the outset you have no legal knowledge and and playing "David v. Goliath".
At worst, the sympathy vote would surely mean a fine of a lesser value than the thousands being claimed.

The main legal point here is they have virtually told you they are judge and jury in this case.
Some judges won't like that one little bit...

recording a song off the radio is legal. So copying a song off the internet radio should be legal too. File Sharing is just another way of copying, but made easier. But now the internet is full of radio stations that send out crystal clear songs. Anyone with half a brain can wait for the song they want and copy it using Window's sound recorder. There is no law against that.

shhh, if we explain to the music industry that they are idiots, they may start suing ppl for just owning a computer... lol

TazmanYo...the music people interpret one part of federal copyright law as saying that recording a song off the radio is illegal...while another part says it is legal. For them to prove you recorded online music is another thing. Most certainly, if you do record off the radio, be careful how you decide to share it online.