AfterDawn: Tech news

Another 754 RIAA lawsuits

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 01 Dec 2005 18:44 User comments (15)

Another 754 RIAA lawsuits The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has issued another 754 subpoenas targeting file sharers it alleges to have distributed copyrighted music online through P2P networks. Among those on the list are students from 12 separate colleges. Over 15,000 people in the United States have become the target of the RIAA's campaign against illegal file sharinbg, which it claims is responsibly for sinking CD sales worldwide.
Lawsuits from the RIAA are no new news to anyone, and most of us are sick of reading about it (or writing about it). But soon things might make a change because some people are not willing to pay the settlements that the RIAA requests to make lawsuits disappear. For example, one women, Patricia Santangelo, a divorced mother of five children, claims that she knows nothing about downloading or sharing music, and that the likely culprit is possibly one of her kids' friends.

If that is the case, then why should she be forced to fork out thousands of dollars to the recording industry for somebody else's crime? Many experts have dismissed RIAA evidence as it is based only on an IP address to file a lawsuit. Many believe that this is not enough evidence to sustain a lawsuit. We will soon find out how reliable an IP address is as Santangelo's case looks very likely to go ahead to trial.

Also one woman, Tanya Andersen, counter-sued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices. However, it seems the RIAA is happy to continue filing lawsuits to attempt to deter file sharing

Source:
p2pnet

Previous Next  

15 user comments

11.12.2005 19:42

*sigh* wow. what a suprise. how long will they continue to do this crap. And they wonder why so many people are anarchsts.

22.12.2005 1:36

I wonder when these counter lawsuits will be getting underway?

32.12.2005 3:57

it would be funny if someone exploted the sony software to trigger a world wide upload of music to p2ps then everyone would be guilty but it would have happened because of sony....then the RIAA would have to sue sony for doing it to us all.....

42.12.2005 10:57

great idea ill work on it

52.12.2005 12:16

Just a quick one, how come it always seems to be seven-hundred-and-something lawsuits?

63.12.2005 22:35

Perhaps because seven is the only number with 2 syllables?


011001011001010100110101010101110101101001101101

79.12.2005 11:01
alphabit
Inactive

Maybe the sinking sales are due to over promoting of rap and country music and the killing of rock and roll. and the more they sue people for downloading the more I am against giving the RIAA any money. Let their greed and short sightedness suffocate them..If the people stop buying their crap they wont be able to afford expensive lawyers and then they will want people to download music because someone will eventally want better than mp3 quality and will buy it to get it.

89.12.2005 11:21

Quote:
Maybe the sinking sales are due to over promoting of rap and country music and the killing of rock and roll.
It has nothing to do with that whatsoever. It all depends on which channels you watch and what radio stations you listen to as to what gets the most global promotion... Rap and Country have got more popular, but music changes over time. People having different tastes in music has no bearing on whether that person goes out and buys music or *steals* it from p2p.
Quote:
If the people stop buying their crap
People could say the same about rock'n'roll - it's your opinion; so should people with 'crap' tastes in music (i.e rap/country fans), as you describe, have to buy the type of music you like? if the shoe was on the other foot, what would you say??

910.12.2005 18:13
m_towell
Inactive

Quote:
If the people stop buying their crap People could say the same about rock'n'roll - it's your opinion; so should people with 'crap' tastes in music (i.e rap/country fans), as you describe, have to buy the type of music you like? if the shoe was on the other foot, what would you say??
I think you took that out of context. The way I read it was that if people stopped buying music, then the music companies wouldn't have money to hire lawyers - nothing about not buying a certain type of music. :D That's someting I agree with. I haven't bought music for a very long time. It's not because I download my music, it's because I just don't listen to music enough to warrent me going out and buying it. So... If I stopped downloading music, their music sales wont go up, I just wont listen to music. No loss to me.

1020.12.2005 7:49

the funny thing is.. is that microsoft is making a p2p lol what do these prix from tyhe RIAA gonna do about that. they are breaking the privacy act is what they are doing. thanks to ol mr bill clinton he made it to where you losers like the RIAA cant well arent suppose to get into a computer such as hacking. so that should come up on the counter lawsuits. haha stupid bastards

1120.12.2005 7:54

Quote:
the funny thing is.. is that microsoft is making a p2p lol
No they're not. They would never make a p2p.

1220.12.2005 8:38
m_towell
Inactive

Something that hit me on the weekend (call me slow, if you like, haha) but if we're not allowed to copy copyrighted material, why does Sony produce both DRM CDs at the same time as producing stereos that can copy CDs onto tape. Seems like one hand of Sony doesn't know what the other hand is doing!

1320.12.2005 9:16

Hmm....good point.


011001011001010100110101010101110101101001101101

1420.12.2005 17:41

There have been studies showing the RIAA is not loseing anything from ppl downloading, most ppl still want originals for the artwork and to collect and so forth.... those are the ppl that were buying them in the first place , ppl downloading music are the ones that got a copy from a friend on tape or recorded it from radio and so on.... they are not loseing a cent on downloading , sales are up.....but its a good excuse for them to rip off the actual artist for more money and blame it on p2p, but to keep artists from starting thier own company they claim they are going to take care of it to try to keep thier contracts open with the artists and keep thier hands in thier pockets... its all a shell game and the p2p crowd are paying the price, as usual the poor pay and rich get richer, How many albums do you think that a woman with 5 kids could buy if she was not downloading them ? Now if she did download them , how many sales did they miss out on ? but they want to make her pay BIG money for downloading ....... after she pays she wont be able to afford another CD for years and on top of that ..... she probably wont ever buy one again... so they are trying to force ppl to buy cds they probably wouldnt have ever bought in the first place.... its all about greed. The only way it would stop is if the artists started thier own record companies and found out how much the big boys are takeing them for and spreading the word.

1521.12.2005 8:53

ohh really lethal b you really dont know shit about the computer world when you get reading this i want everyone one to know how stupid you look after you read this ok. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050616-5005.html read that guys and see for yourselves. "No they're not. They would never make a p2p." but they are its called avalanche.your soooo dumb little kid. and i hope you do something really smart about reading up on things.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive