[MW Forums]

A U.S. appeals court has rejected a tactic used by the music industry to identify alleged file-swappers in order to sue them, marking the second time a federal court has struck down subpoenas that seek names of Internet service provider (ISP) subscribers. more

[jmincey]

This is good news indeed. I don't even want to ponder the implications of any other ruling which would permit a trade association or corporation the right to demand and obtain the names of subscribers and users of communication services simply on grounds of the allegation of wrongdoing -- before any violation or guilt has been established.

[j_drake]

While I do agree it is scary to think about being guilty without due process, by a bunch of
hackneyed lawyers and their trainers, I think this is in the same barrel as the
Apple lawsuit against Think Secret , IE, put the fear of eternal dammnation in their wallets.
I don't think the RIAA really thinks these actions are going to get them much up front, it's a way of
putting the idea out there and laying some ground work for future actions that may/or may not, have more teeth.
There are of course many problems connected with life, of which some of the
most popular are `Why are people born?' `Why do they die?' `Why do they
spend so much of the intervening time downloading digital music? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
with sincerest apologies to DNA /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Nobody]

Even if the tactics might seem similar (Apple and RIAA) the reasons are worlds apart.
Apple is an innovative company trying to keep those innovations secret until they deem the time to go public.
RIAA is stubbornly trying to stick to a paradigm that is past. Its day of internet, e-commerce its time for some forward thinking.
catman

[bigpoppa]

"RIAA is stubbornly trying to stick to a paradigm that is past. Its day of internet, e-commerce its time for some forward thinking."
Actually, the RIAA is defending its clients' copyrights. This whole us against "big brother" mentality is totally ludicrous. Since the RIAA is the one suing people, its face is outfront and a lot of people's knee-jerk reactions have been to blame all the problems of the music industry on the RIAA, which is not true. Is the industry messed up? YES..and I say that with confidence and 30 years experience in the industry. It is FUBAR! The RIAA does not set the high prices. The RIAA does not issue a CD with 14 to 18 songs and only 2 of them are good. There may be a lot of things wrong with the music industry, but it is not necessarily the RIAA's fault.

[srookard]

"RIAA is stubbornly trying to stick to a paradigm that is past. Its day of internet, e-commerce its time for some forward thinking."
So if I understand you right - companies be damned - we'll force you into submission through illegal means if neccessary?
I'm sorry, but thats a crock. The companies are the ones to determine how songs are packaged, distributed and sold. If you decide that you don't want to buy - fine - send them that message by keeping your money in your pocket. But don't think for a second that you have any right to download as you please without some repercussions just because you don't like the way they are doing business.

[Bryan]

The RIAA isn't suing anyone in particular. They are launching "john doe" lawsuits. There is no way these should ever be allowed. If you can't indentify specifically who has wronged you, then you simply do not have a case.

[jmincey]

Agreed -- not to mention if you can't show damages except in hypothetical, theoretical terms.

[SIXCOLORS]

No, they are presenting the John Doe cases based on specific, documented activity traced to real IP addresses. It's not theoretical, hypothetical or proactive in any way. The only information they do not have is the username associated with each IP address. That information comes out during the proceedings of the case.
The only thing the RIAA lost here was the ability to associate those IP addresses with real names ahead of the court case proceeding.

[Nobody]

"I'm sorry, but thats a crock. The companies are the ones to determine how songs are packaged, distributed and sold."
No, actually its the way of the world. Records companies enjoyed a captive market for song. Just like American Car makers put out trash cars and almost went bankrupt to the Japanese and Europeans. Just like American Tire manufactuers purposely made tires that would wear out and were safe when Michelin was making steel belted radials. The list goes on and on.
I'm at the age in which I buy very little music. The internet has been a blessing. I can buy songs at a reasonable value. If I go to the GD site I can buy the music and graphics. If I hear a song I like I go to Itunes. If its not there I go to emusic. If its not there I search and if I"m lucky, like recenlty at "One Cent Cd" in which I paid $2.96 ($2.95s&h) for a still packaged CD.
Then I might look elsewhere. Thank heaven for people like Steve Jobs so we have itunes and don't work in DOS.
catman

[j_drake]

In reply to:

---

They are launching "john doe" lawsuits. There is no way these should ever be allowed. If you can't indentify specifically who has wronged you, then you simply do not have a case.

---

Which is what Apple is doing in part by not naming the "culprits/cohorts", Which was the comparison I made in my earlier post 'tween Apple and the RIAA. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[jmincey]

"No, they are presenting the John Doe cases based on specific, documented activity traced to real IP addresses. It's not theoretical..."
What is theoretical is the extent to which RIAA members suffer damages as a result of the action.

[macnuke]

In reply to:

---

What is theoretical is the extent to which RIAA members suffer damages as a result of the action.

---

it's measured in phat chrome wheels, bling bling around the neck, and platinum teeth.
too much money in my book.. i have better things to spend my hard earned pesos on. I say, whatever the market will bear. and if it's one song off of the CD at 99 cents.. then so be it. just how much does it cost per case and what's the fiscal recovery of one that is convicted.. being most are people without the financial resources to just go out and buy all the CDs they want even if it's only for one song off the CD. p2p is reality, ethical or not. a good product wil make good money. regardless.
let 'em eat gruel. (RIAA)
I can still stream radio, and it's free (after your ISP costs of course)
i miss my vinyl
m

[jmincey]

As I have pointed out in previous threads on this subject, two Harvard mathematicians have conducted a study which shows that -- if anything -- peer-to-peer file sharing actually benefits record labels and that while some downloads represent lost revenue, the industry overall shows a net gain as a result of file sharing. I've provided a link for this several times in the past but I'm too rushed to do that now.