digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

How the RIAA gets its victims

p2pnet.net — A detailed explanation on how exactly one gets sued by the RIAA. Lawyer Ray Beckerman, who's been working with Patti Santangelo in her defense, explains how "justice" is served, RIAA style...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Drewskey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would like to subpoena Cary Sherman's income statements...hmm how did he get so rich????
  • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Great write up and too bad I missed the interview on TV... anyways, it's also a shame that the Sheep-led-people of the US will continue to buy iTUNES and CDs supporting the RIAA. Hold out a year, hell download some from allofmp3.ru whatever for a year, get their attention.. but it will *NEVER* happen.
  • Spencerocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Add 3 pinches of pepper and allow to simmer for around 3 minutes until you've got a nice rich aroma of fat cat in the air.
  • rmendis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Site down. Any other links?
  • rmendis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Never mind. I see it now.
    Digg effect
  • Ductapemaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Allofmp3.com ROCKS! And they say iTunes is too cheap...lol...2 cents per megabyte there
  • antiwmac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0digg effect.
  • x2dx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0F---- the RIAA buch of close minded people and need to go get drunk and blowed.
  • Cyberdactyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Look, the music industry fatcats use the RIAA as their shakedown goons.

    They can care less who is at the "guilty" IP address. All this ***** of the consumer with $18 CDs with rootkits that costs them $1-4 to produce screams the industry is scared of the evolving IT but at the same time wants to squeeze every last dime out of their aging business model.

    If a few innocent single moms get caught in the crossfire so be it. The rootkit drama should make it clear the consumer is way WAY down on the list of consideration.
  • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've never used allofmp3 (isn't it in russian?). I do use mp3search.ru and musicmp3.ru, though. Great sites (and in english). One charges by the megabyte so a song is usually around 5 to 8 cents. The other is per-song which is 10 cents each (and a 10% discount if you get a full album at a time). Tracks under 30 seconds are free.

    Interesting thing is, if you read mp3search.ru, their FAQ states that they DO pay royalties.
  • Clazor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0one word.....Bastards
  • theWaterboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am giving this a digg just with the hopes that the RIAA can see my little comment, which is:

    'Hey RIAA, prosecuting people for downloading music is quasi-understandable, but I disagree with it (flips RIAA the bird). However, prosecuting and preventing fans from posting lyrics for free, and preventing amateur tablature sites for fans??? RIAA, you are so stupid-- I will never buy another CD... that's right! You feel the pressure, don't ya RIAA? That's like $16 dollars you will loose in the upcoming year"

    *If only everyone would limit their purchases of music to when you have to give someone a CD for a gift (ex. birthday's, Christmas, Qwanzaa etc.)-- because let's face it... giving someone a burned CD for Christmas etc. is just cheezy.

    Anyways, just think how much effect THAT would have!


    --- long live the P2P community :)
  • m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That riaa guys last comments seriously made me sick inside.
  • eastshores, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What is interesting here, is that the RIAA wants to send a stern message to the general public about how it is illegal to trade copyrighted music online; in doing so they want to avoid looking bad in the PR machine. All the while, they are facing increasing political and PR pressure from those that feel that they overcharge and monopolize the industry.

    They are stuck in a damned if you do, damned if you dont scenario. I am glad that individuals like Patti Santangelo are contributing to what is becoming a national debate. The idea that parents need to know it is illegal shouldn't come at the cost of what are largely innocent individuals.

    To me, if you took the firearm situation, where parents have a clear definition of what is acceptable / safe and what is not in regards to their childrens exposure and use, this would not be as difficult a problem. What is at stake here is a complex freedom that has potential to do great good and possibly the potential to break laws or damage profits of corporations. At least these cases for the moment have to remain civil cases.
  • deivys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@seumans

    What do you think the .ru at the end of the adress stand for?
  • rolypolyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hello, EFF? Where are you?
  • kamizu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0holland rules. so happy to be living here. but yea, the *AA suck monkey testicles.
  • thomashawk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hopefully getting some mainstream attention with get Congress to quit going for the easy Hollywood campaign money and actually do something to protect their constituents against this kind of extortion.
  • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"@seumans

    What do you think the .ru at the end of the adress stand for?"

    What is that supposed to mean? Two of three russian mp3 sites have their sites in english. No reason the third shouldn't.
  • trialofmiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0thewaterboy:
    "I am giving this a digg just with the hopes that the RIAA can see my little comment"
    The RIAA will reply, "We have nothing to do with the lyric/tab thing."

    "If only everyone would limit their purchases of music to when you have to give someone a CD"
    To you and everyone else who is boycotting RIAA companies, good for you, but don't call the rest of us sheep for buying their music. I don't pay $18 for CDs (can get them cheap almost anywhere), so I can't use that argument. The lawsuit thing, as lousy as it is, really isn't widespread. What I hope will happen is the woman in the article, Patricia Santangelo, wins her case, and a precedent is set so the RIAA can't go suing people with such ease.
  • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Besides, if they didn't offer English, that's a whole lot of lost customers!
  • FRAGaLOT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this article didn't tell me anything new about how the RIAA goes about suing people. no digg.
  • junkyblake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0allofmp3.com is in english
  • Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Said before, saying again. Your dollars speak loudest. Go indie. Grab your music with StationRipper from streaming audio. Buy your ***** from your favorite asian in China or perhaps Singapore. Do whatever you want, but don't ever walk into a record store, don't buy from CDNow, or anything else associated with lining the RIAA's pockets. Cut off their source of revenue and watch them die an agonizing death.
  • narunet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0All Of MP3 all the way bitches!!
    A lot of songs on my ipod are from those people.
    +digg because RIAA is Lame as *****
  • hiredgun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0is the RIAA currently targeting bittorrent?
  • gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0More stupidity from the piracy appologist crowd.

    Seriously, the article explains their methods like they are illegal. Which demonstrates the authors lack of knowledge about the difference between civil and criminal law suits.

    And apparently the wonmen being sued, doesn't even know if her kids downloaded music or not. So she is using ignorance as a defense. A lot of that is going around.
  • Pogue_Mahone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sure
  • gotpaint547, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0notice how only us Armenians are the ones prosecuting divorced old women with 5 children for thousands of dollars. i think are society it going down the *****
  • cnmsales, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0There lawsuits are geared toward those UPLOADING content, not those downloading it.
  • crapiolio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0RIAA will keep fighting a losing battle till the end of the world.
  • brbeaird, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2She's going to lose this case. It's a shame this has become so nasty. The RIAA is really blowing its chance to have the general public behind it as a whole. At the core of it all, they are ultimately right. Downloading = stealing what you would otherwise have to pay money for (regardless of whether or not it is overpriced). The problem is that they have chosen a very poor strategy of dealing with this. When they find out the IP belonged to some grandmother, they should have just given a warning, maybe a very small fee ($100 or less), and dropped it. If they find IP's that belong to some 20-year-old guy in a basement somewhere with 3 servers full of 1000 GB of songs that just upload all day long....sure - go ahead and fine him a few thousand. Randomly suing normal people will never end this problem. It's like a state ordering all its police officers to write tickets to ANYONE driving even 1 mph over the speed limit. That kind of thing doesn't work.
  • xelloss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I dont understand the value loss in these cases, 50 99 cent retail songs, = 24000$ in lose sales, I dont understand this.

    ***** the Riaa.
  • Tobey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, appaerntly a single song costs $480 in RIAA land.
  • Lacero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0RIAA will likely die eventually, but they're going to put up one hell of a fight. Expect more casualties in the years ahead. LOL.
  • djhifisi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Fascinating article, good digg.
  • fredgarvin1138, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2For those of you who sympathize with this gal, and understand that the RIAA is being the 300lb gorilla in this - I agree with you.

    For those of you shouting "Music should be free!" and "F the RIAA - they're just trying to make rich music execs richer!" - you are stupid, and probably 15 (or just stupid). If I write a song, and record it, and send it to a record label to be published - YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE IT UNLESS YOU P-A-Y FOR IT, *****.

    How the RIAA is acting, trying to "make an example" out of people, and trying to settle for thousands of dollars ("because we ASSUME that 1500 people downloaded the song from your IP") is beyond ridiculous, and I applaud every effort to make them start loosing these court cases. But, to say they shouldn't exist, or should leave people alone and let them download and share songs all they want - well, that's just mindlessly stupid.
  • shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The RIAA will never see another dollar from me. Their music and artists have been PATHETIC for over a decade. I don't listen to a damn thing they produce, not when thousands of people are providing higher quality music online for FREE.
  • tryferos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I personally use ITunes, and buy CD's. I get all my music legally and dont download pirated stuff off the internet. That being said, the RIAA lost this battle ages ago. Those who know what they are doing won't stop, but if they even thought about it, this kind of behavior from the RIAA will only change their minds.

    The only people really responsible for "decimating the music industry" as Cary Sherman said is the RIAA. They are attacking people with microscopic or no blame. That wont stop anything. The only way to stop the downloading is to pull the plug on the internet. And since that will never happen, the RIAA will continue to waste its time and money. If this then causes prices to be outrageous and them developing an even more "thats the price, deal with it" attitude, more and more people will find "alternate ways" to obtain music.

  • Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0in response to fredgarvin1138, I encourage you to read a very enlightening article by Courtney Love ( http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html )
    She makes a pretty compelling case that the record industry, as it stands, should not exist.

    The article is five years old, and getting more timely by the day.
  • Yang1205, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If you are still using P2P you deserve to be sued. lol j/k but still you should switch to bittorrent.
  • Chimichanga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm not sure that page has enough ads on it, there are a some places they could squeeze in a few more.
  • northLite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If you are still using P2P you deserve to be sued. lol j/k but still you should switch to bittorrent."-yang1205

    Bittorent is P2P dumbass.
  • chess007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You think this is bad? The RIAA sued the mother of a 12 year old who lived in the projects. Projects = very low income housing paid for by the government.

    Thing is, most don't fight them. Most people settle and sign non disclosure agreements. Props to the lady for fighting them.

    RIAA has basicly become the Internet Mafia. Although I doubt even the mafia would try and strong arm a 12 year old.
  • sk1d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can someone explain to me how an album, even though they are already over priced, is worth $24,000 stolen?

    And why is the RIAA collecting money from these people? If I break the law and there is a fine attached to the penalty, the money goes to the court, not the person who i committed the crime against.
  • samfrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They get money because the suits are just settlements before the actual case. The RIAA is using mafia tactics.
  • samfrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Also: WTFFF why is it 2 cents a meg, used to be 1 wtf what a rip
  • cvrti5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting, but doesn't say "How the RIAA gets its victims", no digg.
  • tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Their math is easy to understand. The reason a couple songs can SUPPOSEDLY cost thousands of dollars is because they claim that first off you stole it, secondly you shared it and uploaded to several other people. Then they uploaded to several others, who then uploaded it to several others. Because of you sharing/duplicating the song, there are over 1,000 people who "stole" the song and didn't pay them money for it. Sure it's a ludicrous claim to say you are responsible for what other people do with the songs they downloaded from you, but that is what they are doing. It's also ludicrous to assume they know how many people you shared the song with in the first place. For all they know the only person you shared it with was them and only once. Their lawsuits are ridiculous, but that is their claim. They would go after downloaders if they found enough songs on their computers. The reason they don't go after people who ONLY download and don't upload is because if you downloaded 50 songs they could claim they lost maybe $250 total which is hardly worth their time when they can attack someone who they know is sharing those 50 songs. That can be worth thousands of dollars to them. It's not that they don't care about downloaders, they just aren't worth their time. They claim downloading is illegal too, they just don't prosecute because it would simply be a small-claims court type lawsuit. That would cost them more money to prosecute than they would make from it. Make more sense now?

    BTW just helping you to understand THEIR claim. . . I hate them as much as the next person, so don't misunderstand MY STANCE on things! Long live P2P!
  • battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I've never used allofmp3 (isn't it in russian?). I do use mp3search.ru and musicmp3.ru, though. Great sites (and in english). One charges by the megabyte so a song is usually around 5 to 8 cents. The other is per-song which is 10 cents each (and a 10% discount if you get a full album at a time). Tracks under 30 seconds are free.

    Interesting thing is, if you read mp3search.ru, their FAQ states that they DO pay royalties.
    posted by Seumas (0) at 02"

    Do we think for one nano, that the RIAA is going to go against a mafia-run .ru music download site? There is not one dime that the RIAA will see from any .ru site. Yeah, "I DO pay ALL of my taxes" that I choose to REPORT.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.