Copy of RIAA's new enforcement notice to ISPs
The recording industry dropped some big news Friday, announcing that it will no longer take a broad approach to litigating against alleged filed sharers. The Recording Industry Association of America has enlisted the help of internet service providers to act as a sentry and help discourage customers from pirating music.
Below is a copy of the form letter the RIAA will send to ISPs to inform them one of their customers is accused of file sharing. The notification is similar to those the group has sent to college campuses for years and shows very clearly that the group retains the right to sue people for copyright violations.
VIA EMAIL
*ISP*
*Date*
Sir or Madam:
I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member music companies. The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate music sold in the United States.
We believe a user on your network is offering an infringing sound recording for download through a peer to peer application. We have attached below the details of the infringing activity.
We have a good faith belief that this activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this illegal activity. Specifically, we respectfully request that you remove or disable access to the unauthorized music.
We believe it is in everyone's interest for music consumers to be better educated about the copyright law and ways to legally enjoy music online. The major record companies have actively licensed their music to dozens of innovative services where fans can go to listen to and/or purchase their favorite songs. A list of many of these services is available at www.musicunited.org.
It should be made clear by this letter that downloading and distributing copyrighted songs via peer to peer networks is not an anonymous activity. Not only is distributing copyrighted works on a peer to peer network a public activity visible by other users on that network, an historic 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed the unmistakable unlawfulness of uploading and downloading copyrighted works. The website www.musicunited.org contains valuable information about what is legal and what is not when it comes to copying music. In addition to taking steps to notify the network user at issue about the illegal nature of his/her activity, we strongly encourage you to refer him/her to this helpful site.
Please bear in mind that this letter serves as an official notice to you that this network user may be liable for the illegal activity occurring on your network. This letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' rights to recover or claim relief for damages incurred by this illegal activity, nor does it waive the right to bring legal action against the user at issue for engaging in music theft. We assert that the information in this notice is accurate, based upon the data available to us. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.
Thank you in advance for your prompt assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at XXXXXX@riaa.com, via telephone at *Phone Number*, or via mail at RIAA, 1025 F Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C., 20004. Please reference *Case ID* in any response or communication regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
RIAA
List of infringing content
------------------------------
*Infringing Content*
-------------------------
INFRINGEMENT DETAIL
-------------------
Infringing Work : XXXXXX
Filename : XXXXXX
First found (UTC): XXXXXX
Last found (UTC): XXXXXX
Filesize : XXXXXX
IP Address: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
IP Port: XXXXX
Network: XXXXXX
Protocol: XXXXXX
See also:
• RIAA drops lawsuits; ISPs to battle file sharing
• Sources: RIAA budget will shrink soon
• Lawsuits or not, the RIAA still doesn't understand us
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
The RIAA isn't claiming that the information they are providing is enough proof to prosecute. It is only enough to be suspicious, and they want the ISP to investigate and confirm the accusation. They clearly say, "We believe a user on your network is offering an infringing sound recording for download through a peer to peer application. We have attached below the details of the infringing activity."
They also clearly say they believe their evidence is true and accurate "under penalty of perjury." They are taking responsibility, legally, for the information being true.
"The expectation, I'm sure, is that the ISP will check the IP addresses, ports, time codes, and bandwidth usage to see if they agree with the logs they keep on your internet activity."
I think the expectation about what information an ISP keeps and for how long is a little unrealistic. Assuming this is netflow data, which would be easiest, that's going to be a massive amount of data on a large network. It expensive to keep, time consuming to search and there's no legal requirement to keep it that I am aware of. The RIAA would _like_ ISPs to have this information available for the RIAA's use, but I just don't think that's going to happen.
"They also clearly say they believe their evidence is true and accurate "under penalty of perjury." They are taking responsibility, legally, for the information being true."
No, they are saying 'under penalty of perjury' that they are authorized to act on behalf of their clients. They only 'assert' that the information is 'accurate, based upon the data available to' them. That doesn't mean that the data available to them is accurate or even true or that their conclusions are corrrect. I could assert that the ocean is blue because my data shows this is caused by someone dumping blue ink into it. Both facts may be true but my interpretation of the data is completely wrong.
This is essentially a DMCA notification disguised as a general notification to the ISP. Under the DMCA, the ISP is not obligated to perform any action in this case since the content is stored on the users computer and not on the ISPs systems. The data is just a transitory communication over the ISPs systems, handled normally by those systems so the ISP isn't liable, even if it is aware of the infringing content. These 'notificaitons' can have no more legal weight that a DMCA notification.
First on the list.... my second grade teacher!
Michichael hit it on the head. This info they are going by is easily falsified. Might be hard to get specific IP's, but that wouldnt stop soemoen trying to cause trouble.
In addition, intellectual property is an artificial construct in response to the modern world, so although I agree that it makes sense, we cannot impose it on our citizens, only businesses, and we certainly can't sue little girls for downloading Puff the Magic Dragon, taking away their college fund, hurting the family dynamic by forcing parents to overly monitor thier kids ...
Intellectual property of all kinds is and will be the basis for continued economic development. If you don't want to play, go back to your cabin in the woods. Otherwise, kids should learn about respecting intellectual property just like they do the candy bars next to the checkout line in the supermarket. Then there wouldn't need to be all the drama later.
Please do not impose your ideology on others. I, for instance, am a socialist, yet I recognize that capitalism is innately justified by evolution, so I do not impose my socialistic ideology on others. Similarly, intellectual property is an artificial construct, and consequently, an ideology, so a culture has NO right to impose it on citizens. Same with gay marriage, for homosexuality is a perversion of nature which I personally find repulsive, yet their right to marry MUST be protected.
In another day and age I would earn my keep by charging a fee (sell tickets) to hear my words. You would leave with them in your head and could share your version of them with others, but if one wanted to hear the "true" words you would have to come to me. Today's technology permits a way around that. Now someone other than me can record my words and share them with others. Now that's a wonderful thought especially if I consider widespread dissemination of my words important. However, if I can't provide for my sustenance and shelter with my words I will have to do something else and the only ones sharing their thoughts will be those of independent means.
Somehow I don't think that this is how you describe your societal environment - where only those with the wherewithall produce the concepts that govern society.
Other media also have other issues. A set of plans for building remain the intellectual property of the architect and are rendered as a service to a building owner. However if someone else was to use the plans to construct another building the architect would be subject to additional liabilities (especially since the building would probably not be built with proper and/or competent supervision - I am an architect).
Intellectual property is a more complicated concept than many can understand, even the RIAA, though I think that they are beginning to understand. Clearly suing individuals to make "examples" is not the way from a practical or business approach, and skirts very close to the "fair use" doctrine. Nobody complains today about libraries loaning books, or even passing CD's on to friends when you are through with them, though as you probably know game software developers are upset about the used game market.
I constantly complain about the inequities of the marketplace. Those that truly serve society are not treasured the way they should - and I don't strictly mean monetarily - while those who merely have a seat at the table when the money crosses it profit handsomely.
Eventually the music marketplace will adjust to today's technologies. Already many artists publish independently and digitally and this will be the future. The RIAA will find soon find that they have become obsolete. Until then they will fight for their survival.
Most legitimate "recording artists" see very little of the money collected by the RIAA, they make most of their lucre through live performances. (Except possibly the "mega-stars", and most of the them are well passed their prime creativity, relegated to covers of more vital performer's works or re-hashing songs from their glory years.)
Darkstar is half way to the right answer. LIVE PERFORMANCES. If you're good, you'll draw a crowd and make money. If not, you wont. The need for record labels as a means for musicians to gain the presence necessary to earn a living is quickly fading.
Musicians should be EMBRACING the rapid desemination of their works and talen, and the added noteriety derived therefrom, and capitalize on that to drive patrons into the concert halls and ampitheaters.
You do realize that the intent of copyright law is as much to prevent someone passing a given work off as their own, when it's not their own, and as a spurr to innovation and creativity, as it is to prevent "theft"?
Of course, look at the artists who are most supportive of the RIAA. Has beens and hacks, most of them, and parasites (riaa) and coffin riders (holders of deceased artists estates). Very few vibrant, vital, continually creative artists have jumped on the RIAA bandwagon).
And, WOW ISTYAC!!
Man, I want to believe...but it's unbelievable that the RIAA is still trying to do an end-around their required burden of proof.
I MEAN SERIOUSLY.... RIAA Give it a ******* rest you ass hats this is a 12 year old arguement, take a long breath and really breath then give it a rest... in the words of Duke Nukem, BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS!
What they really need to do is rethink the idea of music/entertainment in the 21st centry. The days of people paying $17 for a cd are dwindling. Especially with alternatives on-linethat allow you to listen & keep to music for free. How about they drop the price on the cd's to $10 ($8 on sale)? We all know that to make a CD cost's less than 50 cents. They'd sell more albums and people would be less inclined to rip them off the internet. Our economic market still works on supply and demand with price as an elastic marker. This monolith called the music industry is destined to tip over if they don't rethink things... QUICK.
You're right about online alternatives that require no payment at all...ever since I received a "you're going to be sued" letter a couple of months ago, I've discovered www.playlist.com, and it has 90% of the music I listen to on a regular basis---COMPLETELY FREE.
Most of my music use is at home, within internet range anyways...gosh, if I had only known about this site before, I would have been so much less likely to pirate in the first place.
... and they don't need proof, they've got money, and this will help them keep a little more of it.
You think sysadmins don't have better things to do? Most are short staffed as it is, and this kind of thing adds no value to their services.
Music is the soul of humanity...without it, we are but chaff in the wind.
lol...sorry...couldn't help it. :)
There is no reason in this day and age that an artist and production crew have to share their success with Sony and the Big Music Machine. They can record independently and distribute independently. And keep all their money themselves!
Here is my letter to the RIAA
Notice to the RIAA,
We the people of the world hereby serve notice that you are a bunch of Whiny ho bags with no sense of nothing, and do seek to Sue you for your utter and complete STUPIDITY !. I also seek further compensation because you have caused stress in my life for having anything that sounds like music on any device or pc or radio or anything else.
Suit Amount $700 Billion. To pay back the people of the globe for buying concert tickets, t shirts, beer, wine, hot dogs, or anything else while getting bent over at a concert venue.
E A T $ H I T
RIAA
Things get faster and cheaper every year, but Music is behind in the times. The RIAA needs to cut some of the fat off there bellies, and learn to deal with what the people want. My suggestion, Stop selling CDs all together. Go all digital (cheaper) and save on the printing, packaging, and shipping. Sure, you need to protect your money, but suing individuals for billions is not making America any better.
However, I disagree on going completely digital.
Personally, I like the option of getting album artwork. Maybe if it was also available as a download, I could print it out myself...but still...it's not quite the same.
It remains the case that there is precedent in law for the idea that piracy will be regarded by courts as stealing. The victim suffers damage (lower sales), so the argument that no physical property has been taken doesn't hold muster.
A message to by digit12345: I read where you said "I have an IQ of 150, and most of my friends have equally high, or higher, IQs," then read "... the majority of geniuses do not recognize, or at least don't ondone, legal action against private citizens", and I might have answered this (or learned from it), except I was left asking "what is ONDONE? What does it mean?" Does having a 150 IQ mean that you can invent words that your reader is supposed to understand? Might you hold off using the words you invented until they read a dictionary? Apparently the online stealing attracts both the dumb and the too-smart-to-use-established-vocabulary persons.
For those who complain about music executives sharing in the profits of the music of the performers and songwriters that the executives promote: you are free to find your favorites among the internet-based performer/songwriters who market their own and to patronage them, but should you decide that your preferences are for the talents who chose to align themselves with a conglomerate music company, do realize that the talent CHOSE this arrangement and that you should patronage them in the way that they contracted to distribute their music. The RIAA efforts merely attempt to enforce the anticipated outcomes of these agreements.
Keep in mind also that the music companies have agreed to the music rental arrangements (e.g., Yahoo's) that can cost the consumer much less and allow a large selection to be available at low cost at any given time. As I see it, the companies are amenable to migrating to a new business model. For all the grumbling at the costs of CDs expressed on this page (see G3iMacMan and Techie_Jr), the retail price has remained stable for 25 years as inflation has pushed everything else up.
While I can't vouch for digit12345's espoused genius...as an internet veteran, I can promise you that beginning such a wordy paragraph revolving around a denouncement of another poster's intellect - for an obvious and innocent typo, as we can all plainly see - with, "A message to by digit12345..." just plain old makes you look like a retard without an editor (in the parlance).
Now do us all a favor and leave with the dignity your mother told your father only money would bring.
Actually, there's more than that... (and I don't mean to address your continued and blatantly ironic disregard for grammar, your obvious misleading misuse of citation, nor any degree of your innate incorrectness here.)
POI~ I'm a gun for hire.
I don't have any vested interest, since I don't honestly give an autocensor about either "side" here...
I'm perfectly willing to work for the RIAA's PR department, if only to curb the nonsense from under-brained stooges like you, who confuse information with intelligence and allow themselves to believe that no one reeeely notices those embarrassing blunders they regularly make.
I'm actually dead serious here... I currently throw around my acerbity and derision for the simple sake of my self-satisfaction...but what could be better than getting paid for it?
Times must means make...and I'd like to make some time, as it were.
Seriously though...pass it along. Preferably to someone within your industry who makes enough money to be totally incomprehensible, rather than an attorney corporal like yourself. (See what I did there? I artificially lowered your rank. Pretty clever, huh? I'm full of smart stuff like that... People tell me how smart I am all the time. They even made a club for it.)
Anyways...I want to work for you guys...for about 2 years.
That's where the money window is. Kinda like the housing boom, it's about to fall through the floor, but I want to get in while I can get mine too.
Unlike some of the faux-altruists here, I can see the value of large piles of cash. It IS printed on the paper, after all...(btw~ does anyone else think it's about friggin' time that WYSIWYG should be a friggin' standard wherever you go on the friggin' internet by now?)...
Anyways...
My IQ is actually quite over acceptable limits...to the point I can see the gradations between 'grammar' and 'language' and 'communication' and certainly even such arcane constructs as 'spelling'...and appreciate them all...
Yes, that's right, I even appreciate the input from you "little people", whatever indecipherable content you attempt to contribute.
I take great pride in knowing what you're TRYING to say...even if you're not quite smart enough to put it into intelligible strings of idea/words (or combinations of "I'm hot/I'm cold/I'm hungry/My name is/I like bananas" buttons), or properly construct the grammatical format of the language you're ostensibly using to communicate, much less bother to learn the roots of the symbology it's derived from...or the spelling arrived at.
Yes, I'm quite sure the vastness of my intellect can allow and compensate for the brevity of your inane intrusions.
But I'm not quite as sanguine about my TIME.
And THAT is where I must be compensated.
Get it touch, DHnetter...
~Seriously.
You are quite correct that there is legal precedent for this argument... but that does not make it fair, just, or right. This and many other such arguments that the recording industry has made about the "losses" they suffer from piracy are inflated, poorly researched, and reactionary estimates. The companies involved in the argument stand to make money by suing people for infringing their copyrighted content... what they claim is exactly what you'd expect them to claim when they will profit from a decision in their favor. The losses could be attributable to many things, including paying customers frustration over the highly inflated cost of albums and nightmare of DRM protected content online, but these issues are not being addressed by the industry.
The simple fact is that MANY (probably most) downloaded files would not be paid for anyway, even if they could not be downloaded. There is basically no research out there about how widely that fact would hold... and until there is legitimate research done about that, any claims the RIAA makes about their losses is highly suspect and biased.
Prove it.
Show that those that downloaded the songs from pirate bay or wherever would have paid for it, had it not been available for free.
RIAA wants my ISP whom I pay for useage of thier hardware/software/network to restrict or terminate my right to services under contract with my ISP if the RIAA "suspects" me of using a P2P network for the purpose of downloading copyrighted material?
when i can purchase a peice of software without havign to pay for packaging, shipping, manuals, jewelcases, etc etc maybe I'll start purchasing them instead of pirating them. Dont give me the crap about digital downloads becuase in the end if i want CoD4 and choose to buy it as a digital download it's the same price as though i drove to my local gamestop and bough the boxed copy. Despite having none of the additional costs of shipping, packaging, etc.
I stopped buying 90% of my music about 8 years ago.I won't go back to it either.
If the RIAA thinks they can force my ISP to breech thier contract with me based on speculation of misuse without a court order allowing ym ISP to monitor my internet activity they are sorely mistaken. Perhaps through some miracle bush will extend the "patriot Act" to encompass all internet/phone communications and not just those of "suspected terrorists"
\facepalm
sometimes the ruling parties of this country make me ill.
While I do not=agree the the business practices of the Record and Movie industry, the response is NOT to take their products without paying for them, but rather to deny them my business. Taking something you do not pay for makes YOU wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. Of course you can do no wrong. If you do it it is always right. it is only what OTHER people do that can be wrong.
Lets get this debate out of the gutter. If you don't like the price for what is offered, don't pay it. But that also implies you don't take it.
As long as the RIAA and MPAA can show a large # of people stealing their works, Yes I said and meant STEALING, they can convince governments and businesses to back their claims.
Theft is taking something FROM SOMEONE ELSE that does not belong to you. The obvious difference being that somebody else is now without something that you now have, and that you gained through unlawful means. This is an obvious ethical problem.
When you download a song, what have you taken FROM SOMEONE ELSE? What is the ethical problem you're defining?
The RIAA still has their songs and their copyrights. The record label doesn't even know what you've done. No money has changed hands, so you haven't stolen that either.
What, you've somehow stolen *back* the money that you *haven't yet* paid for a song that you *didn't plan* to buy anyway? That is the *only* thing you can claim someone has "stolen" in a music download. And that really doesn't make much sense, does it?
Downloading is copyright infringement. That is a specific legal term that's very limited in scope. "Theft" is something else. Let's be accurate in what we're talking about here.
This entire notion of "intellectual property" is an affectation of capitalism, which is an extremely recent development in historical terms and has already been mostly discredited (it's debatable if you can even call this a capitalist country at this point). It's entirely ridiculous to consider ideas something whose spread can be restricted through legal means and whose "sale" is governed by some right that for some reason belongs to the person who came up with that idea first. Think about that for a second. Imagine if you couldn't talk about or even mention the word "Democracy" without getting permission from and paying a royalty to Thomas Jefferson's estate (consider that every time Mickey Mouse comes up for copyright expiration, it gets extended... so obviously, the most powerful IP is now considered for perpetual copyright). None of the founding fathers - including Jefferson - would have condoned such a system, nor would any other thinkers of any other time or place.
But that is exactly what we're talking about with music, movies, games and other forms of intellectual "property". What is a tune but an idea? And how do you "protect" that idea anymore than you protect the idea of Democracy or Liberty?
The IP age will die. It will take some time, but ultimately this era will be a curious footnote in history, and we will wonder how we could have ever been both so hypocritical and so stupid.
With that correction, I believe the RIAA does indeed suck, but not because they are trying to protect the rights of their shareholders and content creators. They suck because they are trying to protect those rights FOOLISHLY and ILLEGALLY by suing people without proof of wrongdoing, by bullying people into settling lawsuits they should not have, and by attempting to make the ISPs do the work of protecting their content. Finally, the RIAA sucks because the have deliberately failed to adapt to the digital age which will inevitably force changes upon the music industry -- the world cannot be policed as much as they would like it to be, and copyright infringement will happen. They need to take this realization and put it to use in their business model.
And I agree with riaasucks (XDDDDD) If you have the cd and let someone borrow it and rip those files onto their computer, it's the same as having the file and letting other people "borrow" it. Even if you have the cd, if you lend it to the other person, that person is getting the songs for free. Same concept.
I understand why the RIAA is trying to do this, but still.....it's just too much xD They have to learn when to give up. If they really want to stop all the illegal downloading completely, they would have to do something like shut down all the file sharing sites and all the nice forums that let you download music. =__________=
- by spiceybooger December 19, 2008 4:19 PM PST
- Bear with me I am a bit slow....
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by williamkidd December 20, 2008 1:42 AM PST
- Disclaimer: My replies are based on my interpretation of the laws that I've read and the information contained on the site that was referenced in Greg's article (www.musicunited.org). It should also be considered as pertaining to the US only as I have seen no mention of the laws in other countries.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (80 Comments)Is only illegal if you download THEN share?
What if you down lad burn to a blank disc and then share?
What if you are using somebody else's computer and file sharing without the owners permission?
If you file share and sell the computer or give it away before a letter is sent will it go to the original owner of the computer or the new owner?
I know it is stealing but I just want to know when they go after an ISP that different situations have been discussed..
"Is only illegal if you download THEN share?"
No, the legality of it depends on the origin of the download. If you purchase and download it from one of the authorized sites (e.g. Amazon, iTunes Store) then the download is ok but it would be illegal to distribute it. In this case it wouldn't matter if you let a friend copy it or you upload it to a P2P site, either way would be considered illegal. You would be able to transfer the download to a media player (e.g. iPod, Zune) that you own but not to one owned by someone else. I would think that this would become a gray area if you later sold that media player or when the same download is synced to the media player of other family members. However, if you download it using a P2P program then the download itself would be considered illegal and whether you share it becomes irrelevant, although I'm sure that the sharing aspect would be used for some purpose (another charge like distribution maybe?) with the download itself being considered theft.
"What if you download and burn to a blank disc and then share?"
This is an interesting question if I'm reading it correctly. The answer to the download part of it was covered in my first answer (depends on origin of the download) but I think you're inferring that the copy is being paid for by the purchase of the blank disc. I think this quote from the MusicUnited page under examples of easy ways to violate the law answers it though: "You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of your friends." I think the RIAA wouldn't see it as a purchase of the song because the money is not going into their pockets (or those of the artists) but rather into those of the disc producer.
"What if you are using somebody else's computer and file sharing without the owners permission?"
I think this would fall under a similar category as a child using a computer. In that case the parent is responsible and can be fined and/or jailed if the child is downloading illegally. In the situation you mentioned it would seem that the owner of the computer would be the responsible party because it would be very hard to prove that someone else did the downloading in most cases.
"If you file share and sell the computer or give it away before a letter is sent will it go to the original owner of the computer or the new owner?"
Keep in mind that the letters are going to the ISPs, not the computer owners. The ISP has your information since you are paying them and I can't think of any ISPs that take cash, although perhaps some do. The burden of the letters is falling on the ISPs to be the download police and pull the plug on any nefarious activity.
It sounds like there are still a lot of gray areas that are involved in all of this but it sounds from that letter that they are trying to crack down more on the illegal downloading and online sharing than anything else. One has to wonder though how many artists are really up for seeing their fans fined an enormous amount of money and/or sent to prison for downloading their music. On the other hand, are they really true fans if they're not paying for the music? I can't really side with either side on this one but I do think both sides, music industry and downloaders, should think about it because they may realize that the only winners are going to be the lawyers.