RIAA tries to pull plug on Usenet. Seriously.
The Recording Industry Association of America has found a new legal target for a copyright lawsuit: Usenet.
In a lawsuit filed on October 12, the RIAA says that Usenet newsgroups contain "millions of copyrighted sound recordings" in violation of federal law.
Only Usenet.com is named as a defendant for now, but the same logic would let the RIAA sue hundreds of universities, Internet service providers, and other newsgroup archives. AT&T offers Usenet, as does Verizon, Stanford University and other companies including Giganews.
That's what makes this lawsuit important. If the RIAA can win against Usenet.com, other Usenet providers are at legal risk, too.
For those of you who are relative newcomers to the Internet, Usenet was a wildly popular way to distribute conversations and binary files long before the Web or peer-to-peer networks existed. It's divided up into tens of thousands of "newsgroups"--discussion areas arranged hierarchically and sporting names like sci.med.aids, rec.motorcycles, and comp.os.linux.admin. A handful are moderated; most are not. For efficiency's sake, recent posts to newsgroups are stored on the Usenet provider's server (as opposed to saved on a subscriber's computer as mailing lists are).
Some newsgroups, like alt.binaries.pictures, are devoted to the distribution of binary files. Of particular relevance to the RIAA lawsuit is that there are around 652 newsgroups with the phrase "MP3" in their names. (For storage space reasons, not all Usenet providers offer binary newsgroups. Google's Web-based interface to Usenet doesn't, for instance.)
The RIAA sued Usenet.com, which is based in Fargo, N.D., in the southern district of New York. The lawsuit claims Usenet.com encourages its customers to pay up to $19 a month by enticing them with copyrighted music, and asks for a permanent injunction barring the company from "aiding, encouraging, enabling, inducing, causing, materially contributing to, or otherwise facilitating" copyright infringement.
There are some differences between Usenet.com and some of the other newsgroup providers that will help the RIAA. Usenet.com boasts that signing up for an account "gives you access to millions of MP3 files and also enables you to post your own files the same way and share them with the whole world."
Clearly they didn't run that language by their lawyers first.
So will the RIAA win? Thanks to improvident boasts like that, they stand a good chance. One reason the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Grokster is that the justices believed that StreamCast's executives had tried to lure pirates into using the Morpheus application. The justices also said that neither company filtered copyrighted material and "the business models employed by Grokster and StreamCast confirm that their principal object was use of their software to download copyrighted works."
What the RIAA's doing here is a classic litigation strategy: sue someone who a judge is likely to say is a clear offender, and then invoke that decision when targeting someone who's a more marginal case. Usenet.com may be first, in other words, but newsgroup providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Stanford may well be next.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
USENET users have smugly flown under the radar for WAY too long and have plundered millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars of copyrighted material with seemingly no threat at all.
Sue USENET to the ground and force USENET providers to delete, kill or block binary groups that screw hard working copyright owners.
SHUT THEM DOWN!!
/usr/mouse
I wonder if any of the money that the RIAA sues for actually goes to the artists they represent or mysteriously disappears in lawyer fees and administrative costs?
i don't understand why you would show such hostility towards a service that has never wronged you personally?
its one thing to choose to not participate in something, its a completely different thing to want to dictate on others so that they are enable to partake in said thing.
you have alot of misguided anger there kid
The Recording industry is failing not because "old albums" are being shared, it's caused by no new good albums being sold today, and they just want to just make money off what they already have done.
Wish I could do a few things and get paid for it for the rest of my life and do nothing else.... Think about it....
Lostcub
Very few things have come out in the last few years that's really worth buying. Radiohead, Coldplay, and NIN are the few that pop into mind.
You want to know another big factor? eBay, Amazon and Half.com. Why would I want to spend $14 on a CD when someone is selling it used for $2.99. The used copy sale doesn't get magically entered into SoundScan so it's not known that it got resold. I've bought the majority of my CDs over the last 2 years off Amazon and Half.com.
more music and go back to the days of the wandering minstrel.
Then there would be no reason to sue anybody and the poor
musicians would get paid directly. Then they wouldn't need the
RIAA to sue their fans for them.
The lawyers are also representing a family suing Dole Food Company for allowing their banana peels to be placed strategically on the ground to cause accidents. The lawsuit is aimed at Dole ensuring that everyone that buys a banana, toss the peel in the garbage to ensure public safety.
America and around the world hardly knows what "Usenet" If you
had a computer in 1995 or before you knew what it was. This was
before the "Internet boom" It's a waste of time GIVE UP RIAA U'VE
LOST!
The RIAA can go after US based companies all they want but the internet is global and not everyone plays by the same racked rules.
If you want something bad enough you will get it. Eventually the RIAA will either run out of "visible" entities to sue or run out of money.
The only danger is lobbyist taking away American's rights to unregulated internet. Once that happens we will be living in AmeriChina with a thin illusion of freedom.
Heck, just try to not pay your taxes and see what happens.
1) Its contains an original copyrighted work.
2) Its contains a derivative work (and thus infringes another copyright)
3) Its too trival to be copyrighted.
I guess there is potentially a forth
4) It contains a work on which the copyright has expired.
I think if Usenet is not making any effort to understand the copyright situation on files distributed there, they are on thin ice.
Sony also provides a number of tools for people to convert audio to MP3 or sample music into new works (SoundForge, Acid, Vegas, etc).
So when do we get to see something like that Coca-Cola commercial where the two divisions are sueing each other... just Sony sueing Sony this time around?
these putrid places of borrowing music without paying for the right to listen to the copyrighted content, many of these so call "borrowers" simply convert the CDs to MP3, well enough is enough its time to close these storage areas of filth down for good. -sarcasm
come on go after Usenet, does the RIAA really want to offend Usenet users, if people want illegal content their are many other areas of interest.
I'm going to start wondering what happens if I take the entire library of songs I legally bought and convert them to ring-tones, and then upload to the Internet?
However, if the judge is a non-tech savvy conservative then the RIAA could well convince them that 99% of all MP3s are pirate copies.
Remember when that guy who figured out how to hack cell phones by hacking into AT&T's (or whoever) files had his prison phone privileges removed because one of the phone companies convinced the judge that even having access to a dial tone phone made him a threat to national security.
(song) into say 3 partitions, 10 files per partition. If you don't
have all 30 files the posted file cannot be recompiled. It's that
simple. Often times one file will evaporate on you when you are
trying to DL a specific posting. You have to wait for it to be
reposted.
Usenet was a great way that a LOT of companies posted Alpha's
and Beta's of programs if you wanted it before it was released.
I think this will fail. If they insist on going after the provider,
that will mean bringing charges against the US GOVERNMENT,
the one who provides the Usenet. You want to charge the
provider as they did Grokster or Napster, you have to go after
Uncle Sam. They are the ones who created and run the Net.
On the Usenet, I DL'd not a song, but files normally we try to
fend off our computers that they like to infect us with (virii).
Being it was in segments and not posted in a archive or as a file,
it made it a safe mode for transport. I verified my anti-virus
ware was working, then destroyed the segments. Nothing illegal
with infecting your own computer to test the software.
It's the same as if I partition a MP3 in an archive into 10
segments and post it on 10 different web sites. Each archive by
itself is worthless, but all 10 together will give you the song.
Unless you know where to look you cannot find all of the
segments.
Most of todays users have not stepped foot into USENET. They
are adapted to the GUI world rather than the text based web. I
think RIAA wants to try and stop the minority that still use it.
I know my viewpoint on this subject swims upstream for your readers. I do think it is healthy for people to consider both sides of this argument, however. I hope you do, too.
We in the copyright industries, and we as users of legitimate copyrighted works,as well, owe a debt of gratitude to the RIAA for its efforts to combat piracy over the past decade. As a small graphic arts content development company that employs artists, designers,photographers, cartoonists, digitizers, writers, and programmers, we know what a society without adequate copyright protection looks like.
If you want to know, just travel to Russia, China, or Brazil and take a close look. It will likely make you sick.
I hear you scream when the RIAA goes after a single mother in Duluth who thumbs her nose at recording artists and their protected works. You say "go after the organizations and the bigger companies".
So here, the RIAA listens to you and goes after a rogue organization that profits from stolen property, and what do you do? Complain again.
Have you ever considered what living in a country without copyright protection would be like?
Do you realize that copyrighted works are one of the few rights granted to each U.S. citizen in our constitution that still carries a significant economic value ... and garners respect from those countries who still envy the basic freedoms we have in this country.
Thanks, RIAA. We realize that in order to combat this piracy epidemic you cannot be selective in who you target. Copyright infringers ("pirates") need to be punished regardless of their economic or social status. That is the ONLY way any enforcement activity will have the deterrent component that is so badly needed to win the war against willful pirates.
Thanks for listening.
George P.Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com
I took a look at your site, which has no product to sell, "coming soon" but is suing people for using "copywrited images". Could it be that you are one of those people that look around at what is going on, find someone with a POC copywrite and then try to sue your way to economic success???
They are out there everywhere, Viacom, and many others. Find something that you really don't care about and sue for billions. Hey you just might win and those lawyers of yours have been just sitting on their hands anyways. :-)
Sorry, stealing is illegal but what much of these companies are doing is stupid, fattening, imoral, and stupid. JMHO>
RIAA Suing a mother for 200,000 $. She can never pay. You will not get the money, she will have her life ruined just so you can flash to others --- who do not care -- that you won. Its about politics and power (and maybe money for viacom and Verizon/Vonage) not about the law.
EN
need a HUGE bank fund to pay legal with any litigation that may
come up with patents and copyrights. It is up to the *holder* to
persue and try to squash violations. The system will not
instantly grant a cease and desist order.
You basicly have to PAY a watch group to look out for violations
on your part, costing you more money even when not in the
courts. Are we seeing a pattern here? Expences outweigh the
cost of having a service. Why pay for a hummer if you work one
mile from home and never go off road or drive in bad weather?
It's the same here.
I'm not defending the infringers, just the amounting costs it
takes to defend what one owns.
Look at the Metallica lawsuit on copyright or was it song theft by
another band. It lasted over 6 years. Would you want to pay for
a monstrostity like that? I see red ink all over.
Other copyrights are blatently violated **by the system** when
they should have become public domain due to time and death
of the author, but THE SYSTEM does not allow the art to become
public domain as law allows; I cite Mickey Mouse first rendering,
no longer used as an example.
The problem with RIAA or people like you (greedy to the extreme) is that instead of providing a fair price with accessible alternatives, you are only interested in taking more money while screwing everyone else. Itunes's success speak for itself in accessible and acceptable prices. But that wasn't enough for the CEO of music industries or movie industries. You all want more monies and higher price. Not that you would voluntarily share MORE with the artists and the people who actually create that product. It's more money for the leeches. If you don't really care for the artists, don't use them as the pity sale pitch.
I believe in copyright works and people getting paid accordingly for their products. However, I don't believe in 50 years copyright songs. I don't believe in $15 CDs especially when the artists got pennies and you got billions. I don't believes in $15 CDs when your costs of distributing is significantly less. Make it accessible and set a fair price. Then the problem of piracy will become smaller. Well, I still don't think you can sell a $15 US dollars to third world countries but it would be a good start.
My issue with industry organizations such as the RIAA is that they are not simply attempting to punish copyright owners. They are also attempting to quash legitimate use of the technology. Take for example the newest features of Windows Vista that deal with preventing copying of movies. This is not a strong example, but it represents one of the first steps toward a time when your average computer will no longer be a machine that does precisely what you tell it, but it will be a machine that will allow you to do something only when there is some likelihood that you may be doing something wrong. Wrong not necessarily being illegal. This will be accomplished by threat of lawsuit to manufacturers and programmers of the technology. Is this what you call "freedom?"
Of course, that said, we all know that the appropriately-stamped "content providers" will have access to all of the properly working equipment without copy protections. I'll tell you what really makes me sick, and that is the notion that the companies who license content should be able to make money off of their creations in perpetuity. I would agree that money should go to the artists. But the middlemen, if not obsolete, are at least undervalued. They should not be allowed to preserve the market value of their jobs by a legal blackmail of the whole country. When does anything get returned to the public domain? What ever happened to the idea of something "belonging to the world?" Where does it all end? Should we pay royalties every time we remember a picture or a song? Never before have so few taken so much from so many.
Furthermore, for your consideration, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment both took place in societies without "adequate copyright protection." I am not saying we should eliminate such protection, but I believe that protecting copyrights comes second to my ability to use the property I purchase however I desire, without being presumed to be a criminal. That is the old school definition of "freedom."
Also, copypasta:
1) Copyright Infringement =/= stealing. No physical property is lost. It's like me taking a picture of your car (from every angle) and building myself a copy. Ok, bad analogy, but you get my point.
2) If you consider it stealing, consider:
-People would NOT have bought the song if they couldn't download it; insane assumption.
-Make the punishment, at most, fit the crime;
Charge them a buck per song.
3) Uploading - "Made it available".
The RIAA already lost a case over this (and should have lost the previous but the defense was retarded). Anything in your computers shared folder (Shared Pic/Mov/Music, My Documents) falls under the "made available to share".
You can, at most, mathematically calculate the total amount of bytes uploaded (of said song) and use that to extrapolate a payment.
4) "But but think of the artists!"
No. Don't even bring this up. The RIAA stiffs the artists far more than pirates ever will.
Most artists/bands get between 0.3 and 3 cents per CD. Most that do not fall into that range get even less.
Concert, T-Shirt and memorabilia sales account for the much greater majority of an artists profit.
The RIAA is a dying relic that was (a little bit) needed a LONG time ago. But their business model does not apply today, and they're doing as much damage as they can to stay in the game.
Can't sue the old granny, don't have any evidence? File the papers, she'll rack up a legal bill and settle it immediately.
remove library protections. It probabably won't, but industry
money buys a lot of congressional irresponsibility.
They are gasping at straws...but even when all IP property theft is gone...they will still go extinct. Because, there is no purpose that they serve!
They are just middlemen who more than double the costs of songs...and they aren't needed for manufacturing anymore...not in the digital age. And they aren't needed for distribution anymore, not in the digital age.
They have no purpose...they have a back catalog,a nd thats it!
Radiohead is paving the way....artists don't need the record labels anymore.
The music industry's $220,000 win in its unfortunate suit against a Minnesota woman accused of file-sharing on Kazaa is a great example of how not to win the public's hearts and minds.
http://news.ihollywoodforum.com/public/blog/185378
- g-"OGG"-le it ! :)
- by heinekin October 19, 2007 2:15 PM PDT
- -i don't bother with poor quality mp3's anyway.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (61 Comments)