Getting sued for downloading songs and movies

[ditchdj]

How in the hell does the RIAA find people and bust them for downloading anyway? Do they monitor IP addresses and see what comes in and out? Do they pick them at random? And I wonder how well that evidence holds up in a court anyway....as far as I know, nobody's being arrested for this stuff...just sued big time.

What I read is that first, they catch you online and check to see if you're "sharing" any songs online. When they do, they download from you, making you "upload" to them. They then document it, take it to court as proof that you're "violating copyright law" and file a "John Doe" suit against you. In turn, they use your IP address to find out what ISP you're using and demand that the ISP identify you. In fear of getting sued, the ISP usually will hand over your personal info without a fight. Then they come after you and serve you legal papers. And yes, you CAN SUE the ISP AND you can fight the RIAA in court. Nine times out of ten, though, the person they're targeting wont do either because they dont have the money to do it and can't afford to.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Just out of interest, would using a proxy scramble the IP so it can't be traced? Just asking, not that I intend to do that.

[Rapscallion]

Not really. Most proxy services, as far as I understand it, will give you a free pass to go to sites etc, but the basic level of service can be seen through, so to speak, by specialist software.

The paid-for services cannot be seen through quite so easily.

Rapscallion

[horror]

To put it plainly: they have money and I don't. If I can get what they have for free then sign me up.
But in an effort to create a balance in life I buy the movies I really like and only watch pirated versions of the ones I wouldn't care to own. I also buy CDs of my favourite bands, but download songs of other artists I enjoy, but didn't make it into the Top Five.

[BlaqueKatt]

Apple has that problem figured out with iTunes. An album costs $9.99 on there and one song costs .99 which is fine with me.

Amazon mp3 downloads is cheaper and they aren't copy protected to only play on ipods.

[Zyanya]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but frankly, downloading songs is theft, and should be punished.

Granted, if you already own the music and are just downloading it in a different format that is one thing.

But if you are just downloading music because you want to hear it, well, to me that is no different from sneaking into a movie theater to watch a film.

If you want to listen to the song, either buy it or tune into the radio.



I don't like the RIAA's tactics, but it is a crime, and it should be prosecuted.

[lordlundar]

BTW, where was the RIAA 20 years ago when people were recording songs off the radio and making copies of tapes? I don't recall such a fury over those actions. Was it because of today's increased sharing, and the fact that the RIAA is seeing dollar signs now?

They made a number of attempts. It was foiled because the ones taped off of the radio never are at the quality of professional recordings. With digital media giving 1-1 quality, they can claim the defense being null. It takes a tech audiophile with a knowledge of the legal system (in short, three specialists in one) to convince the courts otherwise.

As for their being so gung ho about it, it's because they're desperate. Between the crappy stuff with their labels behind, good artists leaving and going indie to make more money (and succeeding) they need something to keep their revenues up.

which is the big issue. the RIAA always claims the moneys they get from these lawsuits go to the artists. At best, It's one percent. After legal fees, the remainder goes to studio execs. Originally the RIAA was similar to a union, set up so an artist has a large voice to combat means that threaten their livelihood. Now the artist's needs are being ignored and it's the executives needs. They're suing people so they can stay alive.

They really need to get with the times. Either they do, or they will collapse. With one studio leaving, guess what choice they made.

[DarthRetard]

From what I understand about being a musician and being in a band, (I've done both for about four years now)you'll make a hell of a lot more off of actually performing and doing shows than you will off of CD's. For instance, the singer from my favorite ska band, Streetlight Manifesto, Tomas Kalnoky once said at a show promoting the new cd, " Fuck the CD, if you really support your bands you'll see them at shows!"

[powerboy]

" Fuck the CD, if you really support your bands you'll see them at shows!"

I have a group member who is in a band. I was asking him about all this. And he had said the same thing.

[DarthRetard]

Well, from what I understand, initially, when a band is started, they make more money initially from the touring and shows than they will off of the cd's at first, because it's more initial/immediate revenue.

[lordlundar]

"Fuck the CD, if you really support your bands you'll see them at shows!"

I've heard this too. From what I gather, part of it is that it's a set amount for the show itself and a set amount for promotion. Anything beyond is profit. With CD sales though, there's very little that's static. To sell a CD, part goes to the materials (disk and case) all the graphic work is typically royalty based (a few cents of each CD) and royalties to a variety of companies for licenses and patents. Maybe about 50 cents per disk are profit. Barely pays the taxes.

And that's if it's freelance. If it's a publisher, it's even worse, because they want their cut as well.

Another little tidbit, one article I read was a band under contract with the RIAA mentioned that they get crap from both the CDs and the shows, and the main portion of their money comes from product sales during the shows. T-shirts and such.

At no point am I advocating piracy, but if the RIAA, an American organization thinks they can dictate how I, as a Canadian, can listen to music (with over 90% of it from Japan, meaning they have NO involvement in it), I have two words for them:

**** 'em.

[Seshat]

I'm a 'content producer', or 'intellectual property artist', or whatever you want to call it. In my case, I'm a writer. When I'm well enough, I write. I've had many articles published, and two editions of a book.

Most of what I'm about to say, I think you'll all agree with. But I'm going to say it anyway because there will be aspects of this that are new to some of you.

I need the income from my writing, and I believe I deserve that income just as much as a hairdresser or shop assistant or waiter deserves to get income from their work.

I also believe that my editors deserve some income from their work - they didn't work as hard on my books and articles as I did, but they did work on them and deserve to be paid for it. So did the proofreaders, typesetters, graphic designers, and assorted other people.

I presume that everyone agrees with that. And agrees with the equivalent for music: the band deserves income, so do the sound engineers and sound editors and cover-art-designers and so forth. Or the equivalent for computer games, movies, and other such things.

Now, the way books - and music and etc - are distributed is somewhat broken. Everyone claims to be making very little per book: and I can assure you, I could make a lot more programming than writing (if I were well enough to do it). Of course, it's intentional that I only get a certain amount per book: it takes me a year to write a book (technical stuff), and noone wants to be the one to pay me a full year's income just to get one book.

Unless the distribution system is fixed, however, the only way that people who like my books can pay me for their share of my work is to actually buy the book new.

Sucks, doesn't it?

Oh well.

[lordlundar]

Seshat, I fully agree with you. Everyone who put a lot of hard work into the end result deserves their piece of the pie. No doubt.

My beef is that the one getting the largest slice is the idiot in the big office who said "sign here and do as I say or you'll never be big" and that was it.

Heck, 50 cents off of every CD and a portion of the profit from shows and merchandise is better than a penny off each CD and 10% of the show and merchandise. Particularly if you get to call the shots.

It's why I'm so thankful that more and more artists are saying "fuck off" to the production companies and go indie.

[Boozy]

I don't know how the book publishing world works, but musicians make so very little off their CD's they might as well be giving them away. The sale of a CD pays executive producers, marketers, etc. Many independent musicians produce their albums themselves and actually DO give them away for free. With the latest technology, its becoming hard to tell the difference between a mass-produced album and one done in a small independent studio.

Musicians get most of their personal income from shows and concerts. And I've never met an artist who didn't prefer doing shows to studio work anyway.

I'm not a fervent defender of music copyright. But book publishing is different. Authors make their living off the sale of their books; there's no other way for them to make money. So its important to support writers and pay for our books.

[FashionLad]

I think the RIAA is wrong. I also think that artists need to take a more proactive approach to making sure they get the money for their work. Trent Reznor did a fabulous job of that when he put NIN's album up for sale on their website. He bypassed the RIAA.

While that may not be possible for every artist at this time, I hope it will be in the future. If the album is worth any money, people will probably buy it. I just bought a CD last night for like $5 or $6. It was a Blue October CD. Damn, I love my discount.

How often do I download music? Not very. But, I do use downloading as a way to sample music to see if the album is actually worth buying. Most of the music on my computer came from my CD collection. Another large majority came from iTunes. Very few of my songs are actually downloaded illegally.