RIAA Sues Again... As Promised
from the how-many-12-year-olds-this-time? dept
Realizing they'd lost a little momentum after the Verizon decision and noticing that file sharing is on the rise again, the RIAA still thinks that it can win the war by making a big publicity splash and suing people. The latest, is that they've filed 532 new lawsuits against people accused of offering music for download through file sharing networks. Because of the Verizon decision, these lawsuits are all filed against "John Doe" defendants, and they will now try to get legal subpoenas from ISPs to find out who these people are. Once again, this is more of a publicity campaign than a legal campaign, so it will be interesting to see if more stories of "falsely accused" people show up again.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
Can you say ‘Frivolous Lawsuit’?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Frivolous Lawsuit
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
They will win this battle until they change their copyrights. Period. While it may cost them a lot of customers in the interim, they will drive home their point. FILE SHARING will not be tolerated.
A more interesting debate might be if the RIAA did forgo this, thinking it's hopeless, how would the artists react and what rights, if any, would they have in it.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
I'm curious how you define "this battle"? All it seems to have done is (a) make people dislike the recording industry even more and (b) make more people look at more underground file sharing programs. This doesn't seem like a real victory to me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
One really has to wonder how much all these lawsuits cost.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mmmmm
I guess you could use the argument that you downloaded File Sharing program X to check it out but you never really used it. And plead ignorance about know that it found all your legit MP3s and plead ignorance to the fact that you didnt know it was running (minimized to tray and hidden) or restarted each time the computer was rebooted.
That and I would love to see someone argue that they only downloaded them to collect them to view in a text file but said that they never listened to a single one of them. Could they prove I listened to them and if they could or couldnt prove that would their copyright still hold up ?
I mean just because it says Metallica - Enter Sandman.mp3 doesnt mean it's actually a song and how would I know if it was a song for sure or not if I never listened to it. That would be my ignorance plea.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Mmmmm
I thought some women just said she had a mac and they let her go ??
BUY A MAC U WONT GET A VIRUS OR GET A LAWSUIT :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment