MP3 traders sued for $97.8 billion

[Semjaza]

[quote]HEATHER NEWMAN: Recording industry has warning: File-sharers have to face the music

April 5, 2003

BY HEATHER NEWMAN
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Lawsuits against four college students accused of trading copyrighted songs are the biggest punch yet by the recording industry against its core audience, and has experts worried that the next step will be suing the colleges themselves.

The Recording Industry Association of America filed the suits Thursday in three federal courts, naming one student each at Michigan Technological University and Princeton University and two others from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute who ran Napster-like file-sharing services on their campus computer networks.
The damages sought by the suits are astronomical: $150,000 per song, the maximum allowed by law. Multiply that by the 652,000 or so songs the RIAA alleges student Joseph Nievelt offered to other Michigan Tech students on his service, and the scope of the suit is clear.

That total? About $97.8 trillion -- yes, trillion with a T -- or enough money to buy every CD sold in America last year over again for the next 120,000 years, according to RIAA statistics. And that's just Nievelt's case. (It's BILLION, the lady messed up the math - Semjaza)

RIAA senior vice president for business and legal affairs Matthew Oppenheim said the suits are intended to send a clear message to anyone running these types of services that punishment will be swift and severe.

Experts say they worry that the students, who are unlikely to actually have to pay those soaring sums, won't always be the sole targets of the RIAA's notoriously aggressive copyright defenses.
The RIAA has traditionally encouraged colleges to work with it and other industry groups, sending two letters in the past six months to university presidents urging them to take action against student violators.

But Oppenheim said he also expected Thursday's suits to be a notice to colleges officials who haven't kept track of what's happening on their networks. These weren't small violations, he stresses, and at this scale, the amount of Internet traffic generated by one account is huge.

His group didn't send its standard cease-and-desist letter to Michigan Tech before filing suit, something that Michigan Tech officials have publicly complained about. But this wasn't a typical situation, he said.

"Going forward, I wouldn't think there was a university in the country that wouldn't notice this kind of activity on their servers," he said. "My guess is universities are going to be much more concerned than they have in the past. I don't think any university wants to see their students sued."

It's not that easy, said Michigan Tech spokeswoman Marcia Goodrich, who said the school has gone the extra mile in cooperating with copyright groups.

"Now it's like, why did we go through all the trouble to work with you guys?" she said. Students operate more than 10,000 Web sites, she said. The university deals with 80,000 scans a day by potential hackers. And school officials have investigated nearly 80 complaints against students this year, putting nearly 60 on probation and taking other disciplinary measures.

And that's where things get legally sticky for universities, said Virginia Rezmierski, adjunct associate professor at the University of Michigan's School of Information and Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy.

She said she thinks schools have made a mistake by cooperating with investigators and shutting down students who have been the subject of prior cease-and-desist letters from the RIAA and other organizations.

"If you agree that you're liable in any way, then you have no alternative to monitor the networks," she said. "You're putting yourself in a position that you can't possibly fulfill."
Even if that were technically possible with the staff the universities have, monitoring the flow of information on college networks is contrary to everything schools of higher education are about, she said. "We're providing this access as part of an environment for learning and teaching. It's used by a growing, learning community," she said.

And the RIAA's lawsuits against the students and others who operate file-sharing systems? "The purpose is intimidation," said Rezmierski, "and they're winning."

Published reports said the RIAA got the names of the four students from articles in college newspapers. Andrew Dobos, editor in chief of the Michigan Tech Lode, said that while he found an article decrying piracy in his archives, he found none that mention Nievelt specifically.

"The general consensus is that it's horse manure," he said, adding that the penalties were too high. "Even if he was doing that, I don't see that any member of the recording industry is hurting as a result of what these students have done. If he's like an average student, he maybe makes $4,000 a year -- and these rich people are suing him for all this money? How heartless do you have to be?"
"Stealing is stealing," Oppenheim said. "Those are major, significant networks. This was a student who created a piracy bazaar."

Contact HEATHER NEWMAN at 313-223-3336, [email]newman@freepress.com[/email] or [url]www.freep.com/tech.[/url][/quote]

While I am sure this number will drop severely (or even completely) once it hits courts and appeals... I think this is a pretty big deal for anyone that uses the internet. Everyone has downloaded something off Kazaa or whatever else that they legally shouldn't have.

I don't really download MP3s often. I mostly make them. I [i]do[/i] share with others (in the hope of mostly getting others into the band), but this is a big deal I'd say. The companies are finally going after the end users instead of the things used to share them (which is the real point of this I think, as the article makes it clear that the students most likely won't be paying this).

So yeah, thoughts on this? I realize it's long, but you can skim it and get the basic idea.

I originally got this off of slashdot.org

Edit - I am under the impression that they shared via FTPs on the school servers, but it's not really clear about how. It doesn't seem as simple as some people going on Kazaa... it's as if they had their own server/whatever (which some programs like winMX, mIRC and DC allow).

Edit 2: It's billion, not trillion. I'd appreciate it if someone in charge of this forum could change it for me.

[Transtic Nerve]

The RIAA are nothing but a bunch of money grubbing LOSERS who have nothing beeter to do than try to sue people. They can't seem to grasp as much as they try to shut down the mp3 trading on the net, it will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER happen.

That much money is absolutely proposterous and just shows how greedy they are.... Bill Gates doens't have that much money, how are 4 college students going to have it? It'll make headlines but nothing will be accomplished. And if anythign does, more people will boycott buying CDs... it was PROOVEN that in the times of Napster CD sales went UP! UP! UP! UP! UP! If they want more money, they need to release their head from the tight grip of their arse and see the light. I was pissed when Napster went under, and even more pissed when AudioGalaxy went down. And I used to buy tons of CDs, but now I barely buy any, at least from America that is. I think the RIAA gets enough money as it is. They get more money than the artists and they do tons more work. It's so dumb...

RIAA read my lips.... you can BITE ME. It's not going to work.

[Manic Webb]

What kind of grass-fed, 4-stomach, laxative-induced bull-feces is this?!

I don't know WHAT the RIAA is thinking, but it makes NO sense to sue a handful of college students that much money for a non-profit file-sharing outfit, just because the RIAA isn't making enough money for a third house in the Hamptons.

There are musicians who, in the long-run, make [i]just[/i] over minimum wage, who aren't complaining nearly as much as the executives who take their earnings from them. In fact, I've noticed that it's usually the richest people in the recording industry who complain about file-sharing, while struggling and new artists tend to look toward Napster-like programs to promote their music.

Yeah, so I'm upset.

[Corey]

Might Christ Bananas...

They are all retards. How can anyone sue someone for that much money. It's simply insane.

Man...

[Guest cloricus]

[color=teal]LOL... Sif they could pay that!

It's just a scare tactics. Media web is a prime example. (**** HEADS)
Media Web is a company employed by Warner bothers to "scout" various networks like Kazaa, Winmx, DC++, IRC and many others. They scout by scanning the networks for file names, or creating "dummy" files and when people try to dl it they are court. Now once they have found a "violation" they scan the person in question, and then send an email to their isp threatening to sue if the isp does not disconnect the person. Remember media web is being paid for each one of these emails they send out, so they are picking up a lot of people who are legitimately trading music/movies as well. (Law suit coming soon.) Now two things that they are doing is sending it to countries out side the US, and trying to use US law. The result, isp's all around the world are scared sh**less because they don't know if the laws are valid or not.
It's very underhanded.
Though from what we can work out American laws mean jack-**** here, (Australia) and that you really aren?t likely to be court trading. Most of you will have noticed little msgs when you log onto a server now that says "If you are in any way affiliated with any type of law enforcement at all you will be sued if you continue." This is a direct result of media web...

Though I think this latest case that you are talking about is just not going to happen, one, who's got that much money and two, how could you find a jury that's never dled an mp3 or taped something of the TV? (Yes they both are against the same law.)

As for the war on piracy, Media companies are losing, on the most part. (Small victories here and there.) This wont last very long though with is a shame. You?ve all heard about the AMD/Intel/M$ alliance? They are trying to stamp out illegal (and legal privet garage bands, stay tuned for law suit against M$.) at the software and hardware level. Or at least that?s what it looked like, until you guessed it Longhorns goals were ?leaked.? It?s very possible within the next three years that hardly any one on the planet will be using windows?

So it?s a very unclear future?

Eps ? G33k.
[/color]

[Mitch]

[color=black][size=1][font=rockwell] Ah well. It isn't going to stop much. People will still do it; people will still find a way; people will do it no matter what. If I go to jail for it, fine. Whatever. There's still no just way to stop it. This battle that the record industry is starting and going forward with won't get them anywhere except more hated. Screaming and crying like a little baby over not getting money isn't going to phase many music likers' interests.[/color][/size][/font]

[Guest The Mage Prince]

Just were are they going to get of this "money" it is not like they just can lay a golden egg or something not even bill gates has that much money. What will they do? start charging people on the streets or something along those lines?

[TheShinje]

[size=1][color=darkblue] Mage, I'm sure Billy Gates has a few more bucks than 100 billion lol.
Anyway, I think that you should be able to download music and trade songs, IF you intend to buy the album. Some songs I download are rare 80's tracks, or J music, it's simply not readily available at the CD Store.

Other than that. If I like a song, i buy the album, I'm sure most of us do that, The RIAA (RIANZ here) are practically shooting themselves in the foot if they were indeed making more record sales in the hay days of Napster. They need to realise that people like to [i]sample[/i] the music before they buy it. This kind of file sharing i can support, and subbed anime, because the dubs are just plain bs IMO. [/size][/color]

[Angelus]

S@bretooth, the amount of money was not 97.8 billion but 97.8 trillion. And yes that probably is more than what Bill Gates does have.

You are right about the sampling, the generations that are downloading all of this music are doing so because we like to sample.
CD's are too expensive and concerts are getting more expensive as well.

[Angelus]

sorry for the double post but this is important to the topic.

Here is an interesting point of view from a member of the band One Minute Silence...

FILE SHARING VERSUS STUDENT POVERTY
So what do you guys in OMS think of internet file sharing?' That was a question we were asked earlier this week by a journalist. It's a good question, and it sure is a controversial issue. Perhaps it's too controversial and complex a subject to address the issue without giving a bit of context to the point. So, we clarified the question with the journalist: Is it morally acceptable to steal copyrighted music from the Internet?Well, in order to formulate an educated opinion, we have to ask who is stealing music. So, we've been asking OMS fans at our shows what they think. We have learned that we have a hell of a lot of students in our audience, who don't have 17 quid available to buy CDs, so they share files and burn CDs. They love music, they'd love to be able to afford to buy CDs; naturally, as fans of the bands they like, they want the official release with the official packaging and all the quality of a commercial CD, but it's just not possible for so many of them due to financial restrictions.
When faced with a struggle to pay for basic survival necessities, students are hardly going to prioritise a seventeen-pound bill at HMV or Virgin, and neither would I blame them for choosing the Internet option for getting hold of quality music.
The average student works minimum-waged McJobs outside of college hours, earning money to at least afford rent for their digs. Obviously, the paltry student loan (which is not even a grant) doesn't cover basic expenses. Students typically choose between heating and food. Shopping for clothes isn't even relevant for the majority. By the time they leave college, they are saddled with a five-figure bill for their education. It's not an easy life, but it's what you have to do under the current order.
With this understanding, I think the question is off-base. Should students steal from companies to get access to music? Maybe not; in a perfect world we'd all pay our way, but if we backtrack the point further, we should be asking ourselves 'should students be in a position whereby if they want to listen to music, they have to steal it?' I feel that we have to look at the source of the problem rather than a symptom. The source of the problem, (and it isn't limited to students), is that most of us are having to make similar financial choices between basic survival factors. When we eliminate the poverty suffered by so many, then we should be asking questions about basic morality and theft, but not until that point.
My sense of proportion is offended by attempts to demonise students as freeloaders. Who is really freeloading here? The background to the current state of play can be illustrated by this exercise in basic hypocrisy:
Back in 1997, the incoming New Labour government maintained and expanded the neo-liberal policies of their Tory forebears. The education advisor to Mr. Blair, Michael Barber, stated that education is an 'end-user activity,' and the 'end-user' of education is the employer.
Let's look at end-user activities. Since I am the end-user of my television, I don't expect someone else to pay for my television. If I am the end-user of my bike, I pay for the bike; to expect someone else to pay for it is just parasitism on my part. If I hire a plumber, then I am the end-user of the plumber, so I pay the guy to fix my bath. So it follows that if the employer is the end user of education, then he should damn well pay for it! Why are we in a situation where the student affords a training programme which is set up to provide a stream of workers for corporate employers? Why should a student pay for the opportunity to be the object of exploitation? But that's precisely and explicitly what the government expects. Therefore we have corporate employers avoiding their responsibilities to afford the education which will benefit them, and the costs of education are passed on to the exploited.
Meanwhile, because the student is expected to fund his potential opportunity to make a profit for the man, he can't afford the basic necessities of life and must endure a shift in a bar, or a night shift in Sainsbury's, or a shift as a security guard; and sometimes he must even learn to say 'would you like fries with that?' when he should be studying or relaxing after his studies. He's already got a job - his job is to prepare himself to look after the world when the current caretakers are gone. Why do we thank him by charging him for this responsibility?
So in the grand scheme of things, it seems churlish to imply that he is freeloading just because he wants to listen to a few CDs. It's not his fault he can't even afford to stay warm without a soul-destroying evening job, which takes time out from time he could spend enriching his education or enhancing his life in general. To point the finger of blame at the impoverished student is missing the point - the point is that he IS an impoverished student, so how dare we throw stones at him! It's all of our faults for not making our voices heard loudly enough to ensure that education remains a right rather than a privilege, which must be paid for. To even ask the question, and aim it at OMS fans is to ignore any sense of moral proportion.
EDDIE STRATTON
ONE MINUTE SILENCE
JANUARY 2003

[Manic Webb]

Whether it's billion or trillion depends on where you're from. Here in America, we don't have the "thousand-million" or million-billion (or whatever the rest of the world uses) so 1,000,000,000 (9 zeros) is a billion and 1,000,000,000,000 (12 zeros) is a trillion.

[Semjaza]

Two things... The article doesn't say anything about these kids sampling anything. It doesn't say anything about buying either.

There are a LOT of FTPs filled to the top with MP3s, In order to download from them, many require you to upload an almost equal amount of new MP3s. The supply never goes down, it generally just goes up.

Now assuming they were doing something like that (or running their own DC, IRC or MX server, etc), they had absolutely no interest in simply sampling songs from an album and then going to buy it. So among these four kids running it (and who knows how many other people making use of it), there was maybe one copy of each CD bought (if that). If a few hundred people make use of this FTP in its lifetime (which is a VERY small number, if you look at how big some of these groups of end users are), that is a LOT of money lost.

So I can understand going after these kids in a way, but why single them out? The RIAA always goes insane with their amounts they want, so that's somewhat expected. The amount should go down too, and if they can't pay whatever they wind up being sued for, someone else would. I really don't think it would make CD prices increase or something, but someone has to pay it. The amount Bill Gates has means jack, he isn't exactly willing to loan out millions of dollars to any idiot that advocates piracy of all things.

I think the RIAA knows that going after the corporations doesn't work anymore. Nothing really happened to Napster. Nothing really is happening to Kazaa. They are getting nowhere and losing money trying. So they target the users. It's easier. They don't have access to great lawyers. It will scare people (and that is the most important thing right there).

In addition to this, a huge amount of bands here offer sample streams and MP3s on their sites for albums now. You can make a case about imports, but J-whatever doesn't exactly make up a huge amount of the download population here. People spend most of their time downloading songs they can easily get. Whenever I am on Kazaa (and right now I share about 4,000+ songs), most everyone only downloads the most extremely common songs from me. Same with anyone else I know.

I admit to downloading MP3s. I rarely download anything I didn't already have a very high interest in buying. If I like an album, I think I owe it to the artist to buy it. I don't care how "rich" they are. Unless you want the entire music industry to die (and at this point I think the industry is very ****ed up, but I hardly want it to die), I'd think anyone would do the same. Sadly, this obviously isn't the case anymore.

[Manic Webb]

Personally, I've never downloaded an entire album. If I only want [i]one[/i] song, then I'll download that [i]one[/i] song. But if it gets to the point where I like most (or even all) of an artist's album, I'll go out and buy it before I even consider downloading half of it.

I hated buying an entire album based on the one song I liked from it. Back before I started downloading music, I got very annoyed whenever somebody had ONE song on their album that I liked, and that song wasn't a single. Then I ended up buying the entire album, putting that one track on repeat constantly.