eclectica
2004-09-08, 17:58
September 8th marks the one year anniversary of the RIAA launching its first round of lawsuits against 261 p2p filesharers. The lawsuits came after the courts determined that the makers of p2p filesharing programs were not liable for the copyright infringement that occurs on p2p networks. The RIAA decided to go after individuals then.
Statistically the approximately 4,000 sued in the last year has been small compared to the estimated 60 million filesharers in the United States. The RIAA had some publicity setbacks by suing a few people who easily gained the sympathy of the public, such as a grandmother and a young girl. For the most part though the lawsuits were not a big issue to the public.
The advice of lawyers for clients who get sued has mostly been to settle rather than to fight, as to them pragmatism is more important than standing up for one's principles. Standing up for what one believes in is costly. The RIAA has sued mostly average people, who don't have the resources to defend themselves and fight for their innocence. The RIAA has several million dollars at its disposal and can afford to use it to harass people. What the RIAA has done has bullied people with its power. Of course the RIAA says in its propaganda that it's working on behalf of the average guy itself, such as the employees of the record companies or the artists. While p2p filesharers do not have the money of the RIAA, they do have the large numbers of people and the passionate devotion towards the music in their ranks. They are the biggest fans of the music, and though the RIAA paints p2p filesharing as stealing, it is in fact a great act of sharing, and all the people they sued were not downloading, but uploading and sharing without expecting any reimbursement.
There have been negative consequences of the RIAA's lawsuit campaign that targets uploaders and sharers. One thing that has happened is that people are more inclined to leech and share zero files. Another thing that has happened is that people have turned more to networks which are private, or use methods of encryption that strains computer resources such as with Piolet (http://www.piolet.com/), or proxying with a program such as MUTE (http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/) which is inefficient for the bandwidth usage. Even the very decentralization of networks that happened after the first Napster was shut down, is inefficient.
Prior to the lawsuits the relationship between the RIAA and p2p filesharers was collegial. Hilary Rosen was the one person we all loved to hate. But once they crossed the line last year, then that collegial adversity was replaced by violence, and the struggle took a new turn. The RIAA has drawn first blood in issuing its lawsuits and now has opened itself to deserved and retaliatory violence. Amongst the 60 million filesharers it is likely that there is a violent faction, which wouldn't mind creating violence in retaliation. Many of these kids are poor and all they have is their music, which they are passionate about. To sue them is an act of violence which deserves violence in retribution. How long will it be before some kid is in the court room and jumps up to attack the lawyer representing the RIAA and hits him over the head with a chair or stabs him with a pen or any other sharp object? Let all who aid the RIAA beware of such things, that violence could come at any time and when it does come it will be deserved.
When the RIAA lawsuits were issued Cary Sherman said: "Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation, but when your product is being regularly stolen there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."
What I would like to see is Cary Sherman and Mitch Bainwol be kidnapped and then a video made with a statement being read about why they deserve death for the crimes of bullying and greed in the RIAA lawsuits. Finally, the ending part with the knife pulled out and their beheading. It would be just like those beheading videos that one sees from Iraq. Then have the video distributed by way of p2p networks. That ought to put a stop to the RIAA lawsuits.
Statistically the approximately 4,000 sued in the last year has been small compared to the estimated 60 million filesharers in the United States. The RIAA had some publicity setbacks by suing a few people who easily gained the sympathy of the public, such as a grandmother and a young girl. For the most part though the lawsuits were not a big issue to the public.
The advice of lawyers for clients who get sued has mostly been to settle rather than to fight, as to them pragmatism is more important than standing up for one's principles. Standing up for what one believes in is costly. The RIAA has sued mostly average people, who don't have the resources to defend themselves and fight for their innocence. The RIAA has several million dollars at its disposal and can afford to use it to harass people. What the RIAA has done has bullied people with its power. Of course the RIAA says in its propaganda that it's working on behalf of the average guy itself, such as the employees of the record companies or the artists. While p2p filesharers do not have the money of the RIAA, they do have the large numbers of people and the passionate devotion towards the music in their ranks. They are the biggest fans of the music, and though the RIAA paints p2p filesharing as stealing, it is in fact a great act of sharing, and all the people they sued were not downloading, but uploading and sharing without expecting any reimbursement.
There have been negative consequences of the RIAA's lawsuit campaign that targets uploaders and sharers. One thing that has happened is that people are more inclined to leech and share zero files. Another thing that has happened is that people have turned more to networks which are private, or use methods of encryption that strains computer resources such as with Piolet (http://www.piolet.com/), or proxying with a program such as MUTE (http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/) which is inefficient for the bandwidth usage. Even the very decentralization of networks that happened after the first Napster was shut down, is inefficient.
Prior to the lawsuits the relationship between the RIAA and p2p filesharers was collegial. Hilary Rosen was the one person we all loved to hate. But once they crossed the line last year, then that collegial adversity was replaced by violence, and the struggle took a new turn. The RIAA has drawn first blood in issuing its lawsuits and now has opened itself to deserved and retaliatory violence. Amongst the 60 million filesharers it is likely that there is a violent faction, which wouldn't mind creating violence in retaliation. Many of these kids are poor and all they have is their music, which they are passionate about. To sue them is an act of violence which deserves violence in retribution. How long will it be before some kid is in the court room and jumps up to attack the lawyer representing the RIAA and hits him over the head with a chair or stabs him with a pen or any other sharp object? Let all who aid the RIAA beware of such things, that violence could come at any time and when it does come it will be deserved.
When the RIAA lawsuits were issued Cary Sherman said: "Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation, but when your product is being regularly stolen there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."
What I would like to see is Cary Sherman and Mitch Bainwol be kidnapped and then a video made with a statement being read about why they deserve death for the crimes of bullying and greed in the RIAA lawsuits. Finally, the ending part with the knife pulled out and their beheading. It would be just like those beheading videos that one sees from Iraq. Then have the video distributed by way of p2p networks. That ought to put a stop to the RIAA lawsuits.