Print 82 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Dec 26 at 10:30 PM

RIAA says that any pending litigation will continue

The RIAA has been suing people willy-nilly for years with slim proof that the defendants actually shared music illegally. The lawsuits often seemed to be nothing more than a marketing attempt by the RIAA to get people to realize they could and would sue if you illegally shared music or they suspected you did.

Despite all of the suits that the RIAA filed, against people living and dead, the tide of music piracy never turned in its favor. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) cites numbers from the NPD Group that show illegal music sharing stayed about the same throughout the RIAA's inquisition.

This week, The WSJ reported that the RIAA has announced it will stop its slash and burn suit policy and focus on other methods of preventing piracy that is thinks will be more effective. Since the RIAA started is massive campaign of litigation, it has brought legal proceedings against 35,000 people.

The RIAA says that it will now focus on working with individual ISPs to help stop piracy. When a person on an ISP is suspected of pirating music the RIAA will send an email to the ISP, who can then get with the individual customer to try to stop piracy. As is par for the RIAA's course, it makes no mention of how exactly it will gather evidence of piracy against ISP customers. Many wonder if the RIAA will simply resort to massive spamming of hundreds of thousands of suspected file sharers to ISPs.

If an ISP determines that a user is sharing music illegally, it will send an email warning the customer to begin with. That warning, if unheeded, could be followed by more warning letters from the ISP. If the user fails to stop file sharing, their internet connection could be slowed or terminated altogether.

The bad news for alleged file shares that already have RIAA litigation pending against them is that The WSJ says the RIAA will proceed with pending suits. That means that the retrial date set for the tossed verdict in the Jammie Thomas case will continue.

New York State Attorney General Andre Cuomo is also working to broker a deal between the RIAA and ISPs to help address both parties' privacy concerns. One key point in the RIAAs new tact on piracy is that it will not ask for the names of alleged music traders.

Cuomo's chief of staff Steven Cohen told The WSJ, "We wanted to end the litigation. It's not helpful." For its part, the RIAA thinks that the new policy will reach more people to make them aware that the man has an eye on them. RIAA group chairman Mitch Bainwol said, "Part of the issue with infringement is for people to be aware that their actions are not anonymous."

Brian Toder, the attorney representing a woman from Minnesota in a file sharing case said, "I'd give them credit for stopping what they've already been doing because it's been so destructive." Unfortunately, for his client, her litigation will continue despite the new policy.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Don't believe them!
By UNHchabo on 12/19/2008 12:05:18 PM , Rating: 3
[Akbar]IT'S A TRAP![/Akbar]

They're just telling you they're stopping, so you'll feel safe. Then WHAM! You get sued for $5 million.

RE: Don't believe them!
By superkdogg on 12/19/2008 5:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
I thought about this, but then I thought about the REAL reason for this policy switch.

RIAA has simply moved up the chain to damage more targets with one strike---

So, the RIAA tells Comcast (or anybody else) that they suspect __________ of illegal downloads. The ISP has the pressure then to not be collaborative in the potential 'crime' and assumes some of the liability of the user if the provider takes no action. This way, the RIAA doesn't have to target individual grannies but can instead get after the bad guys who allow grannies to use the internets!

They can sue bigger fish, with a bigger ability to pay and bigger reason to keep their name away from the negative publicity without getting cast as the bad guy for trying to make an 8-year-old pay $10,000 for downloading a Blues Clues show.

RE: Don't believe them!
By Aloonatic on 12/22/2008 5:00:26 AM , Rating: 2
Seems to me that they are moving to pestering the ISPs instead of end-users directly for a few simple reasons.

Firstly: It's cheaper

2: It's easier

c) It might annoy ISPs enough for them to agree to supporting some kind of music or artists tax on broadband connections, which wouldn't really bother the ISPs as all of them would be affected and it'd get the RIAA off their backs.

The music/artists tax/surcharge or whatever you want to call it on broad band connections is something that keeps on being mentioned over here in the UK.

RE: Don't believe them!
By foolsgambit11 on 12/19/2008 7:58:36 PM , Rating: 2

eh? Is that like 'bold'? Or maybe 'one font-size bigger'? I know 'akbar' is the comparative/superlative of 'kabir' in Arabic, which means 'big'....

te7ki 3rabi?

RE: Don't believe them!
By JKflipflop98 on 12/19/2008 9:15:44 PM , Rating: 3
The Force is weak in this one.

RE: Don't believe them!
By nugundam93 on 12/21/2008 7:17:07 AM , Rating: 2
i agree. he cannot reach padawan level yet.

RE: Don't believe them!
By Aloonatic on 12/22/2008 4:55:07 AM , Rating: 2
I'll put you put of your misery.

Also, Admiral Akbar doesn't like to be referenced without his rank, he get's very upset.

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Related Articles

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki