CNN.com wrote:Music industry sues 477 more computer users
Wednesday, April 28, 2004 Posted: 3:45 PM EDT (1945 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recording industry sued 477 more computer users Wednesday, including dozens of college students at schools in 11 states, accusing them of illegally sharing music across the Internet.
The Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group for the largest labels, praised efforts by colleges and universities to use technology and school policies to crack down on music piracy on their own computer networks. But it said the most egregious offenders on campus deserved to be sued.
"There is also a complementary need for enforcement by copyright owners against the serious offenders to remind people that this activity is illegal," said the group's president, Cary Sherman.
The recording industry filed its latest complaints against "John Doe" defendants, identifying them only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses. It said lawyers will work through the courts to request subpoenas against the universities and some commercial Internet providers to learn the defendants' names.
Campus officials at Mansfield University in Pennsylvania warned students months ago about requests from the recording industry to crack down on copyright infringement on its computer networks.
It threatened to unplug the Internet connection for each student identified by the recording industry as illegally sharing music, until the student removed all software used to distribute songs online.
"Not everyone agrees that downloading and file-sharing is copyright infringement," wrote the school's technology director, Connie L. Beckman. "While this may be debatable, Mansfield University is required to comply with the law."
The latest filings brings the number of lawsuits filed by the recording industry to 2,454 since last summer. None of the cases has yet gone to trial, and 437 people so far have agreed to pay financial penalties of about $3,000 as settlements.
The trade group said the newest lawsuits targeted students at Mansfield; Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island; Emory University in Atlanta; Georgia Institute of Technology; Gonzaga University of Spokane, Washington; Michigan State University; Princeton University in New Jersey; Sacred Heart University of Fairfield, Connecticut; Texas A&M University; Trinity College of Hartford, Connecticut; Trinity University of San Antonio; the University of Kansas; University of Minnesota and Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
The RIAA is picking on poor college students and GT. Now it's personal, you bastards.
SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
God damn it. Fucktards. Someone needs to convince the RIAA to sue SCO and Vise versa. Then maybe those bastards will all die. Atleast one would hope they would.
ah.....the path to happiness is revision of dreams and not fulfillment... -SWPIGWANG
Sufficient Googling is indistinguishable from knowledge -somebody
Anything worth the cost of a missile, which can be located on the battlefield, will be shot at with missiles. If the US military is involved, then things, which are not worth the cost if a missile will also be shot at with missiles. -Sea Skimmer
George Bush makes freedom sound like a giant robot that breaks down a lot. -Darth Raptor
Nothing will get done about the RIAA. People will complain about the intrusion upon their rights all day long in a thousand webboards across the country, and send letters to their representatives, and sign petitions, and nothing will happen. Because all of those millions of angry people have less real influence in Washington than a single well-connected lobbyist.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
I had an ethics presentation in an engineering class the other day, the presenter had the balls to tell us all that as engineers we had to be on the RIAA's side.
Stealing is wrong, piracy is on the wrong side of the gray area, but that doesn't have anything to do with the dirty business practices of the RIAA.
In Denmark it's even worse - the gov't is constantly spying on all Kazaa users who are connected to the 'net by TeleDanmark. (though clients to private phone services are free from such surveillance)
It's like living in Oceania.
"Hi there, would you like to have a cookie?"
"No, actually I would HATE to have a cookie, you vapid waste of inedible flesh!"
Peregrin Toker wrote:In Denmark it's even worse - the gov't is constantly spying on all Kazaa users who are connected to the 'net by TeleDanmark. (though clients to private phone services are free from such surveillance)
McNum wrote:Not free from spying, just not covered by TeleDanmarks agreement to give out the names of the suspicious KaZaa users.
If our country has to share some of its legislation with the Soviet Union, why couldn't they at least equip P.E.T. operatives with huge black luxury cars as standard issue equipment?
(P.E.T. is Denmark's intelligence agency, in case you don't know)
Sharp-Kun wrote:People who use Kazza deserve everything they get.
There are far better p2p programs out there.
I've already stopped using Kazaa just because of all the spyware.
"Hi there, would you like to have a cookie?"
"No, actually I would HATE to have a cookie, you vapid waste of inedible flesh!"
Howedar wrote:I had an ethics presentation in an engineering class the other day, the presenter had the balls to tell us all that as engineers we had to be on the RIAA's side.
Stealing is wrong, piracy is on the wrong side of the gray area, but that doesn't have anything to do with the dirty business practices of the RIAA.
There's something to that, but where does that put someone like me who sincerely tries always tries to use it morally, if maybe not always legally? I mean, I didn't listen to much music before Napster came along, but afterwards I started getting a lot of CDs of stuff I would never have otherwise have heard off.
SDN Rangers: Gunnery Officer
They may have claymores and Dragons, but we have Bolos and Ogres.
Darth Wong wrote:Nothing will get done about the RIAA. People will complain about the intrusion upon their rights all day long in a thousand webboards across the country, and send letters to their representatives, and sign petitions, and nothing will happen. Because all of those millions of angry people have less real influence in Washington than a single well-connected lobbyist.
I couldn't have said it better if my life depended on it.
Darth Wong wrote:Nothing will get done about the RIAA. People will complain about the intrusion upon their rights all day long in a thousand webboards across the country, and send letters to their representatives, and sign petitions, and nothing will happen. Because all of those millions of angry people have less real influence in Washington than a single well-connected lobbyist.
But those lobbyists are just exercising their right to free speech, remember?
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Durandal wrote:But those lobbyists are just exercising their right to free speech, remember?
FUCK! That argument always pisses me off. If a rich company wants to sway a congressman's opinion, they can do what everyone else does and write a goddam letter. Why should one CEO have as much say as 50,000 citizens?
"I am gravely disappointed. Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war."
--The Lord Humungus
CEOs can make individual campaign contributions of $100,000,000?
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Joe wrote:CEOs can make individual campaign contributions of $100,000,000?
No offense, Joe, but get real. One campaign contributor means exactly one set of interests that must be seen to and followed through on. 50,000 campaign contributors represents too wide a variety of interests for a congressman to serve. A single CEO contributing $50,000 will always have much more sway than 50,000 people each donating $1.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
No offense, Joe, but get real. One campaign contributor means exactly one set of interests that must be seen to and followed through on. 50,000 campaign contributors represents too wide a variety of interests for a congressman to serve. A single CEO contributing $50,000 will always have much more sway than 50,000 people each donating $1.
Slight problem with your argument; the current limit for individual campaign contributions is $2,000. Even for CEOs.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
No offense, Joe, but get real. One campaign contributor means exactly one set of interests that must be seen to and followed through on. 50,000 campaign contributors represents too wide a variety of interests for a congressman to serve. A single CEO contributing $50,000 will always have much more sway than 50,000 people each donating $1.
Slight problem with your argument; the current limit for individual campaign contributions is $2,000. Even for CEOs.
Fine. Then one CEO giving $2,000 will always be worth more than 2,000 people giving $1. My point is that serving the interests of one person with money to throw around is always easier and more economic than serving the interests of thousands of people with very little money to throw around.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Fine. Then one CEO giving $2,000 will always be worth more than 2,000 people giving $1. My point is that serving the interests of one person with money to throw around is always easier and more economic than serving the interests of thousands of people with very little money to throw around.
That's why we have what we like to call "lobbying groups" to represent the collective interests of thousands of people with very little money to throw around.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Fine. Then one CEO giving $2,000 will always be worth more than 2,000 people giving $1. My point is that serving the interests of one person with money to throw around is always easier and more economic than serving the interests of thousands of people with very little money to throw around.
That's why we have what we like to call "lobbying groups" to represent the collective interests of thousands of people with very little money to throw around.
We also have soft money organizations that are not burdned with campaign finance laws. CEO's can donate as much money as they want to a politicians campaign through organizations like "People for the advancement of Republican interests".
The Kernel wrote:We also have soft money organizations that are not burdned with campaign finance laws. CEO's can donate as much money as they want to a politicians campaign through organizations like "People for the advancement of Republican interests".
First of all, soft money goes directly to the political parties, not to individual campaigns.
Sure, it's possible for a CEO to give limitless money to a national party, but that isn't really how it works out in reality; the largest soft money donor in the country is Haim Saban of Saban Entertainment, whose donations only made up around 4 percent of the DNC's total soft money received from 2001-2002. It gets smaller from there. There are simply far too many donors for just a few of them to control the political parties.
But soft money is illegal anyway, so none of this matters.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Joe wrote:
First of all, soft money goes directly to the political parties, not to individual campaigns.
Wrong, unless you think there aren't any PAC's that work exclusively for a single candidate.
Sure, it's possible for a CEO to give limitless money to a national party, but that isn't really how it works out in reality; the largest soft money donor in the country is Haim Saban of Saban Entertainment, whose donations only made up around 4 percent of the DNC's total soft money received from 2001-2002. It gets smaller from there. There are simply far too many donors for just a few of them to control the political parties.
I think you have a different definition of "soft money" then I do. Contributions to PAC's are also a form of soft money.
But soft money is illegal anyway, so none of this matters.
PAC's still exist don't they? They are still the driving force behind campaign advertising. If they are illegal then there are a lot of people breaking the law...
.
