Trade group efforts against file sharing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arts and media industry trade groups such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) are fierce opponents of copyright infringement through file-sharing. The organizations particularly target music files distributed via the Internet using peer-to-peer software, a practice which the RIAA claims results in a reduction of profits of around $4.2 billion for the music industry worldwide, which harms honest consumers, record labels, retailers and artists.[1]

The RIAA sees lawsuits as one way to combat the problem of Internet-based copyright infringement. RIAA President Cary Sherman claims that the large number of lawsuits filed has "arrested the growth of a runaway solution that would have grown worse and worse."[2].

As of July 2006, the RIAA has brought lawsuits against more than 20,000[3] people in the United States suspected of distributing copyrighted works, and have settled approximately 2,500 of the cases.[citation needed]

Contents

[edit] Actions against Internet service providers

Trade groups support the use of content filters by Internet service providers. These filters are designed to recognize specific audio and video works encoded within files as they are transferred.

In March 2007, Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) members sued eircom, the largest broadband provider in Ireland, over alleged illegal file sharing by subscribers. IRMA had previously demanded that eircom install content filters or take other steps to block IRMA's copyrighted music from being shared.[4]

[edit] Actions against file sharing services

[edit] Support of police actions

See also: May 2006 police raid of The Pirate Bay

In 2006, Swedish police raided the servers of BitTorrent tracker The Pirate Bay, causing a 3 day outage. The raid, alleged to be politically motivated and under pressure from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), was publicized as a success by the MPAA, which was lampooned by The Pirate Bay as soon as they were up and running again.

[edit] Litigation

See also: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. and MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

On December 7, 1999, RIAA labels sued Napster for providing a peer-to-peer file sharing network for MP3 files. The plaintiffs claimed that Napster "facilitate[d] piracy of music on an unprecedented scale."[5] Napster became bankrupt during the case; and has since been taken over by Roxio and provides a download service which is sanctioned by the RIAA.

In 2002 the RIAA sued Aimster, which provided a similar service.

In 2003 MPAA studios sued Grokster and other file sharing services in a case that would eventually go to the Supreme Court of the United States. The court held that producers of technology could be held liable for intent to induce infringement.

In 2006 RIAA labels sued the developers of LimeWire, a client for the Gnutella file sharing network.

[edit] Lawsuits against individuals

 This article or section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints.
Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can (March 2008).

[edit] Participating plaintiffs

The RIAA has brought file sharing lawsuits against individuals naming the following plaintiffs. All of the "Big Four" members of the RIAA are represented.

The MPAA has brought file sharing lawsuits against individuals naming the following plaintiffs. All of the "Big Six" members of the MPAA are represented.

[edit] Scope of distribution rights

 This article or section needs to be updated.
Please update the article to reflect recent events / newly available information, and remove this template when finished.

Plaintiffs initiate lawsuits against individuals without specific evidence of unauthorized uploading or downloading of files, which could infringe the plaintiffs' reproduction rights. They assert an alternative claim, that making files available for download over the Internet is an infringement of their distribution rights.

A critical case, which may not only determine the fate of the RIAA's litigation campaign, but also impact the scope of copyright across the internet, is Elektra v. Barker.[6] In that case, Tenise Barker, a 29-year-old nursing student in the Bronx, moved to dismiss the RIAA's complaint for lack of specificity, and on the ground that merely "making available" does not constitute a copyright infringement.[7] In opposing Ms. Barker's motion, the RIAA argued that "making available" is indeed a copyright infringement. Upon learning of the RIAA's argument, which sought to expand copyright law, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the U.S. Internet Industry Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) submitted amicus curiae briefs supporting Ms. Barker's motion and rebutting the RIAA's argument. The Motion Picture Association of America, in turn, submitted a brief supporting the RIAA. The U.S. Department of Justice submitted a "Statement of Interest" refuting one argument made by the EFF, but taking no position on the "making available" issue; the DOJ stated that it has never prosecuted anyone for "making available". [8] The case was argued before Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Manhattan federal court on January 26, 2007, who indicated that he will decide the "making available" issue. As of September 2, 2007, the parties are awaiting the Court's decision. Meanwhile, the same issue has been briefed in a more recent case, Warner v. Cassin[9], also in the Southern District of New York, but in the Westchester Division.

[edit] Amnesty programs

Between September 2003 and April 2004, the RIAA, through its Clean Slate Program, offered individual file sharers amnesty for past infringements, "on the condition that they refrain from future infringement,"[10] and delete the infringing material. Individuals were no longer eligible for amnesty once they had been sued. The program is now discontinued.

The RIAA states this was an educational initiative about illegal file sharing, and was stopped due to increased public awareness in the issues. The program may also have been stopped due to the low number of takers.[11]

There is some doubt about whether the RIAA can offer this protection, critics have pointed out that this program may not have offered any protection from lawsuits by record companies and music publishers.[12] In addition, some Attorneys claimed the offer of amnesty was misleading, and legal documents provided by the RIAA "provides ... no promise not to sue you."[13]

A lawsuit brought in California state court, Parke v. RIAA, alleged the RIAA had committed fraudulent business practices by offering the program.[14][15]

[edit] Early settlement offers

In February, 2007, the RIAA launched an 'early settlement program' directed to ISP's and to colleges and universities, urging them to pass along letters to subscribers and students offering early "settlements", prior to the disclosure of their identities. When accepted, these offers can save the RIAA the expense to procure the identities through a Doe lawsuit naming multiple defendants.

The settlement letters urged ISP's to preserve evidence for the benefit of the RIAA and invited the students and subscribers to visit an RIAA website for the purpose of entering into a "discount settlement" payable by credit card.[16]. By March 2007, the focus had shifted from ISP's to colleges and universities. [17][18][19]

[edit] Identification of defendants

Between 2002 and 2003, the RIAA attempted to get Verizon to disclose the identities of file-sharing customers based on a simple one-page subpoena. Verizon attorney Sarah Deutsch challenged the subpoena's validity on procedural and privacy grounds.[20] In December of 2003, this failed when a federal appeals court overturned a lower court order. The RIAA claims this procedure was sanctioned by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but the appeals court ruled that the DMCA regulation applies only to data actually hosted by an Internet service provider, rather than data on a customer's computer. The United States Supreme Court declined to review this ruling in 2004. As a result, the RIAA must now file individual civil suits against each accused file-sharer, and the ISP and alleged file-sharer have more legal avenues for preventing disclosure of their identity, making the entire process much more expensive, slow and complicated.[21] The court opinion was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. The RIAA typically files suits against multiple Does.

The RIAA names defendants based on ISP identification of the subscriber associated with an IP address,[22] and as such do not know any additional information about a person before they sue. After an Internet subscriber's identity is discovered, but before an individual lawsuit is filed, the subscriber is typically offered an opportunity to settle. The standard settlement is a payment of several thousand dollars to the RIAA, and an agreement not to engage in file-sharing of RIAA music.

The RIAA's policy and method of suing individuals for copyright infringement is continually criticized. Brad Templeton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has called the RIAA's lawsuits "spamigation"[23] and implied they are done merely to intimidate people.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union and Public Citizen oppose the ability of the RIAA and other companies to "strip Internet users of anonymity without allowing them to challenge the order in court".[24][25]

The RIAAs criticized methods of identifying individual users has led to the issuing of subpoenas to a dead grandmother,[26], an elderly computer novice,[27] a woman with multiple sclerosis,[28] and even those without any computer at all.[29] Sometimes the RIAA continues to sue even in these cases, or seeks to discontinue without prejudice (and thereby avoid compensating the defense for legal fees).[30][31][32]

After learning that one alleged copyright infringer has died, the RIAA offered the deceased man's family a period of sixty days to grieve the man's death before they began to depose members of his family for the suit against his estate.[33]

The RIAA has also brought lawsuits against children, some as young as 12.[34]

The RIAA looks to various colleges and universities throughout the United States as some of the biggest offenders of peer to peer file sharing. It has found California colleges and universities to have received the most pre-litigation letters and copyright infringement notices.[35]

In 2005, Patricia Santangelo made the news by challenging the RIAA's lawsuit against her. While she succeeded in getting the lawsuit against her dismissed two years later, her children were then sued. A default judgment entered against her daughter Michelle for $30,750 for failing to respond to the lawsuit, was subsequently vacated. [36]

[edit] Individual settlement offers

As of February, 2007 the RIAA began sending letters accusing internet users of sharing files and directing them to a web site, (http://www.p2plawsuits.com/), where they can make "discount" settlements payable by credit card. The letters go on to say that anyone not settling will have lawsuits brought against them. Typical settlements are upwards of $3,000. This new strategy was formed because the RIAA's legal fees were cutting into the income from settlements. [37]

[edit] Counterclaims

Another defendant, Tanya Andersen, a 41-year-old single mother living in Oregon, filed counterclaims against the RIAA including a RICO charge. The RIAA requested deposition of her 10 year-old daughter.[38]. Subsequently the RIAA dropped the case, leaving open only the question of attorneys fees and the RIAA's liability under Ms. Andersen's counterclaims.[39]. Thereafter, Ms. Andersen sued the RIAA, the record company plaintiffs, Safenet (MediaSentry), and Settlement Support Center LLC, for malicious prosecution, [40], subsequently amending her complaint to turn the case into a class action. [41]

In Texas, July 2007, Rhonda Crain (Sony v. Crain[42]) sought leave to add a counterclaim against the RIAA[43] for knowingly engaging in "one or more overt acts of unlawful private investigation" in the RIAA case against Crain.[44]

In one file-sharing case, the RIAA has been referred by the defendants as "a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in accordance with a uniform agreement, and through common lawyers, thus overreaching the bounds and scope of whatever copyrights they might have". In Arista v. Limewire this was as well alleged by the defendants and referred to in the defendants counterclaim.

See, e.g. UMG v. Lindor[45], where the RIAA has moved to "strike" those accusations. The motion to strike the charges is pending, and is scheduled to be taken under consideration by the Court on October 2, 2007. See also Arista vs. Limewire[46] for a detailed overview.

In February 2008 it became known that the RIAA has been withholding roughly $400 million from artists for several years now. The RIAA gained the money through lawsuits claiming to defend the rights of artists, although none of the artists whose music was 'illegally' downloaded have received any of the settlement money.[47]

[edit] Determination of damages

The RIAA and its member groups argue that Internet distribution of music, without the consent of the owner of the copyright to that music, harms the careers of current and future artists, both because record companies would have fewer sales, and also because musicians, singers, songwriters and producers depend heavily on royalties and fees gained from their music. Criticism from others within the music industry, recording artists, independent labels, music aficionados as well as independent research proves that those claims are highly overstated and that losses are minimal or non-existent.

The RIAA typically seeks $750 statutory damages per song file. In the Brooklyn lawsuit UMG v. Lindor,[48] the defendant argued that the RIAA's damage theory was unconstitutional, because it sought 1071 times the actual 70 cents reduction of profits per song (the prevailing wholesale price of a download). The court ruled that this defense was not frivolous, was based upon case law and legal scholarship, and deserved to be heard.[49]

In press reports, the RIAA makes the assertion that every unauthorized copy of a song represents a lost sale. [50][51][52] This claim is highly criticized due to the fact that a single download of a song may not correspond to the loss of a potential sale, and because this metric conflicts with the economic law of supply and demand.[53] A large number of studies conducted since the RIAA began its campaign against peer-to-peer file-sharing have concluded that losses incurred per download range from negligible to very small.[54][55][56] A study published by Industry Canada has even concluded that the file-sharing of music has no measureable effect on the sales of CDs.[57]

In November, 2006, a Judge in a Brooklyn Federal court upheld the legal theory behind a defense claiming that the RIAA's damages theory — which calls for aggregating statutory damages of $750 per song in its lawsuits — is unconstitutional, since the record companies' actual damages are less than $0.70 per song.[58][59]

On Oct. 4, 2007 Jammie Thomas's case filed against for illegal sharing of 24 songs on Kazaa was adjudicated, with a $222,000 ($9,250 per song) verdict awarded to the RIAA. [60]

The evidence of the effectiveness of the suits is not conclusive. Recent research suggests that the lawsuits have reduced the number of files large file-sharers offer but have had limited effect on those who only offer small number of files (typically less than 1000) and have had negligible effect on general availability of files at any random time.[61]

[edit] Awarding of costs to prevailing parties

In 2006, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, and the American Association of Law Libraries submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the motion for attorneys fees that has been made by Deborah Foster in Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster, in federal court in Oklahoma, requesting that attorney's fees be awarded to the defendant and alleging a pattern of inadequate investigation and abusive legal practices by the RIAA.[62] The RIAA asked the Court not to accept the amicus curiae brief, claiming that the "Movants attempt to paint a false picture of Plaintiffs and the recording industry run amok"[63]. On February 6, 2007, the attorney's fee motion was granted. [64][65][66][67] On July 16, 2007, the Court ordered the RIAA to pay Ms. Foster $68,685.23 in attorneys fees.[68]

In an Oklahoma case, Capitol Records v. Deborah Foster,[69] the RIAA was forced to dismiss a case after a woman filed a motion for leave to make a motion for summary judgment and attorneys fees, stating that she had nothing to do with file sharing and that her only nexus to the case was that she had paid for internet access. The judge ruled that the RIAA's withdrawal of the case -- after one and a half years of litigation -- did not immunize it from possible liability for attorneys fees, holding that the defendant was a "prevailing party" under the Copyright Act.[70] The Court subsequently ruled that defendant was entitled to be reimbursed for her reasonable attorneys fees, since the RIAA's pursuit of its case was, at best, "marginal", and was being pursued to extract a settlement from someone who was clearly known not to be the direct infringer.[71] The Court noted that the mere fact that Ms. Foster was a person who paid for an internet access account was not a basis for a copyright infringement lawsuit against her. Ms. Foster's motion for attorneys fees had been supported by an amicus curiae brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma.

Other instances in which the RIAA was known to have been forced to back out of a case to avoid a loss, are Priority Records v. Brittany Chan in Michigan, Virgin Records v. Tammie Marson[72] in California, and Elektra v. Wilke[73] in Illinois.

[edit] Peer-to-peer network pollution

It has also been claimed that the RIAA may have deliberately inserted white noise into music files on Kazaa, which contravenes Kazaa's terms of service.[74]

[edit] Public relations campaigns

See also: Captain Copyright, Piracy is theft, Who Makes Movies?, and You can click, but you can't hide

Trade groups have engaged in several notable public relations campaigns targeting file sharing by consumers.

[edit] Criticism

 It has been suggested that some of the information in this article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) be merged into other sections to achieve a more neutral presentation. (Discuss)

Hilary Rosen, the RIAA's president and chief executive officer from 1998 to 2003, was an outspoken critic of peer to peer file sharing,[citation needed] and under her direction, the RIAA waged an aggressive legal campaign trying to eliminate file-sharing worldwide. Rosen has since expressed "concern that the lawsuits have outlived most of their usefulness," and that music devices should try "to work better together."[75]

Critics of the RIAA have claimed that the RIAA's attacks against the sharing of music files have failed to stop the sharing or protect their sales. They note the increase in CD sales during the Napster era and the subsequent decrease during the RIAA's crackdown on peer-to-peer network users,[76] and instead believe that the trading of songs over P2P actually increases new artists' exposure and audiences, which increases sales. The steadily increasing popularity of creative works which may be legally distributed, such as those which are under some of the Creative Commons licenses, is taken by these critics as proof that the RIAA's restriction of music distribution runs counter to their own interests. Some of the RIAA's members have released samples under certain Creative Commons licenses.[77]

Organizations such as p2pnet[78] allege that the RIAA is, in effect, an organized cartel which artificially inflates and fixes the prices for CDs. The allegations note that the "Big Four" (EMI, Sony-BMG, Universal Music and Warner) distribute over 95 percent of all music CDs sold worldwide, and that the share of the price of an individual CD actually received by the artist is low, despite the large profits made by the record company.[79][80] In 2003, the major CD issuers in the American market, including the "Big Four" settled a major scale price-fixing case brought by 43 state Attorneys General by issuing refunds to consumers and donating CDs to libraries and educational groups.[81] This drew additional criticism, since many of the CDs donated to schools were duplicates or were inappropriate for high school libraries.[82]

There is much criticism of the RIAA's policy and method of suing individuals for copyright infringement, notably with Internet-based pressure groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Boycott RIAA and FreeCulture.[83] To date, the RIAA has sued more than 20,000[84] people in the United States suspected of distributing copyrighted works, and have settled approximately 2,500 of the cases. There are some suggestions that the RIAA begins legal proceedings without any knowledge of whether they have engaged in copyright infringement or not.[85] Brad Templeton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has called these types of lawsuits spamigation and implied they are done merely to intimidate people.[86]

The RIAA has been criticized in the media after they subpoenaed Gertrude Walton, an 83-year-old grandmother who had died in December of 2004.[87] Mrs. Walton stood accused of swapping rock, pop and rap songs. The RIAA in 2003 attempted to sue Sarah Seabury Ward, a 66 year-old sculptor residing in Boston, Massachusetts. They alleged that she shared more than 2,000 songs illegally. The RIAA dropped the suit when it was discovered that she was a computer novice. The case was dismissed, but without prejudice.

In a Brooklyn case, Elektra v. Schwartz,[88] against RaeJ Schwartz, a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis, the RIAA's lawyers wrote to the Judge that they were in possession of a letter in which "...America Online, Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiffs’ consent.” After the defense received a copy of the letter, it turned out that the letter merely identified Ms. Schwartz as the owner of an internet access account, and said nothing at all about "downloading" or "distributing".[89]

The RIAA has also been criticized for bringing lawsuits against children, such as 12 year old Brianna LaHara in 2003.[90] The RIAA also attempted to sue Candy Chan of Michigan, for the alleged actions of her daughter, 13 year old Brittany Chan. Under the threat of a possible defendant's motion for summary judgment and attorneys fees, the RIAA withdrew the case Priority Records v. Chan.[91][92] When the court ruled in favor of the mother, dismissing the case, the RIAA proceeded to sue her child. However, prosecuting a minor is more difficult; the Michigan federal court required the RIAA to make provision for a guardian ad litem to be appointed to protect the interests of the child, and required the RIAA to be responsible for paying the guardian ad litem. The RIAA failed to submit a workable proposal, and the Court dismissed the case. The RIAA recently sued the 16-year old son of Patti Santangelo[93] and as of this writing is attempting to force a 10 year old girl in Oregon to be deposed (she would have been 7 years old at the time of the alleged infringement)[94].

The RIAA's recent targeting of students has generated controversy as well. An April 4, 2006 story in the MIT campus newspaper The Tech indicates that an RIAA representative stated to Cassi Hunt, an alleged file-sharer, that previously, "the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements."[95]

The RIAA has also filed a lawsuit against a woman who has never bought, turned on, or used a personal computer for using an "online distribution system" to obtain unlicensed music files.[96] This occurred again in the Walls case; "I don't understand this", said James Walls, "How can they sue us when we don't even have a computer?".[97]

The RIAA filed a lawsuit against Larry Scantlebury, a man who had passed away. They offered the deceased man's family a period of sixty days to grieve the death before they began to depose members of Mr. Scantlebury’s family for the suit against his estate.[98]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Anti-Piracy, RIAA Website
  2. ^ RIAA's next moves in Washington, ZDNet, 26 May 2006
  3. ^ How To Not Get Sued for File Sharing. Retrieved on 2007-04-03.
  4. ^ Eircom rejects record firms' claims, RTÉ, April 21, 2008
  5. ^ Frequently Asked Questions — Napster and Digital Music, RIAA Website
  6. ^ Elektra v. Barker
  7. ^ "Is 'Making Available' Copyright Infringement?" Hollywood Reporter ESQ
  8. ^ Statement of Interest of US Government in Elektra Barker, page 5, footnote 3.
  9. ^ Warner v. Cassin
  10. ^ Clean Slate Program, RIAA Website
  11. ^ 1,108 people signed up to the Clean Slate program, according to RIAA Drops 'Clean Slate', by Fraser Lovatt, Digital-Lifestyles.org, 21 April 2004
  12. ^ Fake "Clean Slate" Gone - How About a Real One?, EFF Deep Links, April 17, 2004
  13. ^ Ira Rothken, Consumers Strike Back, Sue RIAA, PCWorld.com, September 11, 2003
  14. ^ Parke v. RIAA, Complaint, September 9, 2003
  15. ^ Ira Rothken, Consumers Strike Back, Sue RIAA, PCWorld.com, September 11, 2003
  16. ^ "RIAA Adopts New Policy, offers Pre-Doe settlement option if ISP Holds Logs Longer, Asks ISP's to Correct Identification Mistakes" Recording Industry vs. The People, February 13, 2007.
  17. ^ "RIAA targets university students" (Variety.com)
  18. ^ Read, Brock. "Record Companies to Accused Pirates: Deal or No Deal?", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007-03-16, p. A31. Retrieved on 2007-04-02. (english) 
  19. ^ "Recording industry battles piracy" by Elizabeth Lauten, The East Carolinian (East Carolina University), April 4, 2007
  20. ^ Verizon's copyright campaign Declan McCullagh
  21. ^ Subpoena Defense
  22. ^ CBS News (2005). Mom Fights Recording Industry. Retrieved on 2007-04-02.
  23. ^ Templeton, Brad (2004-04-22). New word: Spamigation. Retrieved on 2007-04-02.
  24. ^ American Civil Liberties Union (2003-09-29). "Citing Right to Anonymity Online, ACLU Asks Boston Court to Block Recording Industry Subpoena". Press release. Retrieved on 2007-04-02.
  25. ^ Public Citizen (2004-02-02). "Record Industry Cuts Corners in Crusade Against File-Sharers". Press release. Retrieved on 2007-04-03.
  26. ^ I sue dead people, Ars Technica, 4 February 2005
  27. ^ "Grandmother piracy lawsuit dropped", BBC News, 2003-09-25. Retrieved on 2007-04-03. 
  28. ^ "Elektra v. Schwartz"
  29. ^ RIAA sues computer-less family, by Anders Bylund, Ars Technica, 24 April 2006
  30. ^ Elektra v. Santangelo"
  31. ^ Warner v. Stubbs
  32. ^ Elektra v. Dennis
  33. ^ Warner v. Scantlebury, [1] (Eastern District of Michigan District Court 2006-08-01).
  34. ^ RIAA settles with 12-year-old girl, CNet News, 9 September 2003
  35. ^ RIAA.
  36. ^ "Default Judgment against Michelle Santangelo vacated; RIAA seeks $513 in attorneys' fees" Recording Industry vs. The People, July 19, 2007.
  37. ^ Read, Brock. "Record Companies to Accused Pirates: Deal or No Deal?", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007-03-16, p. A31. Retrieved on 2007-04-02. (english) 
  38. ^ "RIAA Insists on Deposing Tanya Andersen's 10-year-old daughter", Recording Industry vs The People, "23 March 2007"
  39. ^ "RIAA Drops its Case Against Tanya Andersen" Recording Industry vs. The People, June 4, 2007
  40. ^ "Tanya Andersen Sues RIAA for Malicious Prosecution in Oregon" Recording Industry vs The People, June 25, 2007
  41. ^ "RIAA Faces Serious Piracy Lawsuit", Variety.com, August 30, 2007; "Woman Targets RIAA With Lawsuit", Forbes.com, August 29, 2007; "RIAA faces possible class action over suing the innocent", Ars Technica, August 17, 2007; "RIAA named in first class action", p2pnet, August 16, 2007; "Class Action Initiated Against RIAA", Slashdot, August 17, 2007. For link to .pdf file of amended complaint: "Tanya Andersen Brings Class Action Against RIAA", Recording Industry vs. The People, August 16, 2007.
  42. ^ "SONY v. Crain"
  43. ^ Pike & Fischer Internet & Law Regulation
  44. ^ RIAA sued for using illegal investigatory practices, by Ken Fisher, Ars Technica, 4 July 2007
  45. ^ "RIAA Moves to Strike "Copyright Misuse" Affirmative Defense in UMG v. Lindor", Recording Industry vs. The People, August 29, 2007; "Record Company Collusion a Defense to RIAA Case?", Slashdot, August 30, 2007
  46. ^ "[2] Limewire counterclaim in Arista vs. Limewire"
  47. ^ RIAA have been withholding settlement money
  48. ^ "UMG v. Lindor"
  49. ^ "UMG v. Lindor (November 9, 2006, decision of Judge David G. Trager"
  50. ^ Techdirt. How the RIAA Does Math: Why You Might Be A $50 Million Felon. Retrieved on 2007-04-09.
  51. ^ Slate. How Much Is Your Stolen Music Worth?. Retrieved on 2007-04-09.
  52. ^ Techdirt. RIAA's Excessive Loss Claims Unconstitutional?. Retrieved on 2007-04-09.
  53. ^ techdirt. Now The RIAA Wants You To Believe That You Should Be Paying Much, Much More For CDs.
  54. ^ Microsoft Word - FileSharing_March2004.doc
  55. ^ Does a Free Download Equal a Lost Sale?, by Daniel Gross, The New York Times, 21 November 2004
  56. ^ A Heretical View of File Sharing, by John Schwartz, The New York Times, 5 April 2004
  57. ^ Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada, Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz
  58. ^ UMG v. Lindor, November 9, 2006, Decision (pdf)
  59. ^ Federal judge orders RIAA to justify damages sought link 1
  60. ^ Music industry wins song-download case
  61. ^ [Bhattacharjee, S., Lertwachara, K, Gopal, R. and Marsden, J, "Impact of Legal Threats on Online Music Sharing Activity: An Analysis of Music Industry Legal Actions", 49 (2006) Journal of Law and Economics 91]
  62. ^ EFF, ACLU, American Association of Law Libraries, Public Citizen, ACLU of Oklahoma, Come to Aid of Deborah Foster, File Amicus Brief in Support
  63. ^ RIAA-lawyer claims the brief accuses the recording industry to run amok
  64. ^ "Judge Grants Debbie Foster's Attorneys Fees Motion in Capitol v. Foster"; Recording Industry vs. The People
  65. ^ "For the Cynics, an Antidote: The Order in Capitol v. Foster"; Groklaw
  66. ^ "Victory for RIAA Victim"; p2pnet.net
  67. ^ "Victim of RIAA "driftnet" awarded attorneys' fees"; Ars Technica
  68. ^ "Judge Awards $68,685.23 in Attorneys Fees Against RIAA in Capitol v. Foster" Recording Industry vs. The People, July 16, 2007
  69. ^ "Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster"
  70. ^ July 13, 2006, Order and Decision
  71. ^ "Judge Grants Debbie Foster's Attorneys Fees Motion in Capitol v. Foster" in Recording Industry vs. The People
  72. ^ "Virgin Records v. Tammie Marson"
  73. ^ "Elektra v. Wilke"
  74. ^ A user on the TechGuy forums is told of the RIAA's countermeasures
  75. ^ For the Record, for What It's Worth, by Hilary Rosen, the Huffington Post, 4 June 2006
  76. ^ Boycott-RIAA Documentation and Sources
  77. ^ Examples of Creative Commons samples released include the Fort Minor Remix Contest at ccMixter
  78. ^ RIAA file sharing travesty, p2pnet
  79. ^ Artists receive about 10% royalties for CD sales, and about 5-8% royalties for downloads, of which about 20% goes to the manager. However, before royalties start to be paid to the artist, the record company takes back the money used for the recording. Sources: How Music Royalties Work, by Lee Ann Obringer, How Stuff Works; and Follow the Money: Who's Really Making the Dough?, by Eric Leach and Bill Henslee, Electronic Musician, 1 November 2001
  80. ^ EMI made $169 million in 2005, according to EMI Net Profit Up 20 Percent for 2005, NewsFactor, 23 May 2006
  81. ^ Source: Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation Settlement
  82. ^ CD trove is proving short on treasures, Seattle PI, 24 June 2004; and CD settlement delivers duds, Stevens Point Journal, 22 July 2004
  83. ^ Stop the RIAA! petition, EFF; Website, Boycott RIAA; RIAA Free, FreeCulture
  84. ^ "How to Not Get Sued For File Sharing (By Electronic Frontier Foundation)
  85. ^ How the RIAA Litigation Process Works, info.riaalawsuits.us, 7 September 2006
  86. ^ Spamigation and How to Fight It by Dana Blankenhorn, accessed 8-25-06.
  87. ^ I sue dead people, ARS Technica, 4 February 2005
  88. ^ "Elektra v. Schwartz"
  89. ^ Slashdot | RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL
  90. ^ RIAA settles with 12-year-old girl, CNet News, 9 September 2003
  91. ^ Index of Litigation Documents Referred to in Recording Industry vs. The People, Ray Beckerman
  92. ^ Priority Records v. Chan: RIAA Must Get Guardian Ad Litem Appointed for Suit Against 13 Year Old, Digital Music News, 3 June 2006
  93. ^ "Elektra v. Santangelo II"
  94. ^ "RIAA Insists on Deposing Tanya Andersen's 10-year-old daughter" in Recording Industry vs. The People"
  95. ^ Run Over by the RIAA Don...t Tap the Glass, Cassi Hunt, MIT Tech, Tuesday, April 4, 2006. Volume 126, Number 15.
  96. ^ "Marie Lindor to Move for Summary Judgment", by Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman, February 3, 2006
  97. ^ RIAA sues computer-less family, by Anders Bylund, the Ars Technica, 24 April 2006
  98. ^ "RIAA to grieving family: We depose your children in 60 days", August 12, 2006

[edit] External links