871 Subpoenas...and so it begins...

Well, it looks like the music industry is pretty serious this time...871 subpoenas with roughly 75 new ones being approved each day.

"In some cases, subpoenas cite as few as five songs as "representative recordings" of music files available for downloading from these users. The trade group for the largest music labels, the Washington-based RIAA, previously indicated its lawyers would target Internet users who offer substantial collections of MP3 song files but declined to say how many songs might qualify for a lawsuit."

Five songs? Interesting interpretation of substantial.

Considering the potential fine for even one instance, five would be substantial. Though I think it excessive, and ultimately fruitless, this is the best offensive the RIAA has yet put on. Even one conviction, a likelihood out of the significant number of subpoenas, will substantially validate the attempt.

Note, Kazaa use is down dramatically since the RIAA announced it would pursue convictions, and I expect it to drop even more.

While I don''t agree with your interpretation, Elysium, I don''t think that the potential fines were what they were referring to as substantial. I get the feeling that this will be a modern day witch-hunt. Don''t get me wrong. I''m not trying to defend what is an obvious copyright violation, but it seems to me that they''re looking for examples for the masses. Which, if I was one of the RIAA, would definitely be a plus. But I hate to see relatively innocent heads on those spikes.

I have seen MANY, MANY accounts on kazaa that have had hundreds, if not thousands, of copyrighted songs up for sharing. And to attack people who have as few as FIVE songs up...well, I, too, understand the purpose behind those attacks, but I think that''s going to the extreme. It seems to me that what the original statement from the RIAA put out and what we''re seeing to be different.

I don''t want to seem like I''m condoning piracy here, because I am not. At the same time, however, there''s many albums that I would not have bought had it not been for hearing stuff that I had downloaded and previewed. And, I''m sure I''m not alone in this argument. Could this backfire on the RIAA? Or will this simply push people to go to other extremes to download anonymously?

And don''t get me wrong: I''m not defending the RIAA.

I think the best tactic is the one the RIAA is approaching ... for their goals. They want to put the fear of God into everyone trading in illegal music, not just the mass uploaders. If you attack even the lowest contributor in the chain, then you''ve managed to target everyone. Their strategy is, get the people with the least instances as well, take down the guy who''s only sharing a few Steve Miller Band songs, let everyone know that _any_ trading of music will find you in court. Of course it''s going to an extreme, but I''ve never exactly seen the RIAA make a play at subtlety.

I do think it could backfire on the RIAA. But the question is, will consumers dislike for RIAA translate to a decision not to keep collecting music? If it becomes unviable to download, will people stop purchasing altogether? Probably not.

Bloodthirsty, desperate, yes. But, potentially, by terrorizing their own customers while being the only boys on the block selling popular music, they have a strong shot at winning the war.

Then again, I''ve been wrong about wars before.

"Elysium" wrote:

Then again, I''ve been wrong about wars before.

Haven''t we all?

Note, Kazaa use is down dramatically since the RIAA announced it would pursue convictions, and I expect it to drop even more.

I would actually like to hear numbers from this weekend. That article that said ""Filesharing is down 15% this weekend""? They used July 4th weekend. Guess what percentage of the US population was out on travel that weekend? Close to 15%. I''m not saying it hasn''t went down, just that the weekend of the 4th was a very poor sample. The first week the RIAA started this little crusade filesharing was up 10%, but that came from the guys who make Kaaza, so really, choose your poison I guess.

Bloodthirsty, desperate, yes. But, potentially, by terrorizing their own customers while being the only boys on the block selling popular music, they have a strong shot at winning the war.

I''d have to disagree here. Win the battle? Yeah, sure they may stay alive another decade if they''re lucky, probably closer to five years the way thier profits have been falling, but theres no way they''ll win the war. The public knows that they can get music online, there''s no way the pig will live on the farm after he''s seen Paris, or however that crusty old saying goes. Maybe it was geese. Anyways, there''s no way they can win in the long term, because the reality of the situation is that they are not needed. It will catch up to them eventually, regardless of how much they struggle (or how much we struggle against them). It''s just a matter of time.

I just hope my wallet isn''t one of the soldiers that falls in battle!

Seriously, this has got to be the most disgusting attempt at desperate, heavy-handed oppression that I have seen in a while. It boggles my mind that they cannot learn from history and embrace (and profit from) change rather than resist it. Give people a reason to pay for the music, and they will. I''m tired.

Isn''t the punishment for one pirated song a bit harsh? 150,000 per song? How much do you get if you steal a CD with, say, 10 songs? 1,500,000 dollar fine?

Has there ever been an industry where the consumers demand a change that the industry itself didn''t conceive of, and actually fears? I suppose there has been the development of VCR''s and such, but for some reason I don''t think that''s as comparable as completely sidestepping the industry through p2p sharing. What kind of historical precedent is there for this?

How much do you get if you steal a CD with, say, 10 songs? 1,500,000 dollar fine?

Yes. It is a per instance fine, and it can be applied equally per instance. So technically the RIAA can sue a person trading 5 songs well over half a million dollars.

Anyone want to guess who had those penalties pushed into law?

I think the phrase ""you can''t get blood from a stone"" fits well here.

Though I have to say I''m very curious to see how long this lasts if some congressman''s child at college gets hit...