Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick




More Folks Agree To Pay RIAA's Extortion Rates

from the pay-up-or-else dept

The RIAA continues their PR (not legal) campaign against file sharing by announcing that 63 more people have agreed to settle with the RIAA and pay up for sharing music. On top of the 12-year-old girl, this makes a total of 64 people. 12 of those settlers weren't even sued, but had simply found out that the RIAA had sent out a subpoena for their info. They don't say how much the settlements were for, but other stories on the matter suggest that the RIAA comes in with a "take-it-or-see-you-in-court" offer of a few thousand dollars. Meanwhile, they're also claiming that nearly 1,000 people have taken them up on their worthless "amnesty" offer, that says they really really promise to leave you alone if you really really promise to stop sharing music.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2003 @ 1:33pm

    agreed?

    "The RIAA contends the DMCA subpoena is perfectly legal and was agreed to by ISPs during the 1998 negotiations over the DMCA"
    Which ISPs agreed to it? and who gave them the authority to represent the rest of the ISPs?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike (profile), 29 Sep 2003 @ 1:47pm

      Re: agreed?

      It's actually true. The major ISPs agreed not to protest agains the DMCA when it was first proposed because of this arrangement. At the time, the ISPs were afraid that the DMCA would make them liable for any infringing content that was posted. They weren't worried about file sharing, but they were worried that one of their customers would post a lible filled rant about someone on a website hosted by AOL and AOL would get sued.

      So, the agreement was that the content providers could send the ISPs a "takedown notice" or a subpoena for info and everything would be okay. The big ISPs agreed.

      The issue was never that ALL ISPs needed to agree, but the ones with enough clout to hold back passage of the law.

      None of this, by the way, had much to do with file sharing. Much of the current ISP complaints say that that original agreement was about posting stuff to a website that was hosted by the ISP. They say that stuff hosted on a home computer, but accessed via the ISP shouldn't count.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ron, 29 Sep 2003 @ 7:57pm

    Extortion

    Would someone please publish a list of RIAA members so that I can be sure I never, ever, never-ever-ever again buy anything one of them sells.
    I would rather never listen to recorded music again than in any way support these greedy, money-mongering drones who comprise the RIAA.
    Stealing is reprehensible but the underlying cause is the way in which RIAA members package and price recorded music. The courts are inadvertently but effectively supporting gouging by RIAA members.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Close
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.