RIAA Subpoena List

[LeChacal]

Are you on it?

http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195,3484600,00.html

Chac

[gounz]

lol thats great

im not on it!!

[Kaneda]

rofl!

i didnt think people were stupid enough to change the user name stuff if they were sharing massive ammounts of shit.

www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa = default i believe... gl catchin default

[stas]

i think it would be funny if some people used their real names.

[Cyberdemon]

Only 911 subpoenas? My Kazaa shows 4,218,431 users online at the moment; guess they've got a ways to go.

[Obscure]

They're so retarded anyways. They'll have to pay their lawyers more money than they'll ever get from a bunch of poor college students. It would be hilarious if the RIAA went bankrupt because they couldn't pay their lawyers.

[Lord-Hobo]

Originally posted by von_Klagg
Remember, there are no crimes that carry a 100% chance of detection, and capture, people refrain from crimes because of a combination of morality and fear of POSSIBLE sanction. Some few of us refrain from stealing copyrighted material simply because it is stealing and we won't steal, even with 0 chance of detection. Most, though, don't have quite so high a standard. But, if there is a remote, yet viable chance of capture and ruinous financial consequences, many might well give up the downloading.

Well said. And accoridng to like Cnn.com. When a check was done on Kazaa, numbers had gone down considerably. Of course people might just be switching to lite, but still it shows that the scare tactic has worked on some, if not Every one.

[Cain]

Now, many otherwise law abiding citizens will think twice, even if the odds of being singled out for sanctions are very low.

Not only are the odds incredibly low but, as I understand it, the RIAA is only pursuing users with some of the largest selections; there's some 90/10 ratio about the percent of total downloads originating from the percent of total users. Go after the whales, ignore the guppies.

Remember, there are no crimes that carry a 100% chance of detection, and capture, people refrain from crimes because of a combination of morality and fear of POSSIBLE sanction.

But in this case, I think, as mentioned above, the deterrant is not real; it's the mistaken belief that a normal, otherwise "law-abiding" citizen even has a chance of being held accountable. It's sort of like a threat from Boogie Monster, or God.

Some few of us refrain from stealing copyrighted material simply because it is stealing and we won't steal, even with 0 chance of detection. Most, though, don't have quite so high a standard.

I do not really call that a very high standard. There's nothing wrong with stealing. In fact, stealing is cool. :)

Moreover, I do not think suing one's clientele is a very good business strategy.

Why do so many people share all their files on Kazaa anyway? I immediately cut/copy all downloads to a different directory. There are well-known ways to take advantage of communism. I regard this type of behavior as borderline immoral. Who is so selfish that he won't share his stolen music with others?

I'm interested to see them lock up college students over this. You'll see so many pissed off white people that it'll be enough to start another revolution. This time, however, we'll do it right and elect Chuck D president.

[Summer]

Originally posted by Lord-Hobo
Well said. And accoridng to like Cnn.com. When a check was done on Kazaa, numbers had gone down considerably. Of course people might just be switching to lite, but still it shows that the scare tactic has worked on some, if not Every one.

I was under the impression Kazaa and Kazaa lite shares the same networks.

[Cain]

Originally posted by von_Klagg
[B]Nothing wrong with stealing? I'm guessing you jest with Klagg.

It's somewhat apparant that you aren't a businessman, if you think doing all that can be done in your power to protect your business is a poor approach. Suing the copyright thieves is a legitimate tactic, comparing it to suing your "clientele" is the same as arguing that arresting a shoplifter at 7-11 is stupid because he paid for the coffee he bought, even though he walked out with a bunch of other stuff under his coat.

One slight problem: physical property and intellectual property are different. Only one person can have a certain cup of coffee from 7-11. If I have it, then the owners do not, and vice versa. Ideas, obviously, are different. My "possession" of a silly Metallica song does not in any way deter from someone else enjoying the same song.

And yes, resorting to scare tactics and instilling fear in a segment of the population you want to give up their money can breed only resentment and fury.

Technological possibilities cut both ways: individuals have always found ways around the RIAA's protection schemes.

[snaggle]

I wonder if www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa will show up...all 400,000 or so of them.

[brett]

Originally posted by stas
i think it would be funny if some people used their real names.

<-- Brett_Mitchell_@Kazaa


What are they going to do, sue me for having MP3s of songs I own on CDs and have file sharing disabled?

Originally posted by brett
<-- Brett_Mitchell_@Kazaa


What are they going to do, sue me for having MP3s of songs I own on CDs and have file sharing disabled? yes, they are. as far as the RIAA is concerned, all file sharing is illegal. what kind of group would spam IMs to people telling them that file sharing in its entirety is illegal. as far as they are concerned, you have paid for nothing. if you were indeed summoned to court to do battle to the RIAA, you would probably settle and lose your money too, regardless if you broke the law or not. the price of hiring a lawyer to defend you and prove you legitimately own a CD of which every mp3 on your computer originated from, and that you indeed never, ever, shared those files would prove more frustrating and expensive than just giving them your savings account. :(

[WoBMatt]

Unless the laws have changed a good deal, the burden of proof lies on the accuser usually...

So you don't have to prove anything if they take you to court, rather they are forced to provide 'proof' of whatever they claim in order to convince a jury to award money. Though with big dollar attourneys, you could probably just avoid the whole proof thing anyway :/

Then again, I don't know the applicible laws and such...

the RIAA plays by totally different rules. they lobby more money than i would care to know to get laws passed in their favor. when dealing with the RIAA, it is always better to assume you are guilty until proven innocent, especially since they are suing on on a oddball plane anyways- the theft of intellectual property.

[st]

WTF IM Ghettobootybabe8@Kazaa!!

[snaggle]

Originally posted by xero
the RIAA plays by totally different rules. they lobby more money than i would care to know to get laws passed in their favor. when dealing with the RIAA, it is always better to assume you are guilty until proven innocent, especially since they are suing on on a oddball plane anyways- the theft of intellectual property.

It's a shame that much of the intellect we're supposedly stealing from belongs in the Bronx Zoo.

They have to get the mp3's from a cd to share right? Somebody has to buy the cds. All they have to do is charge $2,000,000 per cd.

[phister]

In the spirt of capitalism I sympathize with what the RIAA is doing. They're a buisness and any business in the US is going to do everything in it's power to increase profits. In the same light the people who are downloading copyrighted matieral are also exercising some very basic elements of capitalism. If you can easily get it for free then that's how you're going to get it (the only exception of course being the marketability of water). Free is going to be what wins out.

The reason, I think, the RIAA is doing this is because they know they're eventually going to lose. Artists and consumers alike are going to see the light and music on CDs will be laughable. Think about how long, on average a band lasts. By last I mean remain marketable. That's what being a recording ARTIST is all about right? /sarcasim. Some where around 3-10 years (yes I pulled that out of my ass). Granted there are artists that last upwards of 30 years and few others that will never lose thier marketability. But for the majority of artists 3-10 years is all the RIAA will have any intrest in them. No long term intrest combined with little profit from CD sales will persuade more artists to abandon the practices of major labels and the RIAA. The RIAA knows that soon consumers won't buy CDs because artists will no longer want to produce them. Then the marketability of an artist is measured soley by the people who attend thier shows. An aspect of music the RIAA can't get it's hands into.

The rapid growth of sharing copyrighted material is equally matched by the number of bands that are widely recognized due to a public free relase of thier music over popular mediums other then CDs. Listen to some interviews from top artists and you'll find a very popular trend. They didn't want to be rich, they just wanted to play music, be heard and make a living. Most, if not all say nothing of becoming insanely weathly and often times are shocked by how much money they make. Before massive file sharing the ways an artist achieved these basic goals where to play live shows, get thier song on the radio and get a record deal. Now an artist can pretty much cut out the last two steps and still make a decent living. You aren't going to be rich but you're not going to have to "work".

The RIAA saw this change coming a mile away and are trying to prolong the enividable for as long as possible. They're trying to protect thier intrests they already have in thier pocket and at the same time stifle the development of alternative methods of delivery. The only reason the RIAA exists is because consumers allow themselves to be unwittingly constrained the way they listen to music. Once the constraint is gone or rather the realization of the constraint becomes apearent the RIAA will cease to exist. I'm referring to the other 200 million people in this country who still spend $20 for a CD because it's whats on MTV and whats in the stores. Around 3-10 years from the point of this realization is what I figure.

Soon the abilty to cut the time it takes to build a decent sized fan base by using file sharing will outwiegh the incentives of a commercial release of thier music. The money saved by the fan can be used to buy a bus ticket to a nearby city to see them live. Hell, maybe the RIAA can start a charter bus service, because soon it's about the only way they're going to be able to make money from us.

This article by Courteny Love expresses some of what I'm talking about a little better.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html

[TkMasTaH]

www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa
^umm im that but im not sharing, that surely doesnt mean they are nabbing ANYTBOYD with that name is it?

[Acharne]

Hi. I'm Acharne. Fister wins. Thanks.

[PwN]

I've bought about 20 CDs this year. Last year I bought about 3. Last year, I did no file sharing. I think that pretty much sums up my argument. Of course, my argument in court would be much different. :) As for morality, nothnig wrong with it imo. Thats how I find out if a bands shit or not. If my band got popular, I'd hope people start downloading my music, seems to me people do buy CDs of bands they like, especially start up bands.

[NappyK]

What if you're a minor? Then what is the most they can do to you?

[Acharne]

Originally posted by NappyK
What if you're a minor? Then what is the most they can do to you?

DEATH AT THE CROSS!

[Jigga|]

i usually keep no more than 150 songs on my computer. once i reach 150 i throw them on a cd with a HTML list of all the songs on that cd. i have like 20-25 cds. prob alot of doubles. o well. ive always been prepared for the worst! even if they come to my house i burn everything in my room like conspiracy theory!!!

[Rayze]

Originally posted by snaggle
It's a shame that much of the intellect we're supposedly stealing from belongs in the Bronx Zoo.

Hey, I work in the Bronx Zoo...don't insult it by saying that...much of the intellect we're stealing belongs in a dumpster just outside the Bronx Zoo ;)

I guess 56k has it's advantages; they don't notice you when you can download about 3 songs in a day.

[alphatronics]

Originally posted by Jesus!
www.kazaaKPP.com


Imagine being in court and having the judge say, "Are you munkeyspanker21@Kazaa?"

Ha.

That'd be fucking sweet.