RIAA Sues Again... As Promised
from the how-many-12-year-olds-this-time? dept
Realizing they'd lost a little momentum after the Verizon decision and noticing that file sharing is on the rise again, the RIAA still thinks that it can win the war by making a big publicity splash and suing people. The latest, is that they've filed 532 new lawsuits against people accused of offering music for download through file sharing networks. Because of the Verizon decision, these lawsuits are all filed against "John Doe" defendants, and they will now try to get legal subpoenas from ISPs to find out who these people are. Once again, this is more of a publicity campaign than a legal campaign, so it will be interesting to see if more stories of "falsely accused" people show up again.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
A more interesting debate might be if the RIAA did forgo this, thinking it's hopeless, how would the artists react and what rights, if any, would they have in it.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mmmmm
That and I would love to see someone argue that they only downloaded them to collect them to view in a text file but said that they never listened to a single one of them. Could they prove I listened to them and if they could or couldnt prove that would their copyright still hold up ?
I mean just because it says Metallica - Enter Sandman.mp3 doesnt mean it's actually a song and how would I know if it was a song for sure or not if I never listened to it. That would be my ignorance plea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mmmmm
BUY A MAC U WONT GET A VIRUS OR GET A LAWSUIT :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]