Is The RIAA Suing For Uploading Or Downloading?
from the does-it-matter? dept
An interesting sleight of mouth from the RIAA's Cary Sherman. All of the various file sharing lawsuits they've filed so far (to my knowledge) have been about people who were sharing files for others to download. That's what they're able to get them on, and they make the case that those individuals are illegally distributing copyrighted files - not that they were taking unauthorized files. Those who simply download and make sure whatever program they're using doesn't upload have been safe. However, in answering questions about the legal attacks, Sherman repeatedly says that these lawsuits are targeting "downloaders". From a publicity standpoint, this makes sense. Most file sharers identify with the downloading part - and not the uploading part. However, it's not being very honest - but this is the entertainment industry we're talking about. Also interesting is his note that the "average" number of songs for those sued in the latest round was 837 (they say downloads, but I'm sure they mean songs). That number seems to be getting lower and lower. Meanwhile, the article also quotes someone saying that they still download just as much - they're just much more careful about how they do it. Apparently, the RIAA's legal education campaign has succeeded in teaching people about how to cover their tracks and find better ways to download the music they want. In the meantime, since I still refuse to use any file sharing applications, I find myself still buying less music. Just last night I was going through a catalog from a small (one man) indie distributor of CDs, and I was looking up the bands he recommended on the web. Many of them did offer free MP3s - which helped me decide if I wanted to buy their CDs or not. A few didn't, and they simply were crossed off the list. It seems pretty clear in this case that free MP3s work pretty well as promotional material to me, but the RIAA still refuses to see that.
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
I still like the itunes model where you can get a 30 second sample of each song. Wind up with a lot less 'one hit wonders' that way. And if I like the one hit, I can download it singly.
As for the RIAA persuing uploaders versus downloaders versus number of songs, etc. I would love to see one of these cases go to court and take a hard look at the evidence they are presenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]