Posted on 07/24/2003 12:20:46 PM PDT by El Conservador
WASHINGTON - Parents, roommates — even grandparents — are being targeted in the music industry's new campaign to track computer users who share songs over the Internet, bringing the threat of expensive lawsuits to more than college kids.
"Within five minutes, if I can get hold of her, this will come to an end," said Gordon Pate of Dana Point, Calif., when told by The Associated Press that a federal subpeona had been issued over his daughter's music downloads. The subpoena required the family's Internet provider to hand over Pate's name and address to lawyers for the recording industry.
Pate, 67, confirmed that his 23-year-old daughter, Leah Pate, had installed file-sharing software using an account cited on the subpoena. But he said his daughter would stop immediately and the family didn't know using such software could result in a stern warning, expensive lawsuit or even criminal prosecution.
"There's no way either us or our daughter would do anything we knew to be illegal," Pate said, promising to remove the software quickly. "I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."
The president of the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites), the trade group for the largest music labels, warned that lawyers will pursue downloaders regardless of personal circumstances because it would deter other Internet users.
"The idea really is not to be selective, to let people know that if they're offering a substantial number of files for others to copy, they are at risk," Cary Sherman said. "It doesn't matter who they are."
Over the coming months this may be the Internet's equivalent of shock and awe, the stunning discovery by music fans across America that copyright lawyers can pierce the presumed anonymity of file-sharing, even for computer users hiding behind clever nicknames such as "hottdude0587" or "bluemonkey13."
In Charleston, W.Va., college student Amy Boggs said she quickly deleted more than 1,400 music files on her computer after the AP told her she was the target of another subpoena. Boggs said she sometimes downloaded dozens of songs on any given day, including ones by Fleetwood Mac, Blondie, Incubus and Busta Rhymes.
Since Boggs used her roommates' Internet account, the roommates' name and address was being turned over to music industry lawyers.
"This scares me so bad I never want to download anything again," said Boggs, who turned 22 on Thursday. "I never thought this would happen. There are millions of people out there doing this."
In homes where parents or grandparents may not closely monitor the family's Internet use, news could be especially surprising. A defendant's liability can depend on their age and whether anyone else knew about the music downloads.
Bob Barnes, a 50-year-old grandfather in Fresno, Calif., and the target of another subpeona, acknowledged sharing "several hundred" music files. He said he used the Internet to download hard-to-find recordings of European artists because he was unsatisfied with modern American artists and grew tired of buying CDs without the chance to listen to them first.
"If you don't like it, you can't take it back," said Barnes, who runs a small video production company with his wife from their three-bedroom home. "You have all your little blonde, blue-eyed clones. There's no originality."
Citing on its subpoenas the numeric Internet addresses of music downloaders, the RIAA has said it can only track users by comparing those addresses against subscriber records held by Internet providers. But the AP used those addresses and other details culled from subpoenas and was able to identify and locate some Internet users who are among the music industry's earliest targets.
Pate was wavering whether to call the RIAA to negotiate a settlement. "Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered.
The RIAA's president wasn't sure what advice to offer because he never imagined downloaders could be identified by name until Internet providers turned over subscriber records.
"It's not a scenario we had truthfully envisaged," Sherman said. "If somebody wants to settle before a lawsuit is filed it would be fine to call us, but it's really not clear how we're going to perceive this."
The RIAA has issued at least 911 subpoenas so far, according to court records. Lawyers have said they expect to file at least several hundred lawsuits within eight weeks, and copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song.
The AP tracked targets of subpoenas to neighborhoods in Boston; Chicago; St. Louis; San Francisco; New York and Ann Arbor, Mich.
Outside legal experts urged the music industry to carefully select targets for its earliest lawsuits. Several lawyers said they were doubtful the RIAA ultimately will choose to sue computer users like the Pate family.
"If they end up picking on individuals who are perceived to be grandmothers or junior high students who have only downloaded in isolated incidents, they run the risk of a backlash," said Christopher Caldwell, a lawyer in Los Angeles who works with major studios and the Motion Picture Association of America.
The recording industry said Pate's daughter was offering songs by Billy Idol, Missy Elliot, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and other artists. Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he doesn't videotape movies off cable television channels.
Barnes, who used the Napster (news - web sites) service until the music industry shut it down, said he rarely uses file-sharing software these days unless his grandson visits. The RIAA found songs on his computer by Marvin Gaye, Savage Garden, Berlin, the Eagles, Dire Straits and others.
Barnes expressed some concern about a possible lawsuit but was confident that "more likely they will probably come out with a cease and desist order" to stop him sharing music files on the Internet.
"I think they're trying to scare people," Barnes said.
___
On the Net:
Recording Industry Association of America: www.riaa.org
Subpoena Defense: www.subpoenadefense.org
The tactics of these $#!theads make the KGB and the Gestapo blush in embarrasment.
There must be a way to atop these idiots!!!
Who's with me???
It's time to download SLIM WHITMAN!!!!!
Whew! Catch me if you can!
"In a separate countermeasure, the new Morpheus edition and several other file-sharing programs, including Kazaa Lite and Shareaza, help users identify the IP addresses of companies hired by recording companies to troll networks for pirates."
Hoo-yah!
How can they NOT know about this? It's been in the news for weeks. Oh, right, they don't pay attention to the news.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951738/posts
That's absolutely correct. However, to actually sue this person between $750-125,000 for each book he has in his home, is something else entirely.
I'm with you. Besides, being the old curmudgeon I am, there's nothing out there later than about 1970 that I want. I already own MUSIC, none of the swill they pass off now.
FMCDH
True, but your analogy is off. We're not burning CDs and mass distributing hard copies. Most P2P is played off the hardrive in MP3 . . . there's really no market to mass distribute.
The way to fix this is to actually FOLLOW the U.S. Constitution and have congress change the patent laws such that the laws act To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Should we pay Mozart's heir's for the use of his works? Do you think the framers thought 120 years was a limited time?
Intellectual property is a concept only a few hundred years old, going back to the beginning of the patent office.
Intellectual property in a literary work is about the same.
Intellectual property in "owning" a piece of music because you wrote it or sold your rights is even more recent. Recall that "Amazing Grace", "Auld Lang Syne", "The Star Spangled Banner", and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" are all original words on previously existing tunes.
The current notion of intellectual property in music was driven by the fact that earning money from music ceased to be primarily from individual performances to copies of same, but that producing such copies required considerable capital investment.
Current technology has rendered this obsolete. The current law is hideously draconain.
I don't know what the ultimate solution will be, I don't even have an opinion what it should be, but current notions of intellectual property in music will fall pretty soon.
Note however, that it isn't the rights of original artists driving the current controversy, but of corporations that have invested in the old technology.
Rangel and other demonRats don't think it's right to freely take the work of others, then they turn around and want to take more of my work (the money I make doing it)and give it freely to others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.