It has
now been three years since the RIAA first started collecting evidence to prepare to start
suiting individuals. Three years on with round after round of lawsuits
being filed, we hardly hear of any news and to make matters worse, file sharing
of copyrighted works has grown much larger than it was when the RIAA first
started its lawsuit campaign, despite claiming to have contained it
recently. After originally losing a case against StreamCast Networks
and Grokster that P2P operators could not be held liable, they decided to start
suing the individuals. It was not until two rulings later where the RIAA
appealed to the US Supreme Court that they succeeded in getting the
previous ruling overturned such that P2P operators can be held liable for its user's activities.
The main problem with each round of lawsuits was that the chances of a lawsuit happening in a given area is quite slim and also the lawsuits were only being carried out on a monthly basis. As a result many consumers started losing their fear of being sued and thus ignore the risks, continuing to use P2P as before. To help bring attention to consumers about the risks and scare them away from P2P, the RIAA has increased its frequency to a weekly basis, focusing each round of lawsuits on a specific geographic region and also get the local media involved to publish about the suits, naming various victims. This means that that people in the area of the RIAA's current target will be hearing about various people very close by being sued.
According
to an RIAA spokesperson in the Slyck article, the RIAA plans to keep up its lawsuit campaign and are always looking for ways to make their programme more effective in order to encourage music lovers to stay away from the illegitimate services. The RIAA's new strategy is already in place with news about victims of RIAA lawsuits in local regional papers such as the Palm Beach Post, the Evansville Courier Gazette and so on. Thanks to RTV71 for letting us know about this news:
|
This lack of focus is apparent when alleged file-sharing pirates come forward to the media and plead ignorance in the face of a $3,000.00 settlement. Often times such individuals are completely befuddled, unaware their actions were unlawful. Realizing this, the RIAA has shifted their strategy away from once a month, en masse lawsuits. Replacing the old strategy is one that still focuses on individuals; however the number is spread out over the course of a month rather than an immediate date. In addition, the weekly lawsuits focus on specific geographic locations, working with local media outlets to catch the attention of the surrounding populace. 'We are currently filing lawsuits throughout the month in batches, in order to maximize efficiencies and expand the geographic reach," an RIAA spokesperson told Slyck.com. 'We are always looking for ways to make the program as effective, smart and targeted as possible. We need to be flexible in how we manage these litigations in order to handle them efficiently. The lawsuits are and will continue to be an essential part of a larger effort to encourage fans to enjoy music legally." The full article can be read |
With the RIAA now targeting specific regions, it may give quite different thoughts to consumers, whether or not the RIAA targets their area. For those in an area that has not been hit, they will likely still think they (or their area) will not be next as before the strategy change. However, once the RIAA does strike their area, P2P users in that area not sued will probably think 'Lightning never strikes twice in the same place" and will potentially assume that they will not be targeting their area, at least for the foreseeable future.
From what I can see, France's proposed mass
'Parking Fine" type approach will probably be much more effective than these lawsuits and large settlements. With the chance of being fined for illegally parking being pretty much guaranteed if done on a daily basis, the vast majority of drivers will not risk parking for even a fine of under $100. Even if a driver is fined, this will likely discourage them doing this again, but unlike the RIAA's lawsuits, it will not put them out of pocket unexpectedly either, something unlucky students have to face once sued.
Probably the best way to look at this is to imagine what it would be like if the traffic cops decided to use the RIAA's approach to dealing with illegally parked cars: Let's say they scan the streets, pick out the worst parked vehicles in a given region each week (to take the equivalent of the RIAA's approach) and decide to fine several hundred of these for $3,000. Of course these offenders will likely be put off from ever attempting to illegally park again, but with only a fraction of the number of fines being given out compared with many thousands of small parking fines given out on a daily basis, many more other drivers will risk parking illegally in belief that their region will not be next even though they potentially risk a massive fine.
Finally, compare which would be the worse '“ Illegally parking your car near a busy junction or illegally sharing music online. Well, while the potential parking fine penalty will only be a fraction of the potential RIAA settlement, the first could potentially result in death or serious injury to another driver depending on how the car is parked, while the most the second would do would cost the music industry a few quid depending on how many others downloaded music from this individual that they would have bought in the shops if they could not have downloaded their music from this or any other person.
Feel free to discuss about file sharing and its legal issues on our P2P forum.
Source: Slyck News
