©
By Austin Wright
NORFOLK
In the coming weeks, as many as 20 College of William and Mary students will be notified that the Recording Industry Association of America is one step closer to suing them, after a federal judge ruled Friday morning that the college must reveal their identities.
U.S. District Judge F. Bradford Stillman overturned a previous ruling and granted the industry group's request that William and Mary provide the names of students suspected of sharing music illegally online.
The association intends to file copyright infringement lawsuits against the students unless they reach settlement agreements; those require payments of $5,000 or less, said recording industry spokeswoman Cara Duckworth.
The students could file a motion to quash the subpoenas, but such motions rarely succeed, Duckworth said.
"We welcome this decision, and it's consistent with almost every other court to have ruled on this issue," Duckworth said.
William and Mary spokesman Michael Connolly said that as of Friday, the school had not received the subpoena. The college is expected to comply with it, he said.
Twenty-seven William and Mary students have been accused of illegal file-sharing by the industry group. At least eight have already settled with the industry by paying $3,000 to $5,000 each. The eighth person to settle did so on Wednesday, after the suit was filed.
When Stillman asked what kind of music students were illegally sharing, industry attorney Katheryn Coggon named artists Phil Collins, Coldplay and Britney Spears, among others.
The industry group has filed more than 29,000 lawsuits since 2003 against people it suspects of downloading music illegally using file-sharing programs.
In February 2007, the group began a campaign aimed at college students, when it sent pre-litigation settlement letters through schools to 400 students nationwide. Since then, the group has sent letters to more than 7,000 students, including students at Virginia Tech, Virginia Military Institute and the University of Virginia.
The recording industry identifies students who are sharing music illegally by their IP addresses, which are numeric codes assigned to individual computers. The industry group sends pre-litigation letters to colleges and universities, asking the schools to forward the letters to the students whose IP addresses appear on them.
Liz Kennedy, a spokeswoman for the industry group, has said that typically half of the students who receive pre-litigation settlement letters reveal themselves and settle.
Most judges have granted the subpoena requests.
Austin Wright, (757) 446-2667, austin.wright@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
The real deal on I tunes
"It never sat right with me and I have used iTunes for the past couple of years. Cheaper than buying a "real" CD and saves gas. :-)."
The music quality that is purchased for the majority of Itunes music is inferior. If you have spent money buying 128KBPS downloads in an ACC format you got robbed. ACC is junk. Plus, if you try to convert it to another format it degrades even worse. Eventually, once start to realize how dull the sound is compared to standard CD's or a 320KBPS MP3 your going to be angry. Nevermind the fact that you have a private company keeping you off of other types of equipment. Once you do the analog conversion the sound is still bad. Millions of dollars have been spent on music that will have to be replaced.
Now to the real question: Several albums I have obtained through different downloads I already owned at one time on tape or records. So if I am buying an intellectual property; shoul
Rose
Rose, President Bush got rid of the requirement for a court order to tap phone calls, the gov't can do what ever they want. They use a system called CALEA that is installed at all land line and cell phone switch offices to easily monitor conversations. The RIAA almost always settles out of court with the kids. They shake them down for money. The RIAA most likely, like the BSA (Business Software Alliance) only represents the powerhouse record labels. If a small time guy was getting his stuff pirated the RIAA wouldn't care, but the record labels have lots of money invested in getting kids to get their parents to buy Brittney Spears albums, so that matters to them. Old models don't work, the product isn't worth as much as it once was. Remember the CD antitrust case, where the record labels were found guilty?
If you pirate MP3's, you are downloading Communism!
A reminder from the Recoding Industry of America.
Thank you to the courts and W & M for keeping our way of life safe!
Right to privacy? HAHAHAHA
In this case, the stufents are using State owned property (university computer network), paid for by the taxpayers. There is no right to privacy when you use government property for illegal purposes, and anyone who thinks that is too stupid to be in college anyway. When you download using p2p software, you are, by definition, opening your files up to anyone who wants to look...including the RIAA. Argue all you want...there is no legal or moral justification for theft.
A subpoena is not spying
A subpoena is not spying but the most essential part of the court system. A decision should be decided on all the facts and not on who is best at hiding the facts. If your evidence that you did nothing wrong that you can subpoena from anyone is better than the RIAA which can do the same, then you will win the case.
I can't help but wonder about this.
We have laws that are being used to stop the government from hearing the content of a telephone call to or from know or suspected terrorist. Yet here we have a private company being allowed to SPY on another electronic media form and force people to turn over id's and private information. As far as the recording artist they listed off. Phil Collins, Coldplay and Britney Spears, let's get serious, aren't these people kind of washed up or has beens? Phil Collins is a nice OLD guy, I don't know who Coldplay is (I'm old) and Spears is some overweight bald psycho that can't drive. How about listing the recording companies and artist that are members of the Recording Industry Association of America. I wonder if the kids they are going after even downloaded any music from the people they claim to represent. As many CDs that I have that only have one or two songs worth listening to, I'd say the industry has probably robbed the paying customers more that the kids downloading music. The other thing I question is the IP addresses. Aren't most networks on DHCP? That being said, the IP address is a temp lease and not assigned to a given machine.
RIAA and charging people for downloading music
This entire baloney about the RIAA's continual campaign to charge people for downloading music is going waay too far. I buy music all the time from Yahoo!, and whats next? the RIAA will infor me that you cant have that cause I PAID for it and its against our laws?
The point is, there are some hard to find tracks out there and some are so out of date that the only choice is to download it.
And the RIAA should not have the power to break into people's computers. Its still breaking and entering into personal property and they are committing a crime in itself.
Wow this country Amazes me
Wow this country Amazes me everyday. We are "cracking" down on kids in college downloading music off the internet when we have much more serious things to crack down on. Give me a break, I bet you 75% of Americans own or have downloaded music that they didn't pay for. SO WHO CARES!!! The only ones who are cracking down on this are the older folks who don't know how to use the computer and the TOO RICH HOLLYWOOD STARS!!!
Hmmm
As far as I'm concerned if I own the CD, or the cassette tape, or album I have a legal right to download it if I'm feeling lazy. My cassette deck is in storage, and I don't own turntables yet. Some of the music I listen to isn't distributed normally. But I'll be honest, almost all the CDs I buy these days are from small time artists. My issue is that they are shaking down the students for the possibility of other people's crimes. Radio stations are perfectly legal in getting music from p2p networks for airplay. People who own the songs are committing no crime. The funny thing is, now you can get used CDs so cheap because everyone rips them into that terrible piece of software called iTunes and sells the CDs. And I know lots of people that copy their CDs for use in car, so when they are stolen or damaged they loose nothing. And if you really want to download with zero risk, it's called USENET kids. They should study history.
self righteous
well of course it may not be right,but here is a scenario,have any of ya's gone to a concert and have it be the worst show you ever seen,and thought about getting a refund.i did. it was that freak of freaks, marilyn manson at the norva,now i would never buy any of his music,but i had to go just to see what the rave was about.i've seen all the freaks kiss,alice cooper,danzig,gwar etc, etc.and to tell you the truth it was the worst show i have ever been to in my life, well would have i gotten a refund,no hey but thanks for your money sincercly marilyn manson.trust me i love my cd collection,i buy it for the liner notes,the art work and to support my favorites,i would never! boot leg a ryan adams, paul westerberg.replacements,wilco,lucinda williams,and any other of my near and dears.but screw it,if i can get maybe one song from that hack brittney spears,that i just might like for two weeksfor free ,there is no way in the world i'd even spend 99 cents for it on itunes.