Recording Industry To Drop Mass File Sharing Suits

[babylonsister]

Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits

By SARAH MCBRIDE and ETHAN SMITH


After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.

The decision represents an abrupt shift of strategy for the industry, which has opened legal proceedings against about 35,000 people since 2003. Critics say the legal offensive ultimately did little to stem the tide of illegally downloaded music. And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl.

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers. The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

more...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html

[Dennis Donovan]

1. They can't afford to keep ALL those lawyers on retainer anymore...

I say good. While I strongly agree with an artist's right to be compensated for their work, going after grannies whose grandkids (illegally) downloaded copyrighted content on their computers is wrong.

[jaundicedi]

6. Actually doesn't this really mean

" We have decided to look into filing suit against someone who can afford to pay us."?

[Billy Burnett]

2. Music should be free.

Like all labor.

:eyes:

[bluestateguy]

3. This is what should have been done in the first place

Lawsuits are costly and time-consuming, and the lawyers usually take the bulk of the settlement money for themselves anyway.

The RIAA should have used an approach that relied on dialogue and asking people nicely to please not download music.

[nc4bo]

5. They also should have embraced the technology. People really don't

mind buying the music via the internet, even being able to pick and pay for only the songs they want to hear from the CD.

There was so much opportunity the RIAA could have had at the beginning of the revolution if they'd just have embraced it.

Waste.

[Waiting For Everyman]

4. They could try realistic prices. It isn't worth nearly what they charge.

Of course they won't. That would make sense... having real market prices for music.

[DemzRock]

7. I buy a lot of cds, but... they should be a little cheaper AND where is the next Big Thing?

Whatever happened to The Next Big Thing?

Think about it.

Just about every decade last century had an amazing new type of music. This decade is pretty lame. The technology of iPods is the new thing, but why not an amazing new exciting sound? Why isn't that happening? What? Is it Disney POP? That's just lame pop. Is it R&B? To me, that's just pop with some old fashioned hiphop and r&b mixed in! Where is the British invasion(60s), the disco(70s), the New Wave(80s), the Grunge(90s)? This decade has some great music, but not a strong new big thing. Encourage that, RIAA! Improve your product! Get some excitement again!

Just my humble opinion.